St.Mary's Charity fund, Cochin V. Asstt.Director of Income-tax, Cochin

CO 20/COCH/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8298 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 28-01-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 20-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Fair market value
• Section: 12AA; 11

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.302 /COCH/2012 CO NO.20/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. 302/COCH/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10) A.D.I.T.(EXEMPTION) VS ST.MARYS CHARITY FUND RANGE-4, KOCHI 37/3440B, DESABHIMANY JN KALOOR, KOCHI 682 017 PAN : AABTS3142E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.20/COCH/2012 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A NO. 302/COCH/2012) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10) ST.MARYS CHARITY FUND VS A.D.I.T. (EXEMPTION) KALOOR, KOCHI KOCHI (CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI M ANIL KUMAR, C.I.T. TAXPAYER BY : SHRI THOMSON THOMAS DATE OF HEARING : 28-01-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22-03-2013 2 ITA NO.302 /COCH/2012 CO NO.20/COCH/2012 O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-II, KOCHI DATED 23-08-2012 AND PERTAINS TO A SSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE TAXPAYER HAS FILED THE CROSS OBJECTION. THEREF ORE, WE HEARD THE SAME TOGETHER AND DISPOSE OF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORD ER. 2. THE ONLY GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO THE DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1)(C) ARE VIOLATED. 3. SHRI M ANIL KUMAR, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE TAXPAYER IS A REGISTERED CHARITABLE TRUST U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. D URING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE TAXPAYER CLAIMED THAT A SUM OF R S.7,06,92,878 WAS UTILISED FOR CHARITABLE ACTIVITY. ON VERIFICATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE TAXPAYER HAS DONATED A SUM OF RS.7 CRORES TO THE FOLLOWING TRUSTS: VIVEKANANDA CHARITABLE TRUST RS. 2,25,00,000 COCHIN CHILD FOUNDATION RS. 2,50,00,000 3 ITA NO.302 /COCH/2012 CO NO.20/COCH/2012 BETHEL EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST RS. 2,25,0 0,000 ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, OUT OF RS.2.25 CRORES DONAT ED TO VIVEKANANDA CHARITABLE TRUST, A SUM OF RS.10 LAKHS WAS PAID TO M/S ZEE INTERACTIVE LEARNING SYSTEMS AS FRANCHISE DEPOSIT FOR SETTING U P A SCHOOL. M/S VIVEKANANDA CHARITABLE TRUST HAS ALSO ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT WITH ITS OWN TRUSTEE, MRS SUSIE BOBY FOR TAKING FOUR PREMISES ON LEASE. VIVEKANANDA CHARITABLE TRUST HAS ALSO PAID A DEPOSIT OF RS.50 L AKHS TO SUSIE BOBY. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, MRS. SUSIE BOBY IS ONE OF T HE TRUSTEES OF VIVEKANAND CHARITABLE TRUST, THEREFORE, THE DEPOSIT OF RS.50 LAKHS TO MRS. SUSIE BOBY TOWARDS LEASE DEPOSIT IS NOT FOR CHARITA BLE PURPOSE. THE ABOVE SAID PAYMENT OF RS.50 LAKHS IS IN VIOLATION OF SECT ION 13(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. REFERRING TO THE PAYMENT MADE TO BETHEL EDUCATIO NAL & CHARITABLE TRUST, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT BETHEL EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST WAS RUNNING A SCHOOL. THE LAND WAS PURCHASED FROM TRUS TEES. ALL THE PROPERTIES WERE PURCHASED EITHER FROM THE TRUSTEES OR FROM THE RELATIVES OF THE TRUSTEES. THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT BETHEL EDUCATIO NAL & CHARITABLE TRUST 4 ITA NO.302 /COCH/2012 CO NO.20/COCH/2012 PAID HIGHER PRICE TO ITS OWN TRUSTEES AND RELATIVES FOR PURCHASING PROPERTIES IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 13(3) OF THE ACT. 4. SIMILARLY COCHIN CHILD FOUNDATION HAS ALSO VIOLA TED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE LD.D R, OUT OF RS.2.50 CRORES RECEIVED FROM THE TAXPAYER, COCHIN CHILD FOUNDATION TRUST PURCHASED A COMMERCIAL SPACE IN M/S AERENS GOLD SOUK INTERNATIO NAL, VYTTILA. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, COCHIN CHILD FO UNDATION INVESTED THE FUNDS RECEIVED FROM THE TAXPAYER TRUST IN A COMMERC IAL VENTURE. THEREFORE, THIS IS FOR DIRECT BENEFIT OF THE INTERESTED PERSON S SPECIFIED IN SECTION 13(3) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE TAXPAYER IS NOT ELIGIBL E FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI THOMSON THOMAS, THE LD.REP RESENTATIVE FOR THE TAXPAYER SUBMITTED THAT NO DOUBT, A SUM OF RS.7 CRO RES WAS DONATED TO THREE TRUSTS HAVING SIMILAR OBJECTS. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, ALL THE TRUSTS UTILISED THE FUNDS FOR CHARITABLE PURPOS E. THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ACCUMULATED FUNDS WERE DONA TED TO SIMILARLY 5 ITA NO.302 /COCH/2012 CO NO.20/COCH/2012 PLACED TRUSTS, IT WILL AMOUNT TO APPLICATION OF FUN D FOR CHARITABLE ACTIVITY, THEREFORE, EXEMPTION U/S 11 CANNOT BE DENIED TO THE TAXPAYER TRUST. THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF TH ERE WAS ANY VIOLATION IN RESPECT OF UTILISATION OF FUNDS BY THE RESPECTIVE T RUSTS, WHO RECEIVED THE FUNDS FROM THE TAXPAYER, THEN ALSO, AT THE BEST, TH E EXEMPTION COULD BE DENIED ONLY IN THEIR HANDS FOR VIOLATION OF THE PRO VISIONS OF THE ACT AND DEFINITELY NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE TAXPAYER TRUST. THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE THREE TRUSTS, VIZ. VIVEKANAN DA CHARITABLE TRUST, COCHIN CHILD FOUNDATION AND BETHEL EDUCATIONAL & CH ARITABLE TRUST ARE ALSO REGISTERED U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE PAY MENT MADE BY THE TAXPAYER SOCIETY TO THE ABOVE THREE TRUSTS AMOUNT T O UTILISATION OF FUNDS FOR CHARITABLE ACTIVITY; HENCE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE TAXPAYER U/S 11 OF THE ACT. 6. REFERRING TO THE DONATION MADE TO VIVEKANANDA CH ARITABLE TRUST, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRUST HAS TAK EN PREMISES ON LEASE FOR THEIR CHARITABLE ACTIVITY. VIVEKANANDA CHARITABLE TRUST HAS ALSO PAID RS.10 LAKHS AS FRANCHISE DEPOSIT TO ZEE INTERACTIVE LEARN ING SYSTEM FOR SETTING UP 6 ITA NO.302 /COCH/2012 CO NO.20/COCH/2012 OF THE SCHOOL. HAD VIVEKANAND CHARITABLE TRUST PUR CHASED LAND AND CONSTRUCTED SCHOOL BUILDING, THE COST WOULD HAVE BE EN MUCH HIGHER. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, SINCE THE PREMI SES WERE TAKEN ON LEASE, VIVEKANANDA CHARITABLE TRUST WAS ABLE TO MANAGE THE EXPENDITURE AT RS.60,000 PER MONTH. THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITT ED THAT COMPARED TO THE MARKET PRICE OF THE LAND, THE DEPOSIT GIVEN TO LAND OWNER IS VERY CHEAP, AND WHEN COMPARED THE INTEREST COMPONENT THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED, IT IS BENEFICIAL TO VIVEKANAND CHARITABLE TRUST. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO PROHIBITION FROM TAKING THE LAND FROM THE TRUSTEE. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE D EPOSIT AND RENT IS PAID AS PER THE MARKET RATE FOR RUNNING THE CHARITABLE ACTI VITY. THEREFORE, NO BENEFIT WAS GIVEN TO ANY INTERESTED PERSON WITHIN T HE MEANING OF SECTION 13(1)(C) OF THE ACT. EVEN FOR ARGUMENT SAKE, ACCOR DING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE BENEFIT WAS SHOWN BY VIVEKAN ANDA CHARITABLE TRUST TO ITS OWN TRUSTEE THEN ALSO, AT THE BEST, THE EXEM PTION MAY BE DENIED IN THE HANDS OF VIVEKANAND CHARITABLE TRUST AND DEFINI TELY NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE PRESENT TAXPAYER. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE TAXPAYE R. 7 ITA NO.302 /COCH/2012 CO NO.20/COCH/2012 7. REFERRING TO COCHIN CHILD FOUNDATION, THE LD.REP RESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT COCHIN CHILD FOUNDATION INVESTED THE FUNDS IN FIXED DEPOSIT WITH SCHEDULED BANK AND SUBSEQUENTLY INVESTED IN TH E COMMERCIAL SPACE. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE CBDT, IN TH EIR CIRCULAR NO.883 DATED 24-09-1995 PERMITTED THE REINVESTMENT OF CAPITAL GA IN IN THE FIXED DEPOSIT IN BANKS FOR MORE THAN SIX MONTHS FOR CLAIMING EXEM PTION. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE INVESTMENT IN THE COMMER CIAL SPACE WAS MADE FOR GETTING BETTER RETURN WHICH COULD BE UTILISED F OR CHARITABLE ACTIVITY. THEREFORE, PURCHASE OF A COMMERCIAL SPACE CANNOT BE CONSTRUED TO BE A COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY. 8. REFERRING TO DONATION MADE TO BETHEL EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT BETHEL EDUCATI ONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST PURCHASED LAND FROM ITS OWN TRUSTEES AND THIRD PART IES. THE PRICE PAID FOR THE PROPERTY PURCHASED FROM THE TRUSTEES IS RS.82,9 00 PER CENT WHEREAS IN RESPEECT OF OTHER PERSONS IT WAS RS.21,400 TO SOME PROPERTIES AND RS.15,000 TO SOME OTHER PROPERTY. BETHEL EDUCATION AL & CHARITABLE TRUST 8 ITA NO.302 /COCH/2012 CO NO.20/COCH/2012 HAS ALSO PAID RS.72,000 PER CENT IN RESPECT OF OTHE R PROPERTY. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, PRICE OF THE PROPERTY WOULD VARY DEPENDING UPON THE LOCALITY WHERE IT IS SITUATED. THE LD.REPRESENTATI VE SUBMITTED THAT BETHEL EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST IS RUNNING A SCHOOL IN THE HEART OF PIRAVOM TOWN. THE LAND PURCHASED FROM THE TRUSTEES IS ADJA CENT TO THE SCHOOL BUILDING WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE S CHOOL WHEREAS THE OTHER THREE PROPERTIES ARE SITUATED IN THE OUTSKIRTS OF P IRAVOM. NATURALLY, THE LAND WHICH IS SITUATED IN THE HEART OF PIRAVOM TOWN WOULD FETCH MORE PRICE THAN THE COST OF THE LAND WHICH IS SITUATED IN THE OUTSKIRTS OF PIRAVOM. REFERRING TO THE REMAND REPORT FILED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSING OFFICER ADMITTED THAT THE LAND PURCHASED FROM TRUSTEES ARE WITHIN TH E PIRAVOM TOWN AND THE LAND PURCHASED FROM OUTSIDERS ARE LOCATED 5 KMS AWA Y FROM PIRAVOM TOWN. THEREFORE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE TAXPAYER HAS TO P AY THE MARKET RATE IN RESPECT OF THE LAND WHICH IS SITUATED IN THE HEART OF PIRAVOM TOWN. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO BENEFIT SHOWN TO THE INTERES TED PERSON AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 9 ITA NO.302 /COCH/2012 CO NO.20/COCH/2012 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER S IDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER DENIED EXEMPTION U/S 11 ON THE GROUND THAT THE AMOUNTS DON ATED TO THREE TRUSTS, VIZ. VIVEKANANDA CHARITABLE TRUST, COCHIN CHILD FOU NDATION AND BETHEL EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST ARE GIVEN TO INTERES TED PERSONS OF THE RESPECTIVE TRUST. ADMITTEDLY, THE TAXPAYER TRUST I S REGISTERED U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. SIMILARLY, THE THREE TRUSTS WHICH ARE REC EIVED DONATION FROM THE TAXPAYER ARE ALSO REGISTERED U/S 12AA OF THE ACT AS CHARITABLE INSTITUTION. THE QUESTION ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS - WHEN THE TAXPAYER DONATED RS.7 CRORES TO THREE DIFFERENT TRUSTS, WHOSE ACTIVITIES ARE ALSO SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE TAXPAYER, CAN WE DENY EXEMPTION IN THE HANDS OF THE TAXPAYER MERELY BECAUSE THERE WAS VIOLATION OF SECTION 13(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY THOSE DONEE TRUSTS. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD.REPRESENTAT IVE FOR THE TAXPAYER, THE RECIPIENTS OF THE DONATION ARE ALSO INDEPENDENTLY R EGISTERED CHARITABLE INSTITUTION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. WHEN THE TAXPAYER DONATED THE AMOUNT TO THE TRUST WHICH ARE HAVING SIMILAR OBJECT, THEN THE TAXPAYER SOCIETY IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. IF THERE WAS ANY VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1)(C) BY THE RECIPIENT TRU STS, THEN AT THE BEST, THE 10 ITA NO.302 /COCH/2012 CO NO.20/COCH/2012 EXEMPTION U/S 11 COULD BE DENIED ONLY IN THE HANDS OF THOSE RECIPIENT TRUSTS AND CERTAINLY NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE DONOR TRUST. MOREOVER, AS FOUND BY THE CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF VIVEKANANDA CHAR ITABLE TRUST, THE PROPERTY WAS TAKEN ON LEASE FOR RUNNING A SCHOOL. VIVEKANANDA CHARITABLE TRUST HAS ALSO PAID FRANCHISE DEPOSIT FOR SETTING U P OF A SCHOOL. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT WHAT WAS GIVEN TO TRUSTEE SUSIE BOBY IS HIGHER THAN THE MARKET RENT. WHEN THE TAXPAYER WAS PAYING DEPOSIT AND RENT FOR TAKING PREMISES FOR CARRYING OUT ITS OBJECT AS PER THE TRUST DEED, THEN IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ANY BENEFIT WAS SHOWN TO THE IN TERESTED PERSON WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 13(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IF THE REVENUE ESTABLISHES THAT THE DEPOSIT AND RENT PAID TO SUSIE BOBY FOR TAKING THE PREMISES ON LEASE IS HIGHER THAN THE MARKET RENT, THEN THE MATTER WOULD STAND ENTIRELY ON DIFFERENT FOOTING. IN THIS CASE, IT IS NOT THE CAS E OF THE REVENUE THAT WHAT WAS PAID BY THE VIVEKANAND CHARITABLE TRUST IS HIGH ER THAN THE MARKET PRICE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. 11 ITA NO.302 /COCH/2012 CO NO.20/COCH/2012 10. SIMILARLY, DONATION MADE TO COCHIN CHILD FOUNDA TION WAS INITIALLY DEPOSITED IN THE COMMERCIAL SPACE. IT IS WELL SETT LED PRINCIPLES OF LAW THAT WHEN THE CHARITABLE TRUST UTILISES THE FUNDS FOR CO NSTRUCTION OF KALYANA MANDAPAM AND USED THE INCOME FROM KALYANA MANDAPAM FOR CHARITABLE ACTIVITY IT WOULD AMOUNT TO UTILISATION OF FUNDS. SIMILARLY, IT IS FOUND THAT COCHIN CHILD FOUNDATION HAS COMMERCIAL SPACE FOR AU GUMENTING ITS INCOME SO THAT THE CHARITABLE ACTIVITY CAN BE CARRIED OUT CONTINUOUSLY. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE TAXPAYER. 11. NOW COMING TO BETHEL EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE T RUST, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED THAT THE LAND PURCHASED FROM TRUSTEES ARE WITHIN THE PIRAVOM TOWN AND THE L AND PURCHASED FROM OUTSIDERS ARE 5 KMS AWAY FROM PIRAVOM TOWN. IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT THE LAND WHICH IS SITUATED IN TOWN WOULD COST MORE THAN THE LAND WHICH IS SITUATED 5 KMS AWAY FROM THE TOWN. APART FROM THAT THE LAND PURCHASED FROM TRUSTEES ARE ADJACENT TO THE SCHOOL RUN BY THE TAXPAYER TRUST. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HOLD THAT THE PA YMENT OF SALE 12 ITA NO.302 /COCH/2012 CO NO.20/COCH/2012 CONSIDERATION IS AS PER THE PREVAILING MARKET RATE AND, NO BENEFIT WAS SHOWN TO ANY OF THE INTERESTED PERSON. 12. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAM E IS CONFIRMED. 13. NOW COMING TO THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE TAXPAY ER THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS FIXING OF FAIR MARKET V ALUE AS ON 01-04-1981. 14. WE HEARD SHRI THOMSON THOMAS, THE LD.REPRESENTA TIVE FOR THE TAXPAYER AND SHRI M ANIL KUMAR, THE LD.DR. THE CIT (A) FIXED THE VALUE AS ON 01-04-1981 AT RS.5,000 PER CENT FOR WORKING OUT THE VALUE OF CAPITAL GAIN. THE CLAIM OF THE TAXPAYER IS THAT IT SHOULD BE FIXE D AT RS.10,000 PER CENT. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER FIXED THE FAIR RENT AS ON 01-01-1981 AT RS.3,500. THE FAIR R ENT IS NOT A STATIC FIGURE. IT MAY VARY DEPENDING UPON VARIOUS FACTORS SUCH AS THE LOCALITY OF THE LAND, URGENCY TO SELL THE LAND, NECESSITY OF THE PURCHASE R TO PURCHASE THE LAND, ACCESS TO THE ROAD, RAILWAY STATION, AIRPORT, DISTA NCE BETWEEN THE LAND AND 13 ITA NO.302 /COCH/2012 CO NO.20/COCH/2012 THE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES AVAILABLE AROU ND THE AREA, ETC. NEED TO BE CONSIDERED. 15. THE ONLY CONTENTION OF THE TAXPAYER BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT COCHIN BYPASS WAS PROMINENT DURING 1980 WHICH RESUL TED A CONSIDERABLE APPRECIATION IN THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AROUND BY PASS AREA. THE TAXPAYER CLAIMS THAT THE LAND WAS SITUATED AROUND BYPASS ARE A. THE CIT(A), AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THE COCHIN BYPASS RO AD WAS FULLY DEVELOPED DURING 1976, FIXED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01-0 4-1981 AT RS.5,000. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND TH E CROSS OBJECTION OF THE TAXPAYER ARE 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.302 /COCH/2012 CO NO.20/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