Smt. Shobha J. Shetty, Hubli v. DCIT, Hubli

PAGE 1 OF 10 ITA NOS.935 TO 940/BANG/2 010 1 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH B BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K J.M. AND SHRI A MOHAN ALANKAMONY A.M. ITA NO. ASST. YEAR APPELLANT RESPONDENT 935/BANG/2010 2003-04 SHRI SUNIL R SHETTY MURUDESHWAR BHAVAN GOKUL ROAD HUBLI. DCIT CIRCLE-3(1) HUBLI. 936/BANG/2010 2003-04 SHRI SATISH R SHETTY MURUDESHWAR BHAVAN GOKUL ROAD HUBLI. DCIT CIRCLE-3(1) HUBLI. 937/BANG/2010 2003-04 SHRI NAVEEN R SHETTY MURUDESHWAR BHAVAN GOKUL ROAD HUBLI. DCIT CIRCLE-3(1) HUBLI. 938/BANG/2010 2003-04 SHRI RAMA N SHETTY MURUDESHWAR BHAVAN GOKUL ROAD HUBLI. DCIT CIRCLE-3(1) HUBLI. 939/BANG/2010 2003-04 SMT. SUDHA R SHETTY MURUDESHWAR BHAVAN GOKUL ROAD HUBLI. DCIT CIRCLE-3(1) HUBLI. 940/BANG/2010 2003-04 SMT. SHOBHA J SHETTY MURUDESHWAR BHAVAN GOKUL ROAD HUBLI. DCIT CIRCLE-3(1) HUBLI. APPELLANT BY : SHRI ASHOK A KULKARNI ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PRABHAKAR REDDY ADDL. CIT O R D E R PER BENCH : THESE SIX APPEALS PREFERRED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) HUB LI ALL DATED 5/5/2010. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2003-04. 2. ALL THE APPEALS RELATE TO COMMON ISSUE AND HENC E THEY ARE HEARD AND DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. PAGE 2 OF 10 ITA NOS.935 TO 940/BANG/2 010 2 3. IDENTICAL GROUNDS ARE RAISED IN ALL THESE APPEA LS WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS:- I) THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT T HE ORDER OF THE AO WAS CONTRARY TO AND INCONSISTENT WIT H THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HIGH COURT IN ITS APPELLATE ORDER . II) THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE NOTICED THAT THE AO HAD NOT ASCERTAINED WHETHER THE OWNERS OF THE LAND WHO HAVE DISCLAIMED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN RESPECT OF TH EIR HOLDINGS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND WHETHER THE DISCLAIMANT HAD ENJOYED IN THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME I N FACT AS HE OUGHT TO HAVE DONE WAS PROVIDED EVIDENCE BY T HE APPELLANT TO SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT ALONG WITH THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY HAD ENJOYED THE WHOLE OF THE INCOME FROM THE FARM AND NO PART OF IT WAS GIVEN TO OR ENJOYED BY THE LEGAL OWNERS OF THE LAND I.E. THE DISCLAIMANTS. IN VIEW OF THIS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME FALLING TO THE SHARE OF THE DISCLAIMANTS WAS AVAILABLE TO THE APPELLANT AND THE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY OF SRI R N SHETTY. III) NEITHER DID THE CIT(A) APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE AO HAD NOT AS DIRECTED BY THE HIGH COURT BROUGHT ON R ECORD ANY CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTING A DEPARTURE F ROM THE EARLIER ACCEPTED POSITION OVER THE YEARS WHEN TH E AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS BY AND LARGE TOTALLY ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND HENCE HE WAS BOUND TO ACCEPT TH E TOTAL INCOME OF THE FARM AS RETURNED AND THE SHARE THEREOF AS SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT. IV) IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPRECIATED THAT THE APPELLANT AND THE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY WHO AS A GROUP ENJOYED THE ENT IRE INCOME FROM THE MURDESHWAR FARM HAD ALLOCATED SUC H INCOME AMONG THEMSELVES NOT STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE W ITH THEIR LAND HOLDINGS BUT HAD MADE A SLIGHT DEPARTURE THEREFROM CONSISTENT WITH THE INVARIABLE PRACTICE OF THE PAST AND THEREFORE SO LONG THE TOTAL AGRICULTURAL INCOME ENJOYED BY THE SHARERS DID NOT EXCEED THE INCOME FROM THE FARM THE RETURNED SHARE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. PAGE 3 OF 10 ITA NOS.935 TO 940/BANG/2 010 3 V) EVEN OTHERWISE HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE EVEN IF A PART OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS TO BE TREATED AS NON AGRICUL TURAL SUCH PART SHOULD BE ASCERTAINED WITH REFERENCE TO T HE TOTAL AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE FARM AS BEING AVAI LABLE TO THE ACTUAL SHARERS AND THE SHARE OF THE APPELLANT B E DETERMINED ACCORDINGLY AND THE SHARE SHOULD NOT BE A RRIVED AT WITH REFERENCE TO THE BALANCE OF THE AGRICULTURA L INCOME AFTER DEDUCTING FROM THE TOTAL AGRICULTURAL INCOME THE PROPORTIONATE AMOUNTS RELATING TO THE LAND HOLDINGS OF THE NON SHARERS AS PER THEIR DISCLAIMERS. 4. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS:- ALL THE ASSESSEES ARE INDIVIDUALS BELONGING TO RA MA NAGAPPA SHETTY FAMILY HUBLI. THE ASSESSMENTS IN THE CASE OF ALL THE ASSESSEES WERE ORIGINALLY COMPLETED U/S 143(3) WHEREIN THE A.O. TR EATED PART OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS NON AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND ASSESSED THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 5. ON FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AU THORITY THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS INCREASED FROM THE ESTIMATE D AGRICULTURAL INCOME DETERMINED BY THE A.O. 6. THE ASSESSEES FILED FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE I NCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE. 7. THE TRIBUNAL ESTIMATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ENTIRE R N SHETTY GROUP AT RS.1.6 CRORES AS AGAINST RS.1.8 CROR ES DECLARED BY THE GROUP AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE A.O. TO APPORTION THE SAME AMONG THE VARIOUS CO-OWNERS ON THE BASIS OF THE SIZE OF THE LAND HOLD INGS AND RESTRICTED THE PAGE 4 OF 10 ITA NOS.935 TO 940/BANG/2 010 4 AGRICULTURAL INCOME CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN DERIVED FR OM THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS ON THE LANDS BELONGING TO OTHERS. 7.1 THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL (ORDER DA TED 10/8/2007) READS AS FOLLOWS:- 4. THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN VERY CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. IN THE COURT ON THE CLAIM OF THE INCO ME THE ASSESSEE HAD REFERRED TO THE OWNERSHIP OF LAND. TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SOME OF THE PERSONS WHO O WNED THE LAND DID NOT ENJOY THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE Y HAD ISSUED DISCLAIMERS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IT I S OUR BELIEF AND UNDERSTANDING THAT ANY PERSON OWNING THE LAND AND CARRYING ON THE CULTIVATION WOULD BE THE OWNER O F THE AGRICULTURAL PROPERTIES TO THE FULLEST EXTENT. ANY PERSON WHO DOES NOT OWN THE LAND BUT IS PROVIDED TO CULTI VATE THE LAND SUCH CULTIVATOR WOULD BE ENTITLED TO 50% OF THE PRODUCE. THEREFORE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LANDS THOUGH BELONGING TO SOME ONE THE ENTIRE INCO ME WOULD BE ENJOYED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE FULLEST EXTENT BUT MAY BE ACCEPTED THE EXTEN T OF 50%. ONE OTHER FACTOR THAT IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IS THE AO DOES NOT DISPUTE THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE IN REGARD TO GOWRIBIDANUR AND KORATAGERE LAND. BUT IS DISPUTING ONLY THE MURUDESHWARA FARM LAND. CONSIDERI NG THIS FEATURE AND CONSIDERING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBU NAL FOR AYS 1989-90 AND 2001-02 AND THE CONCEPT OF THE ASSESSEE VIZ. CULTIVATING LAND OWNED BY OTHERS WE WOULD ESTIMATE THE TOTAL INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE FROM ALL THE LANDS PUT TOGETHER IN THE RANGE OF RS.1.60 CRORES. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO APPORTION THE SAME AMONG THE VARI OUS COOWNERS ON THE BASIS OF THE SIZE OF THE HOLDING. PAGE 5 OF 10 ITA NOS.935 TO 940/BANG/2 010 5 7.2 FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED IN HIS/HER RETURN OF INCOME NOT ONLY THE AG RICULTURAL INCOME OF HIS/HER INDIVIDUAL AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDING BUT AL SO THE INCOME OF THE OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS LAND HOLDINGS WHO IN TURN DISCLAIM ED IT AS THEIR AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THEIR RETURNS OF INCOME. THIS FACT HA S ALSO BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED AR. THEREFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER R EFERRED SUPRA ACCEPTED SUCH A CLAIM BUT NOT TO THE FULL EXTENT BUT ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF 50% OF THE DISCLAIMED AMOUNT. 8. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THE ASSE SSEES PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARANATAKA. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT DISPOSED OFF THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES ON DIFFERENT DATES. THE DETAILS OF THE APPEAL NOS. AND THE DATE ON WHICH TH E SAME ARE DISPOSED OFF ARE AS FOLLOWS:- APPEAL NO. NAME OF THE ASSESSEE ORDERS DATE ORDER ITA NO.934/2007 SRI SUNIL R SHETTY 20/12/2007 REMAN DED BACK TO AO FOR DENOVO CONSIDERATION ITA NO.935/2007 SRI SATISH R SHETTY 14/01/2008 ALLO WED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.936/2007 SRI NAVEEN R SHETTY 10/01/2008 REMA NDED BACK TO AO FOR DENOVO CONSIDERATION. ITA NO.937/2007 SMT. SHOBHA J SHETTY 14/01/2008 ALL OWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.46/2008 SMT. SUDHA R SHETTY 06/03/2008 REMANDED BACK TO AO FOR DENOVO CONSIDERATION. ITA NO.47/2008 SRI RAMA N SHETTY 06/03/2008 REMANDED BACK TO AO FOR DENOVO CONSIDERATION. 8.1 THE FIRST CASE WHICH WAS DECIDED BY THE HONBL E HIGH COURT IS IN THE CASE OF SUNIL R SHETTY (ITA NO.934/2007 DATED 2 0/12/2007). THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS PLEASED TO HOLD THAT THE CAS E OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE AUTHORITIES PROPERLY AND THEREFORE DIRECTED THE A.O. TO PAGE 6 OF 10 ITA NOS.935 TO 940/BANG/2 010 6 CONSIDER AFRESH THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THE ENTIR E INCOME DISCLAIMED BY OTHER PERSONS WAS BEING UTILIZED BY HIM AND NOT MER ELY 50% THEREOF. IN A SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT (SHRI SATISH R SHETTY ITA NO.93 5/2007 DATED 14/1/2008) THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FOLLOWED ITS EAR LIER JUDGMENT IN ITA NO.934/2007. AT PARA 5 OF ITS JUDGEMENT IN ITA NO. 935/2007 THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 5. THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM AGRICULTURAL INCOME DERIVED FROM HIS LAND AND ALSO IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME FROM THE LAND HELD BY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY WHEN THE APPELLANT IS NOT GIVEN ANY SHARE OUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE TO THE RESPECTIVE OWNER. 9. PURSUANT TO THE HIGH COURT DIRECTION ASSESSMEN TS WERE COMPLETED IN THE CASE OF ALL THE ASSESSEES BY ORDERS DATED 17/10/2008 AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEES BEING AGGRIEVED THE MA TTER WAS CARRIED IN APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO AFFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE A .O. 10. THE ASSESSEES BEING FURTHER AGGRIEVED HAVE F ILED THESE PRESENT APPEALS BEFORE US. 11. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHRI SATISH R REDDY (I TA NO.935/2007) AND IN THE CASE OF SMT. SHOBHA J SHETTY (ITA NO.937/2007) H AS ALLOWED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES. THEREFORE IT WAS SUBMITT ED THAT THE A.O. IS NOT CORRECT IN PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN THE MANNER IT IS DONE SO AND THE SAME REQUIRES TO BE CANCELLED. WITH REFERENCE TO OTHER ASSESSEES IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE HIGH COURT HAD GIVEN SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS T O THE AO AND THE PAGE 7 OF 10 ITA NOS.935 TO 940/BANG/2 010 7 ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED WITHOUT ADHERING TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. 12. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED T HE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE FIRST CASE WHICH WAS DECIDED BY THE HO NBLE HIGH COURT IS IN THE CASE OF SHRI SUNIL R SHETTY (ITA NO.934/2007 DT.20/1 2/2007). THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS PLEASED TO HOLD THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE AUTHORITIES AND THEREFORE DIRECTE D THE A.O. TO CONSIDER AFRESH THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. IN DOING SO THE HON BLE HIOGH COURT HAD GIVEN SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS. THE QUESTION OF LAW THAT WAS RAISED BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT READS AS FOLLOWS:- 1) WHETHER ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN DETERMINING THE INCOME FR OM THE LANDS IN QUESTION AT RS.1.60 CRORES AND APPROVING T HE SAME CONSIDERING THE EXTENT OF LAND HELD BY HIM WITHOUT C ONSIDERING THE PREVIOUS ORDERS OF ASSESSMENT IN REGARD TO THE CULTIVATION OF THE LAND AND THE INCOME DERIVED BY HIM? 2) WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO 50% OF THE INCOME IN RESPE CT OF THE LAND WHICH WAS NOT STANDING IN HIS NAME EVEN THOUGH HE WAS ACTUALLY CULTIVATING THE LAND WITHOUT GIVING ANY SHAR E TO THE OWNER OF THE LAND. 13.1 THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE HONBLE HIGH COUR T IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- PAGE 8 OF 10 ITA NOS.935 TO 940/BANG/2 010 8 4. THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE OPINION ALL THE AUTHOR ITIES DID NOT CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE PROPERLY. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDS THAT FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR S THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE TOTAL YIELD A ND THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE REVENUE FOR THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. IN ORDER TO DISBELIEVE THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE THERE SHALL BE SOME CHANGED CIRCUMSTA NCES. IF THERE ARE CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES IN ALL FAIRNESS THE REVENUE SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. SINCE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEE CONSIDERED BY ALL THE AUTHORITIES PROPERLY WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE MATTER IS REQUIRED TO BE RECONSIDE RED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HEREIN IS CONTENDING THAT THE ENTIRE INCOME IS BEING UTILIZED BY HIM AND THE OWNERS OF THE LAND ARE NOT CLAIMING ANY SHAR E FROM THE ASSESSEE. SINCE IT IS A QUESTION OF FACT AS WE CANNOT DECIDE THE QUESTION OF FACT AND THEREFORE W E ARE REQUIRED TO REMAND THE MATTER TO THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. 13.2 THE ABOVE DIRECTIONS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COUR T ARE TWO FOLDS (I) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE TOTAL YIELD/AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS THE TOTAL YIELD DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS YEAR IS TO BE ACCEPT ED UNLESS THERE IS SOME CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS; (II) THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM CREDIT FOR A GRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH HE/SHE DERIVED FROM LAND BELONGING TO OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY ON THE BASIS OF THE DISCLAIMER CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THEM. HOWEVER THE AO IS DIRECTED TO EXAM INE THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO DUPLICATION IN THE SENSE THAT ON LY ONE PERSON CAN TAKE CREDIT FOR SUCH DISCLAIMED INCOME AND NOT MORE THAN ONE. PAGE 9 OF 10 ITA NOS.935 TO 940/BANG/2 010 9 13.3 THE AO WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENTS HAS RECOMPUTED THE INCOME IN ITS ENTIRETY AND EVEN THE AGRICULTURAL INC OME ESTIMATED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS EARLIER ORDER HAS REWORKED AND CRED IT WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES. THE AO HAS TOTALLY IGNORED TH E ABOVE TWO DIRECTIONS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. 13.4 WITH REFERENCE TO THE PLEA OF THE LEARNED AR THAT IN THE CASE OF SHRI SATISH R SHETTY (ITA NO.935/2007 DT.14.1.2008) AND IN THE CASE OF SMT. SHOBHA J SHETTY (ITA NO.937/2007 DT.14.1.2008) THE APPEALS OF THOSE ASSESSEES HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN THEIR FAVOUR AND HEN CE THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS REQUIRES TO BE CANCELLED MAY NOT BE FULLY JUSTIFIED. THE MAIN CASE WHICH WAS DECIDED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS IN THE CASE OF SHRI SUNIL R SHETTY (ITA NO.934/2007). IN ALL OTHER JUDGEMENTS OF THE HONB LE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF OTHER ASSESSEES THE HONBLE COURT HAS FOLLOWED THE JUDGEMENT OF SHRI SUNIL R SHETTY WHEREIN THE MATTER HAS BEEN REMITTED TO THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION WITH SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS. THEREFORE IN THE CASE OF SHRI SATISH R SHETTY AND ALSO SMT. SHOBHA J SHETTY THE APPEALS A RE ALLOWED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF DIRECTION CONTAINED IN THE MAIN CASE NAME LY SHRI SUNIL R SHETTY. 13.5 CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E ISSUES INVOLVED WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ENTIRE MATTER NEEDS TO BE REEXAMINED BY THE AUTHORITIES SINCE DIRECTIONS OF THE HONBLE HIGH C OURT HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY ADHERED TO. THEREFORE WE RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE AO. THE AO SHALL EXAMINE WHETHER THERE IS ANY CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR FOR ACCEPTING THE YIELD DECLARED IN THIS YEAR. HE SH ALL ALSO EXAMINE AS TO WHETHER THERE IS DUPLICATION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE HANDS OF FAMILY PAGE 10 OF 10 ITA NOS.935 TO 940/BANG/ 2010 10 MEMBERS WHERE DISCLAIMER CERTIFICATES ARE FILED. W ITH THE ABOVE DIRECTIONS WE SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE AO FOR DENOVO CONSID ERATION. NEEDLESS TO SAY THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE HEARD BEFORE FRESH ORDERS OF ASSESSMENTS ARE PASSED. 14. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESS EES ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY THE 18 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2011 AT BANGALORE. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE GEORGE K) (A MOHAN ALANKAM ONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER COPY TO :- 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR 6. GF BY ORDER MSP/10.2./14.2. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT BANGA LORE.