Sri.B.Vinod, Trivandrum V. ACIT, Trivandrum

CO 14/COCH/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8297 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 21-01-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S VIJAYAPRABHA; M ANIL KUMAR
• Section: 68; 69

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 113/COCH/2012 ITA 87/COCH/2012 CO 14/COCH/2012 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) AND SHRI B.R. BASKA RAN(AM) I.T.A NO. 113/COCH/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09) SHRI B VINOD VS A.C.I.T., CENT.CIR.1 POONAMKULAM HOUSE TRIVANDRUM PARASSALA, TRIVANDRUM 695 508 PAN : AEVPB1839B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A NO. 87/COCH/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09) A.C.I.T., CENT.CIR.1 VS SHRI B. VINOD TRIVANDRUM PARASSALA, TRIVANDRUM (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. 14/COCH/2012 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A NO. 87/COCH/2012) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09) SHRI B VINOD VS A.C.I.T., CENT.CIR.1 POONAMKULAM HOUSE TRIVANDRUM PARASSALA, TRIVANDRUM 695 508 (CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) 2 ITA NO. 113/COCH/2012 ITA 87/COCH/2012 CO 14/COCH/2012 TAXPAYER BY : SHRI MATHEW JOSEPH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M ANIL KUMAR, C.I.T. & SMT. S VIJAYAPRABHA DATE OF HEARING : 21-01-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22-03-2013 O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) BOTH THE TAXPAYER AND THE REVENUE HAVE FILED THE A PPEALS AND THE TAXPAYER HAS ALSO FILED CROSS OBJECTION WHICH ARISE OUT OF THE SAME ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-III, KOCHI DATED 07-12-2011. THEREFORE, WE HEARD BOTH THE APPEALS AND THE CROSS OBJECTION TOGETHER AND DISPOS E OF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. LET US FIRST TAKE THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IN ITA NO.87/COCH/2012. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO UNDISC LOSED INVESTMENT. 3. SHRI M ANILKUMAR, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE T AXPAYER IS ENGAGED HIMSELF AS CIVIL CONTRACTOR AND THERE WAS SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE TAXPAYER ON 06-08-2008. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, ON THE BASIS OF THE CASH 3 ITA NO. 113/COCH/2012 ITA 87/COCH/2012 CO 14/COCH/2012 FLOW STATEMENT, THE TAXPAYER CLAIMED RS. 9,04,299 A S OPENING BALANCE. THE TAXPAYER HAS ALSO CLAIMED ANOTHER SUM OF RS.10 LAKH S FROM HIS WIFE. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, THE TAXPAYER HAS NOT PROVED THE OPENING CASH BALANCE OF RS.9,04,299. THE LD.DR FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT THE TAXPAYERS WIFE HOLDS ABOUT 5.5 ACRES OF LAND WHICH WAS CLAIME D TO BE CULTIVATED WITH COCONUT TREE AND BANANA AS INTER-CROP. ACCORDING T O THE LD.DR, THE FUNDS WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN KEPT IN THE PERSONAL CUST ODY AND NOT IN THE BANK. THE FUNDS SPENT FOR PERSONAL EXPENDITURE / H OUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE IS VERY LOW. THE LD.DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT COCONUT CULTIVATION IS NOT A PROFITABLE VENTURE. AS SUCH, THE TAXPAYERS WIFE W OULD NOT HAVE POSSESSED CASH OF RS.10 LAKHS DURING THE PERIOD. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTRICTED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE TAXPAYER S WIFE TO RS.5 LAKHS INSTEAD OF RS.10 LAKHS. ACCORDINGLY BALANCE OF RS. 13.62 LAKHS WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. HOWEVER, O N APPEAL, THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 THE CLOS ING BALANCE WAS RS. 7,04,299 WHICH REMAINED TO BE THE OPENING BALANCE F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THE CLA IM OF THE TAXPAYER THAT HE HAS RECEIVED RS.10 LAKHS FROM HIS WIFE WHICH WAS EARNED FROM 4 ITA NO. 113/COCH/2012 ITA 87/COCH/2012 CO 14/COCH/2012 AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES BY HER. ACCORDING TO THE L D.DR, THE CULTIVATION OF COCONUT IS NOT A PROFITABLE VENTURE, THEREFORE, THE TAXPAYERS WIFE COULD NOT HAVE EARNED RS.10 LAKHS AS CLAIMED. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE TAXPAYER AND RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.1,57,141. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI MATHEW JOSEPH, THE LD.REPR ESENTATIVE FOR THE TAXPAYER SUBMITTED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 TO 2007-08 THE CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND FOUND THAT F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 THE TAXPAYER HAD THE CLOSING BALANCE OF RS. 7,04,299. THIS RS.7,04,299 WOULD BE THE OPENING BALANCE FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09. AFTER CONSIDERING THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT OF T HE TAXPAYERS WIFE THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO BASI S FOR REJECTING THE TAXPAYERS WIFES CASH FLOW STATEMENT. REFERRING T O THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE TAXPAYER SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER REFERRING TO A STUDY NOTE CONDUCTED BY NATION AL BANK FOR AGRICULTURE & RURAL DEVELOPMENT (NABARD, HEREINAFTER) OBSERVED TH AT COCONUT CULTIVATION IS NOT A PROFITABLE VENTURE. THE LD.RE PRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT 5 ITA NO. 113/COCH/2012 ITA 87/COCH/2012 CO 14/COCH/2012 THE CULTIVAZTION OF COCONUT IS NOT IN DISPUTE. WHE N THE TAXPAYER PRACTICALLY CULTIVATED THE LAND AND RECEIVED THE INCOME, THE AS SESSING OFFICER MAY NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE TAXPAY ER ON THE BASIS OF THE STUDY SAID TO BE CONDUCTED BY NABARD. THEREFORE, A CCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ACCEPTED THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE TAXPAYER FROM HIS WIFE. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08, THE CLOSING BALANCE AS PER THE CASH FLOW STATEM ENT WAS RS.7,04,299. THEREFORE, THAT AMOUNT REMAINED AS OPENING BALANCE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ACCEPTED THE CLOSING BALNCE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IT MAY NOT B E CORRECT TO REJECT THE OPENING BALANCE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RI GHTLY TAKEN THE OPENING BALANCE AT RS.7,04,299 FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION. 6 ITA NO. 113/COCH/2012 ITA 87/COCH/2012 CO 14/COCH/2012 6. NOW COMING TO THE AMOUNT SAID TO BE RECEIVED FRO M THE TAXPAYERS WIFE, THE CULTIVATION OF COCONUT AND EARNING OF AGR ICULTURAL INCOME IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE TAXPAYER ON THE BASIS OF THE STUDY SAID TO BE CONDUCTED BY NABARD. IT IS NOT KNOWN AT WHAT POINT OF TIME THE NABARD CONDUCTED THE STUDY AND IT IS ALSO NOT KNOWN WHETHER THE REPORT WAS WITH REFERENCE TO THE STATE OF KERALA OR NOT. IT IS A COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT KERALA RECEIVES ONE OF THE HI GHEST RAINFALLS IN THE COUNTRY AND COCONUT TREES ARE CULTIVATED WITHOUT MU CH OF ANY EXPENDITURE FOR IRRIGATION. SEVERAL RIVERS FLOWS FROM WESTERN GHAT PASS THROUGH STATE OF KERALA. THEREFORE, THE AGRICULTURISTS IN THE STATE OF KERALA WOULD GET MAXIMUM YIELD BY TAKING CARE OF THE COCONUT TREES W ITH MINIMUM EXPENDITURE. WHEN THIS IS THE SITUATION PREVAILS I N THE STATE OF KERALA IT IS NOT KNOWN UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES THE STUDY CONDUC TED BY NABARD HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT COCONUT CULTIVATION MAY NOT BE A PROFITABLE VENTURE. COCONUT CULTIVATION IN STATES LIKE RAJAST HAN, SOME PART OF TAMIL NADU MAY NOT BE A PROFITABLE VENTURE WHERE THERE IS NO RAINFALL AT ALL AND THE PEOPLE HAS TO PURELY DEPEND UPON THE GROUND WAT ER; EVEN POWER SUPPLY PROVIDED BY THESE STATES FOR AGRICULTURAL SE CTOR IS VERY MINIMUM. 7 ITA NO. 113/COCH/2012 ITA 87/COCH/2012 CO 14/COCH/2012 THEREFORE, NATURALLY, IN THOSE STATES, THE COST OF MAINTENANCE OF THE COCONUT TREES WOULD BE MORE WHEN COMPARED TO THE ST ATE OF KERALA. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY NOT BE CORRECT IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE TAXPAYER ON THE BASIS OF THE STUDY SAID TO BE CONDU CTED BY NABARD. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CO NSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE TA XPAYER WITH REGARD TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE TAXPAYERS WIFE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHOR ITY. 8. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS ADDITION OF RS.7 LA KHS U/S 68 AND 69 OF THE ACT. 9. SHRI M ANIL KUMAR, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT HE I S PLACING HIS RELIANCE ON THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 10. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI MATHEW JOSEPH, THE LD.REP RESENTATIVE FOR THE TAXPAYER SUBMITTED THAT ADDITION OF RS.7 LAKHS WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE 8 ITA NO. 113/COCH/2012 ITA 87/COCH/2012 CO 14/COCH/2012 LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TAXPAYER AND ONE SHRI R SASIKUMAR AND HIS WIFE SMT. K.V. SOSAMMA. AS PER THIS AGREEMENT, THE TAXPAYER HAS PAID RS.7 LAKHS FOR TAKING THE GROUND FLOOR PORTION FOR THE B USINESS OF APARNA MOTORS. THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ADVANCE O F RS.7 LAKHS IS REFLECTED IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE TAXPAYER ON THE GROUND THAT THIS AMOUN T OF RS.7 LAKHS WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT. THE CIT(A) F OUNBD THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 THE TAXPAYER HAD THE CLOSIN G BALANCE OF RS.7,04,299 AND THIS WOULD REMAIN AS OPENING BALANC E FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AFTER ADJUSTING THE INFLOW AND OUTF LOW, THE TAXPAYER HAS SHOWN AN OUTFLOW OF RS.7 LAKHS IN THE CASH FLOW STA TEMENT. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE OUTFLOW OF RS.7 LAKHS SH OWN IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT IS VERY MUCH AVAILABLE FOR MAKING THE DEP OSIT FOR TAKING THE PREMISES ON LEASE. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) DELETED T HE ADDITION. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NO T IN DISPUTE THAT THE CLOSING BALANCE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WAS RS.7,04,299 AND THE 9 ITA NO. 113/COCH/2012 ITA 87/COCH/2012 CO 14/COCH/2012 CIT(A) FOUND THAT RS.7 LAKHS HAS BEEN SHOWN AS OUTF LOW IN THE STATEMENT AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF INFLOW AND OUTFLOW. THEREFORE, RS.7 LAKHS WHICH WAS SHOWN AS OUTFLOW WOULD BE VERY MUCH AVAILABLE FOR M AKING THE DEPOSIT FOR TAKING THE PREMISES ON LEASE. THEREFORE, THIS TRIB UNAL DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ACC ORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED. 12. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO DIS ALLOWANCE OF RS.1,15,000. 13. WE HEARD SHRI M ANIL KUMAR, THE LD.DR. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT HE IS PLACING RELIANCE ON THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 14. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI MATHEW JOSEPH, THE LD.REP RESENTATIVE FOR THE TAXPAYER SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOUND AN ENTRY IN THE CASE OF MAHARAJA TEXTILE MARKET IN THE NAME OF THE TAXPAYER. REFERRING TO THE OBSERVATION S MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE LD.REPRESDENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE TAXPAYER HAS NO BUSINESS 10 ITA NO. 113/COCH/2012 ITA 87/COCH/2012 CO 14/COCH/2012 OR OTHER CONNECTION WITH SHRI V. SUNIL. SHRI V SUN IL COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT HE HAS RECEIVED RS.10 LAKHS F ROM THE TAXPAYER. ACCORDINGLY, HE OFFERED THE SAME AS ADDITIONAL INCO ME FOR TAXATION. ONCE SHRI SUNIL OFFERED RS.10 LAKHS AS ADDITIONAL INCOME , THERE IS NO QUESTION OF PAYMENT OF ANY INTEREST ON THAT AMOUNT. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE TAXPAYER ADVANCED A SUM OF RS.10 LAKHS AND SHRI V SUNIL GAVE INTEREST O F RS.1,15,000 TO THE TAXPAYER. WHEN SHRI V SUNIL HIMSELF OFFERED RS.10 LAKHS AS HIS OWN INCOME, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF RECEIPT OF ANY INTEREST FRO M THE SAID SHRI V SUNIL BY THE TAXPAYER. THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE TAXPAYER HAS FILED THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.113/COCH/2012 AGAINST THE ADDI TION OF RS.10 LAKHS WHICH WAS CLAIMED BY THE REVENUE AS ADVANCE MADE BY THE TAXPAYER TO SHRI V SUNIL. SINCE SHRI V SUNIL HAS ALREADY OFFERED TH E AMOUNT OF RS.10 LAKHS, ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION IN THE CASE OF THE TAXPAYER. 15. BY WAY OF REJOINDER, SHRI M ANIL KUMAR, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT IF THE AMOUNT WAS OFFERED AS ADDITIONAL INCOME OF SHRI V SUNIL AND TAX WAS 11 ITA NO. 113/COCH/2012 ITA 87/COCH/2012 CO 14/COCH/2012 PAID, THERE MAY NOT BE ANY NEED FOR MAKING ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE TAXPAYER. THEREFORE, THE FACT WHETHER SHRI V SUNIL OFFERED THE ABOVE SAID SUM OF RS.10 LAKHS AS ADDITIONAL INCOME OR NOT NEED S TO BE VERIFIED. 16. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE TAXP AYER IN HIS APPEAL IN ITA 113/COCH/2012 IS CHALLENGING THE ADDITION OF RS.10 LAKHS WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN ADVANCED TO SHRI V SUNIL ON THE BASIS OF THE ENTRIES FOUND IN MAHARAJA TEXTILE MARKET. THOUGH THE TAXPAYER CLAIM S THAT HE HAS NO BUSINESS OR OTHER CONNECTION WITH SHRI V SUNIL AND THE ENTRY FOUND IN MAHARAJA TEXTILE MARKET AS LOAN FROM VINOD, TVM D OES NOT RELATE TO THE TAXPAYER. THE FACT REMAINS IS THAT THE SAID SHRI V SUNIL EXPLAINED DURING THE COURSE OF CROSS EXAMINATION THAT HE HAS OFFERED THE SAID SUM OF RS.10 LAKHS AS ADDITIONAL INCOME. ONCE SHRI V SUNIL OFFERED TH E SAID AMOUNT OF RS.10 LAKHS ADDITIONAL INCOME, THEN THERE CANNOT BE ANY A DDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE TAXPAYER. ONCE SHRI V SUNIL ADMITS THAT RS.10 LAKHS WAS HIS OWN MONEY THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON THAT AMOUNT. THEREFORE, AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD.DR, THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED WHETHER 12 ITA NO. 113/COCH/2012 ITA 87/COCH/2012 CO 14/COCH/2012 SHRI V SUNIL HAS OFFERED THE SAID AMOUNT AS ADDITIO NAL INCOME OR NOT. IF SHRI V SUNIL HAS OFFERED THE AMOUNT AS ADDITIONAL INCOME , THEN THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE PRESENT TAXPAYER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF RS.10 LAKHS IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE- EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH AND VERIFY WHETHER SHRI V SUNIL HAS OFFERED RS.10 LAKHS AS ADDITIONAL INCOME AS STATED BY HIM DURING THE COURSE OF EXAMINATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREAFTER DEC IDE THE MATTER AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPOR TUNITY TO THE TAXPAYER. 17. NOW COMING TO THE APPEAL FILED BY THE TAXPAYER, THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS.10 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF ENTRY FOUND IN MAHARAJA TEXTILE MARKET. WE HAVE AL READY RESTORED THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF RS.1,15,000 ON ACCOUNT OF INTE REST ON THIS ADDITION OF RS.10 LAKHS TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. DURING EXAMINATION BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE SUBJECT AMOUNT OF RS.10 LAKHS HAS BEEN OFFERED BY SHRI V SUNIL FOR TAXATION. BASED O N THIS FACT, WE RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERI FICATION WHETHER SHRI V SUNIL 13 ITA NO. 113/COCH/2012 ITA 87/COCH/2012 CO 14/COCH/2012 HAS OFFERED THE SUBJECT AMOUNT OF RS.10 LAKHS FOR T AXATION AND ARRIVE AT A FRESH DECISION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY DO SO, A S DIRECTED IN THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH. 18. NOW COMING TO THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE TAXPAY ER IT IS ONLY TO SUPPORT THE ORDER OF CIT(A). NO INDEPENDENT GROUND S ARE RAISED. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT THE CROSS OBJECTION TO SUPPORT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS NOT MAI NTAINABLE. 19. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IN ITA NO.87/COCH/2012 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE; APPEAL IN ITA NO.113/COCH/2012 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE AND CROSS OBJECTION IN C.O. NO. 14/COCH/2012 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 22 ND MARCH, 2013. SD/- SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN, DT : 22 ND MARCH, 2013 PK/- 14 ITA NO. 113/COCH/2012 ITA 87/COCH/2012 CO 14/COCH/2012 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. THE DR (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH