M/s.Diamond Food Products, Ernakulam V. The ACIT, Aluva

CO 21/COCH/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5568 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 13-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 30-10-2018
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 17-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A S BINDHU
• Assessee Lawyers: K K CHANDRASEKHARAN
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Wrong claim
• Section: 40A(3); 133(6)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFOR E S/ SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI , AM & GEORGE GEORGE K., J M I .T.A. NO. 51 /COCH/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013 - 14 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX,CIRCLE - 1 , ALUVA. VS. M /S. DIAMOND F OOD PRODUCTS, P AVIZHAM BUILDING, KOOVAPADY, P.O. PER U MBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 683 544. [PAN:AAEFD 2458P] (REVENUE - APPELLANT) (ASSESSEE - RESPONDENT) C.O. NO. 21/COCH/2017 (ARISING OUT OF I .T.A. NO.51/COCH/2017) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013 - 14 M /S. DIAMOND F OOD PRODUCTS, P AVIZHAM BUILDING, KOOVAPADY, P.O.PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 6 83 544. [PAN:AAEFD 2458P] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX,CIRCLE - 1, ALUVA. (ASSESSEE - APPELLANT) (REVENUE - RESPONDENT) R EVENUE BY SMT. A.S. BINDHU, DR ASSESSEE BY SHRI K.K. CHANDRASEKHARAN, ADV. D ATE OF HEARING 30 /10/2018 DA TE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 13 / 1 1 /2018 I.T.A. NO . 51 /COCH/201 7 & CO NO.21/COCH/2017 2 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE C ROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - II, KOCHI DATED 14/12/2016 AND PERTAIN TO THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND S: 1) THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONSIDERING THAT THE DISALLOW ANCE HAS BEEN MADE U/S. 40A(3) WHEREAS THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ON THE GROUNDS OF PURCHASES NOT PROVED GENUINE (PARA 3.9 OF THE ORDER). IN PARA 4.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MERELY STATES WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE POSITION THAT THE PURCHASES WERE NOT GENUINE, ADDITION U/S. 40A(3) IS ALSO WARRANTED. 2) THE CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE PADASEKHARA SAM I THIES AND SOCIETIES THROUGH WHICH THE PURCHASES WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE, HAVE DENIED AN Y ROLE IN PROCUREMENT OF PADDY FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT REPLIES OF THREE PADASEKHARA SAMITHIES NAMELY; NANDYATTUKARI PADASEKHARA SAMITHY, THENKANRIPACHA PADASEKHARA SAMIATHY AND THEGUPALLIKARI PADASEKHARA SAMITHY IN R ESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 133(6) STATING THAT THEY HAD NO IN PROCUREMENT OF PADDY IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON PURCHASES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH THESE SAMITHIES IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER MAT ERIAL TO CONTRADICT THE FINDING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3) T HE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF PURCHASE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE TO THROUGH SOCIETIES AMOUNTING TO RS.3,27,49,659/ - WHEN THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE LIST OF PURCHASES MA DE SOCIETY - WISE THOUGH SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO CONSIDER THE STATEMENT OF ONE SUCH SOCIETY, ADAT FARMERS SCB WHEREIN THEY HAVE DENIED SELLING PADDY TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RELEVANT FINANC IAL YEAR. I.T.A. NO . 51 /COCH/201 7 & CO NO.21/COCH/2017 3 4) T HE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONCLUDI N G THAT PAYMENTS WERE MADE DIRECTLY TO FARMERS AS IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT ONLY 5 OUT OF 200 FARMERS QUERIED, HAVE CONFIRMED MAKING SALES TO THE ASSESSEE A ND THE SAMITHIES AND SOCIETIES THROUGH WHICH THE PURCHASES WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE HAVE DENIED SUCH SALE. 2.1 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE GROUND IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION THAT THE CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.16,14,411.00 B EING ALLEGED EXCESS OF PURCHASE VALUE @ 15 PAISE PER KG. FIXED ON 1,07,62,741 KG. OF PADDY PURCHASED FROM UN - REGISTERED DEALERS/FARMERS. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR CLAIMED TO HAVE MADE PURCHASES FROM UNREGISTERED D EALERS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.15,95,46,806/ - OUT OF THE TOTAL PURCHASES OF RS.68,01,32,694/ - WHICH AMOUNTED TO 23.45% OF THE PURCHASES. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF PURCHASES OF PADDY FROM UNREGISTERED DEALERS INCLUDING THEIR NAMES AN D ADDRESSES VIDE LETTER DATED 14/01/2016 AND THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A LIST ON 28/01/2016. IT WAS FOUND THAT THOUGH THE PURCHASE FROM UNREGISTERED DEALERS AMOUNTED TO RS.15,95,46,806/ - , THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE DETAILS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.66,18,529/ - ONL Y. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED TO FURNISH THE BALANCE DETAILS BY 09/02/2016. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE DETAILS RUNNING INTO 514 PAGES AND 8503 NAMES OF PERSONS FROM WHOM IT CLAIMED TO HAVE MADE THE PURCHASES. THE LETTERS WERE ISSUED TO 200 PERSONS TO CON FIRM AS TO WHETHER THEY SUPPLIED PADDY TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE LETTERS ALSO SOUGHT FOR DETAILS OF QUANTUM OF SALE, DETAILS I.T.A. NO . 51 /COCH/201 7 & CO NO.21/COCH/2017 4 OF LANDS OWNED AND DETAILS OF RECEIPT OF MONEY. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN BY T HE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE LETTERS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH PROOF WITH REGARD TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE FOLLOWING CLAIMS OF PURCHASES: 1. PURCHASE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM SOCIETIES RS.3,27,49,659/ - 2. PURCHASE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM NANDYATTUKARI PADASEKHARA SAMITHY RS.1,05,03,560/ - 3. PURCHASE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM RS. 45,45,950/ - THENKANRIPACHA PADASEKHARA SAMITHY 4. PURCHASE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM RS. 75,20,900/ - THENGUPALLIKARI PADASEKHARA SAMITHY TOTAL RS.5,53,20,069 / - 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO IDENTIFY THE PERSONS TO WHOM PAYMENT OF CASH TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5,53,20,069/ - WAS MADE DURING THE YEAR FOR PURCHASE OF PADDY. THEREFORE, THE PURCHASES WERE TREATED AS NOT GENUINE AND THE CLAIM OF EXPENSES OF RS.5,53,20,069/ - WAS DISALLOWED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE LETTERS ISSUED TO FARMERS WERE RETURNED IN MOST OF THE CASES WITH THE ENDORSEMENT NOT KNOWN. IT WAS NOTICED THAT MAJORITY O F THE REPLIES FROM THE FARMERS STATED THAT THEY DID NOT SELL PADDY TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FOUND THAT THREE PADASEKHARA SAMITHIES INFORMED THAT THEY DID NOT CO - ORDINATE PURCHASE OR SUPPLY OF PADDY FROM THEIR MEMBERS TO THE ASSESSEE . THE ADAT FARMERS SCB, A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY STATED THAT IT DID NOT SELL PADDY FROM ITS MEMBERS TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT I.T.A. NO . 51 /COCH/201 7 & CO NO.21/COCH/2017 5 THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE CONFIRMATION FOR PURCHASES IN RESPECT OF SOCIETIES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3,27,49,659/ - AND PROVE THAT ANY PAYMENT WAS MADE TO THEM WHICH PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEES PURCHASE IF REAL COULD NOT HAVE BEEN FROM FARMERS OR SOCIETIES BUT FROM UNIDENTIFIED SOURCES. THE PAYMENTS WERE BY CASH AND THE BENEFIT OF RULE 6DD COULD BE EXTENDED ONLY IF THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE T O THE CULTIVATOR OR A AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY. HENCE, THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS.5,53,20,069/ - U/S. 40A(3) OF THE ACT WAS DISALLOWED. 5. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE MAIN TAINED COMPLETE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF PURCHASES. THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT IT HAD ALSO MAINTAINED DAY BOOK, LEDGER, STOCK REGISTER, CASH PURCHASE REGISTER ETC. WHICH WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION. ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A), WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT FOUND ANY DEFECT IN THE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING STOCK REGISTER AND CASH PURCHASE REGISTER, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT PURCHASES WERE NOT GENUINE. THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT SINCE THE INVESTIGA TION CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS BASED ON WRONG PREMISE, HE REACHED ON WRONG CONCLUSION. THE CIT(A) REJECTED THE CONCLUSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ON ONE HAND PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO RS.5,53,20,069/ - WAS NOT GENUINE AND THEN MAKING DISALL OWANCE OF SECTION 40A (3). ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A), DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40A(3) IS MADE WHEN PAYMENTS ARE MADE IN EXCESS OF RS.20,000/ - . THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THESE TWO STATEMENTS ARE CONTRADICTORY TO EACH OTHER AND IF THE I.T.A. NO . 51 /COCH/201 7 & CO NO.21/COCH/2017 6 PAYMENTS ARE NOT GENUINE AND THE PUR CHASES ARE FICTITIOUS, NO QUESTION FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40A(3) ARISES. ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT A SINGLE INSTANCE WHERE PAYMENT OF MORE THAN RS.20,000/ - WAS MADE IN CASH TO ANY OF THE INDIVIDUAL SELLER/FARMER. THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY ASSUMED THAT PAYMENT OF RS.20,000/ - OR MORE WAS MADE IN CASH TO INDIVIDUAL FARMERS IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.5,53,20,069/ - . 5.1 ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A), WHERE CASH PAYMENT IS INVOLVED, IN ABSENCE OF ANY THIRD PARTY EVIDENCE, THE AUTHENTICITY OF PURCHASE PRICING CANNOT BE VOUCHED FOR. ON ANALYSIS OF THE PURCHASE PRICE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN PURCHASES FROM THE UNREGISTERED FARMERS @14.92 PER KG. COMPARED TO THE AVERAGE PRICE OF RS.14.82 PER KG. THE CIT(A) MADE DISALLOWANCE @0.15 RUPEES PER KG. PURCHASED FROM UNREGISTERED DEALERS AND THE DISALLOWANCE WAS WORKED OUT AS UNDER: QUANTITY PURCHASE 1,07,62,741 X 0.15 + RS.16,14,411 THUS ADDITI ON OF RS.16,14,411/ - WAS CONFIRMED AND BALANCE WAS DELETED. 6. AGAINST THIS, THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION WITHOUT GOING INTO THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THOUGH THERE WAS FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT PURCHASES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5,53,20,069/ - WERE BOGUS I.T.A. NO . 51 /COCH/201 7 & CO NO.21/COCH/2017 7 AND ALSO PAYMENTS TO THOSE PARTIES WERE MADE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5, 53,20,069/ - FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PROVED THE PURCHASES OF PADDY BE UPHELD. THUS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER IS TO BE UPHELD AND THAT OF THE CIT(A) REVERSED. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE PURCHASES AS BOGUS WITHOUT REJECTING THE STOCK REGISTER WHICH CONTAINED THE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF PURCHASES AND HE HAS NOT FOUND ANY DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND PURCHASE REGISTER. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE PURCHA SES WERE FROM FARMERS, EACH PURCHASE WAS LESS THAN RS.20,000/ - AND THE PAYMENT WAS ALSO LESS THAN RS.20,000/ - . ACCORDINGLY, HE JUSTIFIED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON DELETION OF THE ADDITION. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMI SSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUE D LETTER U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT SEEKING CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE PARTIES WHO SOLD PADDY IN 200 CASES. O UT OF THIS, IN 78 CASES POSTAL DEPARTMENT HAD RETURNED THE LETTERS TO ACIT WITH REMARKS SUCH AS: RETURN UNSERVED NOT KNOWN REFUSED BY ADDRESSEE INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS. NO SUCH ADDRESSEE IN THE HOUSE. I.T.A. NO . 51 /COCH/201 7 & CO NO.21/COCH/2017 8 FURTHER, MORE THAN 50 PERSONS WHO HELD RESPECTABLE POSITION FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE MADE PURCHASE OF PADDY HAD STATE D IN WRITING THAT THEY HAVE NOT MADE SALE OF PADDY TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A BOGUS CLAIM OF PURCHASE. SIMILARLY, ADAT FARMERS SCB HAD A LSO INFORMED THAT NO SALE OF PADDY WAS MADE TO THE ASSESSEE DURING 2013 - 14. FURTHER, THREE PADASEKHARA SAMITHIES HAD ALSO INFORMED THAT THEY NEITHER SOLD NOR ARRANGED SALE FROM THEIR MEMBERS . O NLY 5 OUT OF 200 PERSONS HAD CONFIRMED SALE OF PADDY TO THE ASSESSEE. 8.1 THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR IS THAT UNLESS AND UNTIL THE FOLLOWING FACTS, I.E. A) AUDITED STATEMENTS AND SUPPORTED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS INCLUDING STOCK REGISTER ARE INCORRECT. B) QUANTITY OF PADDY PURCHASED AND RICE SOLD ARE UNREAL. C) SHORTAGE OF CASH FOR MAKING PAYMENTS OR PAYMENTS MADE TO THE FARMERS AGAINST E ACH PURCHASE OF PADDY EXCEEDED RS.20,000/ - D) EVIDENCE TO DRAW THAT THE ENTIRE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION WHICH THE RESPONDENT HAD PAID IN CASH TO FARMERS HAS COME BACK TO THE RESPONDENT IN CASH. E) NO ADVERSE INFERENCE HAS BEEN DRAWN SO FAR AS THE SALES MA DE BY THE RESPONDENT. ARE NOT PROVED WITH SOLID EVIDENCE, NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE, IF IT IS MADE, THE SAME IS LIABLE FOR DELETION. I.T.A. NO . 51 /COCH/201 7 & CO NO.21/COCH/2017 9 8.2 IN OUR OPINION , THE QUESTION WAS NOT OF THE MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH IN FACT WERE AUDITED BUT O F BEING ABLE TO SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN THE ENTRIES MADE THEREIN TO EXPLAIN THE TRADING RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE , AS VERIFICATION OF THE PURCHASES BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HE CAME TO KNOW THAT THE PURCHASES ARE NOT GENUINE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED TH E AMOUNT OF RS. 5,53, 20,069/ AS BOGUS PURCHASE. HE ALSO MENTIONED THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 40 A(3) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, HE CONFINED THE ADDITION TOWARDS BOGUS PURCHASES. WHENEVER ASSESSEE MAKES AN ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAME. THE LD. AR MADE A PLEA THAT THE PURCHASES WERE MADE FROM THE FARMERS AND EACH PURCHASE WAS LESS THAN RS.20,000/ - AND EACH PAYMENT WAS ALSO LESS THAN RS.20,000/ - . THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF MAINT AINING THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE MADE THE PURCHASES AND HENCE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF TREATING THEM AS BOGUS PURCHASES OR APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 40 A(3) OF THE ACT. IN OUR OPINION, W HEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE PURCHASES AS NOT GENUINE , THAT ITSELF LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE S BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE REJECTED AND ADDITION WAS MADE. NOW THE ASSESSEE CANNOT MAKE A PLEA THAT THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE NOT REJECTED AND QUANTITATIVE DETAILS IN THE STOCK REGISTER WERE ACCEPTED. THIS IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT FOUND ANY DEFECT IN THE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING STOCK REGISTER AND CASH PURCHASE REGISTER. THIS I.T.A. NO . 51 /COCH/201 7 & CO NO.21/COCH/2017 10 FINDING O F THE CIT(A) IS NOT BASED ON APPRECIATION OF FACTUAL DETAILS. HENCE, WE VACA T E TH IS FINDING OF THE CIT(A). 8. 3 THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION TOWARDS THE BOGUS PURCHASES ON THE BASIS OF THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION AND CONDUCT AND NOT JUST NON MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. AS DISCUSSED EARLIER, WHENEVER THE ASSESSEE MAKES AN ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKS FOR EXPLANATION, THE ASSESSEE IS DUTY BOUND TO EXPLAIN EACH ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT. FURTHER, THERE IS NO FINDING BY THE CIT(A) THAT EACH PAYMENT IS LESS THAN RS.20,000/ - SO AS TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. IN OUR OPINION, IT IS PROPER TO REMIT THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE WHETHER EACH PURCHASE IS F ROM THE FARMERS AND EACH PAYMENT IS MORE THAN RS.20,000/ - SO AS TO ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. WITH THIS OBSERVATION, WE REMIT THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION , AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUN ITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE . THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. SINCE WE HAVE DISPOSED OF THE REVENUES APPEAL, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUO US. I.T.A. NO . 51 /COCH/201 7 & CO NO.21/COCH/2017 11 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. OR D ER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 13 TH NOVEMBER, 2018 SD/ - SD/ - ( GEORGE GEORGE K. ) ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: KOCHI DATED: 13 TH NOVEMBER , 2018 GJ COPY TO: 1 . M /S. DIAMOND F OOD PRODUCTS, P AVIZHAM BUILDING, KOOVAPADY, P.O. PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 683 544. 2. THE ASSISTANT C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE - 1, ALUVA. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (AP P EALS) - II , KOCHI. 4. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, KOCHI. 5. D. R., I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 6 . GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) I.T.A.T., COCHIN