Sri. B.Y. Raghavendra, v. C.I.T,

ITA 669/BANG/2013 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2016 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 66921114 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AGTPB6097M
Bench Bangalore
Appeal Number ITA 669/BANG/2013
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
Appellant Sri. B.Y. Raghavendra,
Respondent C.I.T,
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 17-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 17-10-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 02-08-2016
Next Hearing Date 02-08-2016
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 09-05-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.669 & 670/BANG/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10 SHRI B.Y. RAGHAVENDRA PAN: AGTPB 6097M SHRI B.Y. VIJAYENDRA PAN: ACDPV 0300M # 381 DAVALAGIRI II MAIN 6 TH CROSS RMV EXTENSION 80 FEET ROAD BANGALORE 560 094. VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DAVANGERE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEES BY : SHRI V. SRINIVASAN CA REVENUE BY : MS. NEERA MALHOTRA CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 02.08.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.10.2016 O R D E R PER A.K. GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY TWO DIFFERENT BUT CONNECTED ASSESSES AND BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINS T TWO SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) DAVANGERE DATED 19 .03.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 PASSED BY HIM U/S. 263 OF T HE INCOME-TAX ACT ITA NOS.669 & 670/BANG/2013 PAGE 2 OF 10 1961 ['THE ACT']. BOTH THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TO GETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAK E OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.66 9/B/13 ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX DAVANGERE SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 WITH A DIRECTION TO RECOMPU TE THE INCOME BY MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS 1 28 50 000/- IN PLACE OF RS 32 55 000/- IN SO FAR AS IT IS AGAINST THE APPELLAN T IS OPPOSED TO LAW EQUITY WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE PROBABILITIES FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX DAVANGE RE FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT FILE D HIS RETURN DULY SUPPORTED BY HIS STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS SUCH AS RECE IPT AND PAYMENT A/C INCOME A/C CAPITAL A/C AND BALANC E SHEET AND THESE STATEMENTS CLEARLY REFLECT THE ADVANCE TAX PA ID BY THE APPELLANT AND THESE STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN EXAMINED B Y AO. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FAILED T O OBSERVE THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN BANK BALANCE NOTICED BY THE LEARNED AO AROSE AFTER DEBITING THE ADVANCE TAX PAYMENTS IN TH E DAYBOOK BY THE APPELLANT. 4. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AMOUNTS TO GIV I NG DIRECTIONS TO THE LEARNED AO TO MAKE THE ADDITION TWICE FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN BANK BALANCE. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DAVANG ERE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE AO AFTER VERIFICATIO N OF THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT FILED STATED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ADMITTED THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH ON HAND FOR THE PAYMENT OF TAX ES. 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FAILED TO INFORM THE DEFECTS HE CLAIMED TO HAVE NOTICED IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT FILED BY THE APPELLANT AS THE APPELLANT HAD SPECIFI CALLY WRITTEN TO THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TO INFORM AN Y VARIATION NOTICED IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT TO THE APPELLANT FOR RECONCILIATION. ITA NOS.669 & 670/BANG/2013 PAGE 3 OF 10 7. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAD NOT INFORMED THE APPELLANT ABOUT THE DEFECTS HE CLAIMED TO HAVE NOTICED IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT FILED BEFORE COM ING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FILED A DIFFE RENT CASH FLOW STATEMENT AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT. 8. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FAILED T O NOTICE THAT THE STATEMENT FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED AO WAS A STATEMENT CONTAINING CASH AND BANK TRANSACTIONS WHEREAS THE S TATEMENT FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WAS O NLY A CASH FLOW STATEMENT AS DESIRED BY HIM. 9. THE REVISION POWERS UNDER SECTION 263 CANNOT B E EXERCISED BY ASSUMING THAT THERE HAS BEEN NON-APPLI CATION OF MIND WHERE THE INCOME HAS BEEN COMPUTED AFTER SCRU TINY UNDER SECTION 143(3) TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION TAX AUDIT REPORT AND THE CERTIFICATE COMPUTING ELIGIBLE RELIEF AS HELD BY TH E HON'BLE MUMBAI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. DESIGN AND AUTOMATION ENGINEERS [2010] 323 ITR 632 (BOM) FOLLOWING INTER ALIA THE DECISION IN CIT V. GABRIEL INDIA LTD. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (BOM). 10. FOR THESE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY URG ED AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DAVANGERE PASSED U/S 263 OF THE IT ACT 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 MAY BE CANCELLED. 11. FOR THESE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY URG ED AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX DAVANGERE PASSED U/S 263 OF THE IT ACT 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 MAY BE CANCELLED. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.670 /B/13 ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX DAVANGERE SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 WITH A DIRECTION TO RECOMPU TE THE INCOME BY MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS 1 28 00 000/- IN PLACE OF RS 14 45 000/- IN SO FAR AS IT IS AGAINST THE APPELLAN T IS OPPOSED TO LAW EQUITY WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE PROBABILITIES FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ITA NOS.669 & 670/BANG/2013 PAGE 4 OF 10 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX DAVANG ERE FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT FILE D HIS RETURN DULY SUPPORTED BY HIS STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS SUCH AS RECE IPT AND PAYMENT A/C INCOME A/C CAPITAL A/C AND BALANC E SHEET AND THESE STATEMENTS CLEARLY REFLECT THE ADVANCE TAX PA ID BY THE APPELLANT AND THESE STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN EXAMINED B Y AO. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FAILED TO OBSERVE THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN BANK BALANCE NOTICED BY THE LEARNED AO AROSE AFTER DEBITING THE ADVANCE TAX PAYMENTS IN TH E DAYBOOK BY THE APPELLANT. 4. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX AMOUNTS TO GIVING DIRECTIONS TO THE LEARNED AO TO M AKE THE ADDITION TWICE FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN BANK BALANCE. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DAVANG ERE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE AO AFTER VERIFICATIO N OF THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT FILED STATED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ADMITTED THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH ON HAND FOR THE PAYMENT OF TAX ES. 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FAILED T O INFORM THE DEFECTS HE CLAIMED TO HAVE NOTICED IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT FILED BY THE APPELLANT AS THE APPELLANT HAD SPECIFI CALLY WRITTEN TO THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TO INFORM AN Y VARIATION NOTICED IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT TO THE APPELLANT FOR RECONCILIATION. 7. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAD NOT INFORMED THE APPELLANT ABOUT THE DEFECTS HE CLAIMED TO HAVE NOTICED IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT FILED BEFORE COM ING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FILED A DIFFE RENT CASH FLOW STATEMENT AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT. 8. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FAILED TO NOTICE THAT THE STATEMENT FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED AO WAS A STATEMENT CONTAINING CASH AND BANK TRANSACTIONS WHEREAS THE STATEMENT FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WAS ONLY A CASH FLOW STATEMENT AS DESIRED BY HIM. 9. THE REVISION POWERS UNDER SECTION 263 CANNOT B E EXERCISED BY ASSUMING THAT THERE HAS BEEN NON-APPLI CATION OF MIND WHERE THE INCOME HAS BEEN COMPUTED AFTER SCRU TINY UNDER SECTION 143(3) TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION TAX AUDIT REPORT AND THE ITA NOS.669 & 670/BANG/2013 PAGE 5 OF 10 CERTIFICATE COMPUTING ELIGIBLE RELIEF AS HELD BY TH E HON'BLE MUMBAI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. DESIGN AND AUTOMATION ENGINEERS [2010] 323 ITR 632 (BOM) FOLLOWING INTER ALIA THE DECISION IN CIT V. GABRIEL INDIA LTD. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (BOM). 10. FOR THESE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY URG ED AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX DAVANGERE PASSED U/S 263 OF THE IT ACT 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 MAY BE CANCELLED. 4. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR OF ASSESSEE THAT VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT EXPLAI NING THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.128.50 LAKHS WAS PAID BY ASSESSEE BY ISSUING BEARER CHEQUE DATED 30.3.2009 WHICH WAS PAID BY THE BANK ON 2.4.2009 AN D THEREFORE THERE IS NO ACTUAL EXCESS BALANCE WITH THE BANK AS ON 31.3.2 009 AS COMPARED TO THE BALANCE WITH BANK AS PER ASSESSEES BOOKS AS SU CH BEARER CHEQUE WAS ISSUED TO THE AGRICULTURISTS TO REPAY THE ADVANCE W HICH WAS TAKEN ON 23.3.2009 AND THE PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX WAS MADE O N 24.3.2009 OUT OF SAID ADVANCES TAKEN FROM AGRICULTURISTS. HE SUBMI TTED THAT THE LD. CIT HAS NOT GIVEN ANY DECISION REGARDING THIS CLAIM AND EXP LANATION OF ASSESSEE AND STRAIGHT AWAY DIRECTED THE AO TO MAKE ADDITION WHICH IS NOT PROPER AND CORRECT. AT THIS JUNCTURE THIS PROPOSITION WAS PU T FORWARD BY THE BENCH THAT DIRECTION OF THE CIT MAY BE MODIFIED BY ASKING THE AO TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM AND EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR OF ASSESSEE AGREED TO THIS PROPOSITION. THE LD. DR OF REVENUE SUPPORTED THE OR DER OF LD. CIT. ITA NOS.669 & 670/BANG/2013 PAGE 6 OF 10 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. FIRST OF ALL WE REPRODUCE PARA NO.5.3 FROM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT IN BOTH THE CASES WHERE THE FACTS RELATING TO PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX ARE NO TED:- ITA NO.669/B/2013 5.3 THE ERROR IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY T HE AO LAY IN THE FACT THAT WHILE HE HAS CONSIDERED THE ISSUE THE PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX IN CASH AND THE BALANCE AVAILABLE IN TH E BANK IN DETAIL HE HAS TELESCOPED ONE INTO ANOTHER WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT BOTH ARE TWO DISTANT POINTS OF TIME. THE ADVANCE TAX PAYMENTS MADE IN CASH ARE ON THE FOLLOW ING DATES; 24.03.2009 - RS.85 95 000 14.03.2009 - RS.5 00 000 15.12.2008 - RS.5 00 000. TOTAL RS.95 95 000/-. THE AO HAS BRO UGHT TO TAX THIS AMOUNT OF ADVANCE TAX PAID IN CASH AS THE SAME WAS NOT ROUTED THROUGH BANK AND SOURCES FOR THE SAME WERE N OT EXPLAINED. AFTER THESE PAYMENTS IT WAS NOTICED THAT THERE IS A CASH DEPOSIT INTO BANK AND HENCE THE BANK BALANCE IN CORPORATION BANK IN ACCOUNT 641/SB/01/000707 AS ON 31.03.2009 SHOULD HA VE BEEN TAKEN AT 1 29 14 255 INSTEAD ASSESSEE HAS STATED TH E BALANCE AT RS.64 255/- IN THE CASH AT BANK WHICH IS THE BALANC E AS ON 02.04.2009. THE CASH DEPOSIT INTO BANK OCCURRED AFT ER PAYMENTS OF ADVANCE TAX AND HENCE THERE IS NO SATISFACTORY E XPLANATION FOR THE CASH DEPOSIT INTO BANK. THE PLEA NOW SOUGHT TO BE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ADVANCES OBTAINED FROM AGRICULTURISTS FOR SALE OF L AND AND THAT ON THE FAILURE OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS THE ADVANCES WERE RETURNED IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY THE ASSESSEE AS BROUGHT OUT ABOVE AS THE EXPLANATION PROVIDED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT DIFF ERS WITH THE EXPLANATION NOW SOUGHT TO BE GIVEN. ITA NO.670/B/2013 5.3 THE ERROR IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY TH E AO LAY IN THE FACT THAT WHILE HE HAS CONSIDERED THE ISSUE THE PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX IN CASH AND THE BALANCE AVAILABLE IN TH E BANK IN DETAIL HE HAS TELESCOPED ONE INTO ANOTHER WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT BOTH ARE TWO DISTANT POINTS OF TIME. THE ADVANCE TAX PAYMENTS MADE IN CASH ARE ON THE FOLLOW ING DATES; 24.03.2009 - RS.1 07 05 000 14.03.2009 - RS.5 00 0 00 23.11.2008 - RS.1 50 000. TOTAL RS.1 17 05 000/-. T HE AO HAS ITA NOS.669 & 670/BANG/2013 PAGE 7 OF 10 BROUGHT TO TAX THIS AMOUNT OF ADVANCE TAX PAID IN C ASH AS THE SAME WAS NOT ROUTED THROUGH BANK AND SOURCES FOR THE SAME WERE NOT EXPLAINED. AFTER THESE PAYMENTS I T WAS NOTICED THAT THERE IS A CASH DEPOSIT INTO BANK AND HENCE TH E BANK BALANCE IN VIJAYA BANK IN ACCOUNT 117801010019429 AS ON 31. 03.2009 SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN AT 1 28 32 493 INSTEAD ASSES SEE HAS STATED THE BALANCE AT RS.32 493/- IN THE CASH AT BANK WHIC H IS THE BALANCE AS ON 04.04.2009. THE CASH DEPOSIT INTO BAN K OCCURRED AFTER PAYMENTS OF ADVANCE TAX AND HENCE THERE IS NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION FOR THE CASH DEPOSIT INTO BANK. THE PLEA NOW SOUGHT TO BE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ADVANCES OBTAINED FROM AGRICULTURISTS FOR SALE OF L AND AND THAT ON THE FAILURE OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS THE ADVANCES WERE RETURNED IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY THE ASSESSEE AS BROUGHT OUT ABOVE AS THE EXPLANATION PROVIDED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT DIFF ERS WITH THE EXPLANATION NOW SOUGHT TO BE GIVEN. 6. WE REPRODUCE PARAS NO. 6.1 & 7 FROM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT IN BOTH THE CASES CONTAINING THE FINDING AND DIRECTION OF LD. C IT TO THE AO:- ITA NO.669/B/2013 6.1 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS THERE IS NO OPTION BUT TO COME TO CONCLUSION THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1 28 50 000 WHICH FORMS PART OF THE BALANCE IN THE CORPORATION BANK A S ON 31.03.2009 SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS EXCESS OF ASSETS OVER LIABILITIES AND IS TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX AS SUCH. TH E PAYMENT OF TAXES MADE EARLIER IN CASH CANNOT BE GIVEN A SET OF F TO THIS AMOUNT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE MOMENT THE TAXES HAVE BEEN PAID THERE IS A CASH OUTFLOW WHICH IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE TO S UBSTANTIATE THE BALANCE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. 7.0 IN VIEW OF THIS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 26.12.2011 BY THE AO NAMELY THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INC OME-TAX SHIMOGA RANGE FOR A.Y. 2009-10 IS SET ASIDE WITH A DIRECTION TO AO TO RECOMPUTE THE INCOME BY MAKING ADDITION OF AB OVE AMOUNT OF RS.1 28 50 000 IN THE PLACE OF RS.32 35 000/-. ITA NOS.669 & 670/BANG/2013 PAGE 8 OF 10 ITA NO.670/B/2013 6.1 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS THERE IS NO OPTION BUT TO COME TO CONCLUSION THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1.28 CR ORES WHICH FORMS PART OF THE BALANCE IN THE VIJAYA BANK AS ON 31.03.2009 SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS EXCESS OF ASSETS OVER LIABI LITIES AND IS TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX AS SUCH. THE PAYMENT OF TAXES MAD E EARLIER IN CASH CANNOT BE GIVEN A SET OFF TO THIS AMOUNT IN VI EW OF THE FACT THAT THE MOMENT THE TAXES HAVE BEEN PAID THERE IS A CASH OUTFLOW WHICH IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE BA LANCE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. 7.0 IN VIEW OF THIS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 26.12.2011 BY THE AO NAMELY THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INC OME-TAX SHIMOGA RANGE FOR A.Y. 2009-10 IS SET ASIDE WITH A DIRECTION TO AO TO RECOMPUTE THE INCOME BY MAKING ADDITION OF AB OVE AMOUNT OF RS.1.28 CRORES IN THE PLACE OF RS.14 45 000/-. 7. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION IF THE ASSESSEE CAN E STABLISH THE CLAIM REGARDING RECEIPT OF ADVANCE FROM AGRICULTURISTS ON A DATE PRIOR TO THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX AND THE ADDITION IS ULTIM ATELY MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF ASSESSEES FAILURE TO ESTABLISH THE RECE IPT OF THAT ADVANCES FROM THOSE AGRICULTURISTS AND SUCH CLAIM OF REFUND TO TH OSE AGRICULTURISTS IS BY WAY OF CHEQUES ISSUED ON 30.3.2009 WHICH WERE ACTUA LLY ENCASHED FROM THE BANK ON 2.4.2009 THEN THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TE LESCOPING OF ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX OUT OF UNDISCLOSED SOURCES OF FUND. BUT SINCE THERE IS NO FINDING OF THE AO OR OF THE CIT ON THESE ASPECTS WE THINK IT PROPER TO MODIFY THE DIR ECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT IN BOTH THE CASES AND ACCORDINGLY WE DIRECT THE AO IN BOTH THE CASES TO EXAMINE THE VERACITY OF THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE THAT PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF ADVANCES RECEIVED F ROM THE ITA NOS.669 & 670/BANG/2013 PAGE 9 OF 10 AGRICULTURISTS WHICH THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABL ISH AND THE DIFFERENCE IN BALANCE AS ON 31.3.2009 AS PER BANK AND AS PER ASSE SSEES BOOKS IS ON THIS ACCOUNT THAT THE CHEQUES WERE ISSUED BY THE AS SESSEE TO THOSE AGRICULTURISTS ON 30.3.2009 WHICH WERE ENCASHED BY THE BANK ON 2.4.2009. ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE BY THE AO AS PER LAW AFTER EXAMINING THE VERACITY OF THESE CONTENTIONS OF ASSESSEE. TO THIS EXTENT THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. CIT IN BOTH THE CASES STANDS MODIFIED. 8. IN CASE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER HAS ALREADY BEEN PA SSED BY THE AO AS PER THE DIRECTION OF LD. CIT IN HIS ORDER U/S. 263 THEN SUCH MODIFIED DIRECTION OF LD. CIT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BY THE LD . CIT (APPEALS) IF MATTER IS PENDING BEFORE CIT (APPEALS) AGAINST THE CONSEQU ENTIAL ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE I.T. ACT. 9. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE STAND PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABO VE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 18 TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016. SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV ) ( A.K. GAR ODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUN TANT MEMBER BANGALORE DATED THE 18 TH OCTOBER 2016. /D S/ ITA NOS.669 & 670/BANG/2013 PAGE 10 OF 10 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANTS 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITAT BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT BANGALORE.