M/s. Monarch Plaza Comforts Private Limited, Bengaluru v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2),, Bengaluru

ITA 1644/BANG/2018 | 2011-2012
Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2021 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 164421114 RSA 2018
Assessee PAN AABCM3282A
Bench Bangalore
Appeal Number ITA 1644/BANG/2018
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 5 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Monarch Plaza Comforts Private Limited, Bengaluru
Respondent Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2),, Bengaluru
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 23-03-2021
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 23-03-2021
Date Of Final Hearing 02-03-2021
Next Hearing Date 02-03-2021
Last Hearing Date 25-03-2020
First Hearing Date 10-10-2019
Assessment Year 2011-2012
Appeal Filed On 18-05-2018
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1644 & 1645/BANG/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S MONARCH PLAZA COMFORTS PVT. LTD. 54 BRIGADE ROAD BENGALURU. PAN AABCM 3282 A VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2) BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S RAMSUBRAMANYAN C.A REVENUE BY : SMT. R PREMI JCIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 02-03-2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23-03-2021 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER DATED 27/12/2017 PASSED BY LD.CIT(A)-4 BANGALORE F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL: 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN SO FAR IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE AP PELLANT IS BAD AND ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTIONS PAGE 2 OF 11 ITA NO.1644 & 1645/BANG/2018 FOR MAKING ASSESSMENT U/S. 147 OF THE ACT THEREFORE CANNOT RAISE ANY GROUND ON THE JURISDICTION. 3. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) OUGHT TO HAVE FURNISHED THE REASONS RECORDED U/S. 148(2) OF THE A CT. 4. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD EARN ED A PROFIT OF RS.35 05 415/- IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPMENT ON TH E ONLY GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS AGREED FOR THE ADDITION DURING TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND IT IS CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED FOR PRE CEDING AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO CHALLENGE THE ADDITION WITH RESPECT TO PROFIT ON DEVELOPMENT EVEN IF THE AUTHORIZED REPRES ENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT HAS AGREED FOR SUCH ADDITION AS THERE IS NO ESTOPPEL AGAINST THE LAW. 6. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED NEITHER THE PRINCIPLES OF VALUATION OF WIP ADOPTED BY THE APPELLANT NOR THE METHOD OF DETERMINATION OF PROFIT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CORRECT IN LAW. 7. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD METHOD OF DETERMINING THE PROFIT BY THE LEARNE D ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AS IT IS NEITHER AS PER PERCENTAGE OF COM PLETION METHOD NOR PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD. 8. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE APPELLANT BEING A DEVELOPER AN D NOT A CONTRACTOR THE REVENUE OR INCOME CAN BE RECOGNIZED ONLY WHEN THE A PPELLANT SELLS THE UNITS. EACH OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO O NE ANOTHER AND THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE OF THE HON'BLE INCOME TA X APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE TO ADD DELETE AMEND OR OTHERWISE MODIF Y EITHER ALL OR ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS WITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF H EARING THIS APPEAL. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A DEVELOPER AND FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 26/07/2013 DECLARING TO TAL INCOME OF RS.1 03 29 370/-FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. SUB SEQUENTLY THE CASE WAS REOPENED BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTI ON 148 OF THE ACT ON 29/11/2013. IN RESPONSE ASSESSEE FILED LET TER DATED 11/02/2015 REPLYING THAT ORIGINAL RETURN FILED BY A SSESSEE MAY PAGE 3 OF 11 ITA NO.1644 & 1645/BANG/2018 BE TREATED AS RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SE CTION 148 OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED TO ASSESSEE. 3. DURING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE LD.AO NO TICED THAT THE ASSESSEE DECLARED NET LOSS OF RS.25 000 FO R YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND 15% OF INVESTMENTS AS INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND 2012-13. AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT D ECLARE PROFIT DURING THE YEAR THE LD.AO WORKED OUT ADDITIONAL IN COME OF RS.35 30 415/- BY CONSIDERING 15% OF THE INVESTMENT MADE IN WORK IN PROGRESS. THE LD.AO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED SUM OF RS.1 95 382/- AS CREDIT CARD COMMISSION CHARGES PAI D TO BANK FOR COLLECTION OF PAYMENTS FOR SALES THROUGH CREDIT CARDS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT TDS DISALLOWANCE UND ER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSES SEE. THE LD.AO ALSO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE DEBITED BANK INT EREST AMOUNTING TO RS.1 53 688/- AGAINST WHICH NO TDS WA S DEDUCTED. THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED BY THE LD.AO UNDE R SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LD.AO AS SESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). 5. THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1 9 5 382/- BEING CREDIT CARD COMMISSION CHARGES PAID TO BANK. HOWEVER CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONAL PROFITS IN THE HANDS OF TH E ASSESSEE FOR YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION AS COMPUTED BY THE LD.AO. THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED A LEGAL GROUND CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF PAGE 4 OF 11 ITA NO.1644 & 1645/BANG/2018 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) WHICH W AS DISMISSED. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A) ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US NOW. 7. AT THE OUTSET THE LD.COUNSEL BEFORE US DID NOT PRESS GROUND NO.2-3 CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF REASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS. ACCORDINGLY THESE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRES SED. 8. THE LD. COUNSEL RESTRICTED HIS ARGUMENTS ISSUES RAISED ON MERITS IN GROUND 4-8 AND THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAIS ED VIDE APPLICATION DATED 14/02/2021. 9. THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GR OUND SO RAISED WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) HOWEVER IT EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT AND NO NEW RECORDS NE EDS TO BE VERIFIED IN ORDER TO ADJUDICATE. 10. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LTD. REPORTED IN 229 ITR 383 AND JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS CIT REPORTED IN 187 ITR 688 . IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THESE ARE CONSEQUENTIAL GROUNDS AND NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED FO R COMPUTING ACTUAL TAX PAYABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . 11. WE HAVE PERUSED SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH SI DES IN LIGHT OF RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. 12. FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEE BEFORE US: THE APPELLANT SEEKS THE LEAVE OF THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TO FILE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS: PAGE 5 OF 11 ITA NO.1644 & 1645/BANG/2018 1. THAT THE LEARNED LOWER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ALLOWING TDS CREDIT OF RS.12 67 871/- AS APPEARING IN FORM NO. 26AS. 2. THAT THE LEARNED LOWER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN COMPUTING INTEREST U/S 234A 234B AND 234C AS UNDER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ABOVE TDS CREDIT OF RS. 12 67 871/- . AMOUNT IN RS. PARTICULARS AS PER ASSESSMENT ORDER CORRECT COMPUTATION INTEREST U/S 234A 22 18 318 7 48 380 INTEREST U/S 234B 1 00 327 1 09 246 INTEREST U/S 234C 42 22 246 18 10 710 THE ABOVE GROUNDS CAN BE ADJUDICATED BASED ON THE D OCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND NO NEW FURTHER FACTS OR MAT ERIALS ARE REQUIRED TO ADJUDICATE THE ABOVE GROUND. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED T HAT THE ABOVE ADDITIONAL GROUND NO. 2 IS PURELY CONSEQUENTIAL AND CAN BE DECIDED ACCORDINGLY. THE ABOVE TWO GROUNDS WERE NOT RAISED BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES BY OVERSIGHT. THE APPELLANT RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN : A. CIT VS NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION (229) ITR 383 B. JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS CIT (187) FIR 688. HENCE IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE HON'BLE TRIBUNA L BE PLEASED TO ADMIT THE ABOVE GROUNDS AND DECIDE THE SAME ON MERITS IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY JUSTICE AND GOOD CONSCIENCE. 13. WE NOTE THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY AS SESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS ALSO NOTE D THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN ADDITIONAL GROUND IS NECESSARY TO B E ADJUDICATED FOR DETERMINING TAX PAYABLE BY ASSESSEE FOR YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION. AND THEREFORE THIS ISSUE DESERVES TO BE ADJUDICATED. WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT NO NEW FACTS NEED S TO BE INVESTIGATED IN ORDER TO ADJUDICATE THIS GROUND. RE SPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE DECISIONS REFERRED TO HEREIN ABOVE WE ADMIT THE AD DITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY ASSESSEE. PAGE 6 OF 11 ITA NO.1644 & 1645/BANG/2018 BASED ON THE ABOVE DISCUSSION WE RESTRICT OUR VIEW LIMITED TO GROUNDS 4-8 AND ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY ASSESSE E. ACCORDINGLY GROUND 2-3 RAISED BY ASSESSEE STANDS D ISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. GROUND 4-8: 14. THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT ADMITTEDLY ASSES SEE DECLARED INCOME AT 15% ON THE WIP. HE SUBMITTED THA T ASSESSEE ADOPTED A METHOD OF DETERMINATION OF INCOME WHICH I S UNKNOWN TO LAW OR TO THE APPROVED ACCOUNTING STANDARDS. HO WEVER THE CONTENTION OF LD.COUNSEL IS THAT THE LD.AO INSTEAD OF ADOPTING CORRECT METHOD TO DETERMINE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE ESTIMATED THE INCOME AS PERCENTAGE OF WIP WHICH IS ALSO ERRONEOUS AND IN LAW UNAPPROVED. HE OBJECTED TO THE OBSERVATION OF AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT ASSESSEE AGREED TO THE A DDITION WHICH IS NOT BASED ON APPROVED ACCOUNTING STANDARDS. 15. THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ONL Y 2 OPTIONS; EITHER FOLLOW PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD OR PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD WHICH IS THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES AND A-S 7 ISSUED BY INSTITUTE OF CHARTER ED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.AO ESTIMATED TH E INCOME AND COMPUTED ADDITION ON AN AD-HOC BASIS WHICH IS NOT RECOGNISED EITHER BY THE ACCOUNTING STANDARDS OR UNDER THE INC OME TAX ACT. 16. ON THE CONTRARY THE LD.SR.DR SUBMITTED THAT A SSESSEE ADMITTED TO THE ADDITION MADE BY LD.AO FOR ITS OWN VIOLATION. SHE THUS SUPPORTED THE ORDERS PASSED BY AUTHORITIES BELOW. PAGE 7 OF 11 ITA NO.1644 & 1645/BANG/2018 17. WE HAVE PERUSED SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH SI DES IN LIGHT OF RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. 18. ON PERUSAL OF PARA 3 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IT CA NNOT BE SAID THAT THE ADDITION WAS AN AGREED ADDITION. LD.AO NOT ED THAT ASSESSEE DECLARED 15% OF WORK IN PROGRESS INVESTMEN T AS PROFIT FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND 2012-13 INCLUDING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AS THE LD.AO OBSERVED THAT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE NET LOSS A FURTHER 15% OF INVESTMENT WAS COMPUTED BY THE LD. AO AS ADD ITIONAL INCOME. THIS AD HOC METHOD OF COMPUTING INCOME IN T HE HANDS OF ASSESSEE IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. ADMITTEDLY NEITHER ASSESSEE NOR THE LD.AO FOLLOWED ANY OF THE RECOGNISED METHOD TO DECLARE PROFITS AS PER ACCOUNTING STANDARD 7 ISSUED BY INST ITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT OF INDIA. IT IS NOTED THAT THE METHOD ADOPTED BY ASSESSEE AND REVENUE IS NOT IN ACCORDANC E WITH A-S 9 WHICH IS A GUIDANCE NOTE ON RECOGNITION OF REVENUE FOR REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION BASED ON SATISFACTION OF REVENUE RECOGN ITION. 19. IN OUR OPINION THE METHOD ADOPTED BY ASSESSEE THOUGH WAS NOT A RECOGNISED METHOD; THE METHOD OF COMPUTATION OF ADDITIONAL INCOME BY AO IS ALSO UNCALLED FOR. WE RE LY ON CIRCULAR NO.14 OF 1955 DATED 11/04/1955 ISSUED BY CBDT WHER EIN IT IS EXPRESSED THAT ASSESSING OFFICERS ARE EXPECTED TO E DUCATE THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOW CLAIMS THAT ALLEGED TIMIDLY DUE TO ASSESSEE EVEN WHEN SUCH A CLAIM IS NOT MADE. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE LD.AO OUGHT TO HAVE GUIDED ASSESSEE FOR ADOPTING ON E OF THE RECOGNISED METHOD OF ACCOUNTING TO ARRIVE AT THE CO RRECT INCOME PAGE 8 OF 11 ITA NO.1644 & 1645/BANG/2018 VIS-A-VIS THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING ADOPTED BY ASSES SEE IN THE PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT YEAR OR THE IMMEDIATELY SUCCEED ING ASSESSMENT YEAR. 20. WE RELY ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS BRITISH PAINTS INDIA LTD. REPORTED IN 188 ITR 44. IN THIS CASE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE WAS VALUING THE WORK IN PROGRESS AND FINISHED PRODUCTS AT RAW M ATERIAL COST BY EXCLUDING OTHER OVERRIDING EXPENDITURE. HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD THE METHOD ADOPTED BY ASSESSEE THEREIN WAS N OT ACCEPTABLE AS IT WAS NOT RECOGNISED METHOD. 21. FURTHER WE NOTE THAT THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE LD.AO TO DETERMINED TAXABLE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE IS NOT CORRECT. IT WAS INCUMBENT ON THE LD.AO TO CORRECT T HE MISTAKE IN THE METHOD ADOPTED BY ASSESSEE TO COMPUTE TAXABLE I NCOME FOR YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. MERELY BECAUSE ASSESSEE H AD FOLLOWED AN UNRECOGNISED METHOD TO COMPUTE TAXABLE INCOME IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING AND SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEA R CANNOT BE AN ESTOPPEL UNDER THE STATUTE TO CORRECT THE MIS TAKE THAT HAS CREPT IN. THE LD.AO WAS DUTY-BOUND TO CORRECT THE M ETHOD OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME BY ADHERING TO EITHER OF RECO GNISED ACCOUNTING STANDARDS. WE REFER TO AND RELY UPON TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF IN CASE OF NIRMALA L. MEHTA VS. A. BALASUBRAMANIAM CIT & ORS . REPORTED IN (2004) 269 ITR 1 HELD THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THE INCOME THAT WOULD NOT TAKE AWAY THE RIGHT TO CONTE ND THAT AMOUNT WAS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. HONBLE COURT REFERRING THE PAGE 9 OF 11 ITA NO.1644 & 1645/BANG/2018 ARTICLE 265 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA THAT READS AS UNDER: ARTICLE 265 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READS AS UNDER:- NO TAX SHALL BE LEVIED OR COLLECTED EXCEPT B Y AUTHORITY OF LAW. 22. WE THEREFORE REMAND THIS ISSUE BACK TO LD.AO TO CONSIDER IT AFRESH. THE LD.AO SHALL RESORT TO EITHER OF THE REC OGNISED METHODS OF ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ACCEPTABLE UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT TO COMPUTE THE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE IF ANY FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 23. AT THIS JUNCTURE THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ALSO ASSESSEE HAD COMPUTED ITS INCOME IN SIMILAR MANNER. ACCORDINGLY WE REMAND THE ISSUE RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO. 2-7 FOR ASST. YEAR 2012-13 FOR RECOMPUTING THE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOGNISED METHODS OF ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ACCEPTABLE UNDER INCOME TAX ACT. 24. ASSESSEE SHALL BE GRANTED PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FILE ALL REQUISITE R ELEVANT DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT AND TO ASSIST THE LD.AO IN COMPUTING THE CORRECT TAXABLE INCOME FOR YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 25. IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY A SSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 26. GROUND NO.1 REFERS TO TDS CREDIT NOT ALLOWED AS APPEARING IN FORM 26 A-S. 27. GROUND NO.2 IS IN RESPECT OF COMPUTING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A B C ON THE AMOUNT ON WHICH TDS CREDI T HAS NOT BEEN GRANTED. PAGE 10 OF 11 ITA NO.1644 & 1645/BANG/2018 28. THESE GROUNDS ARE INTERRELATED TO WITH EACH OTH ER AND REQUIRE VERIFICATION BY THE LD.AO. ASSESSEE IS DIRE CTED TO FILE REQUISITE EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. LD.AO IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE ALLEGED HERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ACCORDINGLY THE GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEE ON MERIT S STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES FOR ASST. YEAR 201 1-12 & 2012-13. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE STANDS PARTL Y ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD MARCH 2021 SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL ME MBER BANGALORE DATED THE 23 RD MARCH 2021. /VMS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITAT BANGALORE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT BANGALORE PAGE 11 OF 11 ITA NO.1644 & 1645/BANG/2018 DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON ON DRAGON SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR -3-2021 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER -3-2021 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. -3-2021 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS -3-2021 SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON -3-2021 SR.PS 7. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE -3-2021 SR.PS 8. IF NOT UPLOADED FURNISH THE REASON -3-2021 SR.PS 9. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK -3-2021 SR.PS 10. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 11. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 12. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. 13. DRAFT DICTATION SHEETS ARE ATTACHED NO SR.PS