G.P.Josekuttan, Cochin V. DCIt, Cochin

CO 34/COCH/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8359 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-01-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 20-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.314/COCH/2011 CO 34/COCH/2011 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. 314/COCH/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08) THE DY.CIT, CIR.2(1) VS SHRI G.P. JOSEKUTTAN ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-18 9B, LINK HEIGHTS PANAMPILLY NAGAR AVENUE-1, ERNAKULAM KOCHI-682 036 PAN : ACIPJ9039Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.34/COCH/2011 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A NO. 314/COCH/2011) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08) SHRI G.P. JOSEKUTTAN VS DY.CIT, CIR.2(1) KOCHI 36 KOCHI 18 (CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SMT. SUSAN GEORGE VARGHESE TAXPAYER BY : SHRI R KRISHNA IYER DATE OF HEARING : 08-01-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28-03-2013 2 ITA NO.314/COCH/2011 CO 34/COCH/2011 O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENMUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF CIT(A)-II, KOCHI DATED 11-01-2011 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2007-08. THE TAXPAYER HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTION AGAINST THE VERY SAME ORDER OF CIT(A). THEREFORE, WE HEARD THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT AN D THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE TAXPAYER TOGETHER AND DISPOSE OF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. LET US FIRST TAKE REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.314 /COCH/2011. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS DISALLOWANCE OF C OST OF IMPROVEMENT. 3. SMT. SUSAN GEORGE VERGHESE, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE TAXPAYER CLAIMED COST OF IMPROVEMENT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,2 5,07,673 AND ANOTHER SUM OF RS. 32,83,956 WHILE COMPUTING THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, THERE WAS A SURVEY IN THE P REMISES OF THE TAXPAYER AND NO VOUCHERS / BILLS IN RESPECT OF THE EXPENSES WERE FOUND. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE TAXPAYER HAS FILED ONLY PHOTOCOPIES OF HANDWRITTEN RECEIPTS. THE LANGUAGE USED IN THE REC EIPTS IS COMMON IN NATURE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THA T THE CLAIM OF 3 ITA NO.314/COCH/2011 CO 34/COCH/2011 IMPROVEMENT COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE CLAIM. ON APPEAL BY THE TAXP AYER, THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THERE WERE DEFECTS IN THE VOUCHERS PRODUCED BY THE TAXPAYER, THEREFORE, RELIANCE COULD NOT BE FULLY PLACED ON TH OSE EVIDENCES. THE CIT(A) FURTHER FOUND THAT THE TAXPAYER WAS ABLE TO SELL TH E LAND AT 4 TO 5 TIMES MORE THAN THE PURCHASE PRICE WITHIN A SHORT PERIOD WHICH SHOWS THAT THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT IN THE LAND. THE CIT(A ) FURTHER FOUND THAT SINCE THE TAXPAYER COULD NOT FILE ALL THE VOUCHERS, STILL HE ESTIMATED THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT AT 70% OF THE TOTAL CLAIM. ACCORDIN G TO THE LD.DR, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE COST OF IMPROV EMENT, THE SAME CANNOT BE ALLOWED WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI S KRISHNA IYER, THE LD.REP RESENTATIVE FOR THE TAXPAYER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NO T CORRECT IN SAYING THAT NO BILLS OR VOUCHERS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM. IN RES PONSE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICERS LETTER DATED 01-10-2009, THE TAXPAYER HAS FILED VOUCHERS AND DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRES ENTATIVE, BY A LETTER DATED 28-12-2009, THE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE RECEIPTS FOR PAY MENT OF IMPROVEMENT 4 ITA NO.314/COCH/2011 CO 34/COCH/2011 WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN ALL TH E RECEIPTS, THE NAME AND FULL ADDRESSES ARE AVAILABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY ENQUIRY ON THE COPIES OF THE RECEIPTS FILED BY THE TAXPAYER. THE ONLY OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATI VE, IS THAT THE RECEIPTS DO NOT CONTAIN DATE OF PAYMENT AND QUANTITY OF SOIL. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MA DE ANY ENQUIRY. NO ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE TAXPAYER H AS ACTUALLY IMPROVED THE LAND OR NOT? AS PER THE AGREEMENT WITH M/S PUR AVANKARA PROJECT LTD, THE TAXPAYER HAS TO CARRY OUT CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS / DEVELOPMENT ON THE PROPERTY. ON THE BASIS OF THE CONTENTIONS OF THE T AXPAYER THE CIT(A) CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT. EVEN IN THE REMAND REPORT THE A SSESSING OFFICER REITERATED THAT THE VOUCHERS FILED BY THE TAXPAYER ARE DEFECTIVE IN NATUE WITHOUT MAKING ANY ENQUIRY. THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT MERELY BECAUSE NO MATERIAL WAS OBTAINED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATION, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE TXPAYER HAS NO T INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE FOR IMPROVING THE LAND. THE LD.REPRESE NTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SALE PRICE WAS 11 TIMES HIGHER T HAN THE PURCHASE PRICE. THE VOUCHERS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER CON TAINED THE NAME AND 5 ITA NO.314/COCH/2011 CO 34/COCH/2011 ADDRESSES OF THE RECIPIENTS AND THE NATURE OF WORK DONE BY THEM. WHEN THE TAXPAYER HAS FILED THE VOUCHERS / RECEIPTS WHIC H CONTAINED THE NAME AND ADDRESSES OF THE RECIPIENTS AND THE NATURE OF W ORK DONE BY THEM IT IS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE FURTHER ENQUIRY T O FIND OUT WHETHER, IN FACT, THE LAND WAS DEVELOPED OR NOT, AS CLAIMED BY THE TAXPAYER. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ENQUIRY, ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESE NTATIVE, THE CLAIM OF THE TAXPAYER CANNOT BE DISALLOWED AT ALL. THE LD.REPRE SENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT A MERE PHYSICAL VERIFICATION OF THE LAND WOULD CLEA RLY SHOW THAT THE SUBJECT LAND WAS IMPROVED / DEVELOPED A LOT BY INVESTING HU GE AMOUNTS. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS 15 FT BELOW THE ROAD LEVEL AND IT HAD TO BE RAISED TO THAT EXTENT TO BRING THE LAND TO THE ROAD LEVEL. THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT 21 FT COMPOUND WALL WAS ALSO CONSTRUCTED. FOR ERECTING THE COMPOUND WALL, THE F OUNDATION WAS RAISED FROM 6 FT CANAL. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIV E, THE LABOUR CHARGES, SAND AND MUD CHARGES, ETC ARE PAID IN CASH. THE TA XPAYER HAS ALSO INCURRED EXPENDITURE ON GRANITE. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AD ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE EXPENDITURE HE COULD HAVE INSPECTED THE SITE EVEN A T THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT INSPECT ED THE SITE AT ALL. 6 ITA NO.314/COCH/2011 CO 34/COCH/2011 ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE LABOURERS A RE ILLITERATE AND THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN CASH TO THOSE ILLITERATE EMPL OYEES, TRUCK DRIVERS, ETC. 5. THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE TAXPAYER FURTHER S UBMITTED THAT THE TAXPAYER HAS LISTED ALL THE ITEMS OF IMPROVEMENT WH ICH HAVE MADE THE LAND AN ATTRAVICE AND SALEABLE PIECE AS COMPARED TO THE SHAPE IN WHICH IT WAS PURCHASED. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESEN TATIVE, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF IMPROVEMENT INS TEAD OF RESTRICTING THE SAME TO 70%. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, T HE TAXPAYER HAS FILED THE CROSS OBJECTION IN RESPECT OF THE REMAINING 30% OF THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT DISALLOWED BY THE CIT(A). THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF THE TAXPAYER TOWARDS THE COST OF IM PROVEMENT HAS TO BE ALLOWED. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE TAXP AYER CLAIMED COST OF IMPROVEMENT FOR COMPUTING THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GA IN AND LONG TERM 7 ITA NO.314/COCH/2011 CO 34/COCH/2011 CAPITAL GAIN. ADMITTEDLY, THE TAXPAYER HAS FILED X EROX COPIES OF THE HANDWRITTEN RECEIPTS IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPROVEMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER, REJECTED THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT IT DO ES NOT CONTAIN THE DATE OF PAYMENT, QUANTITY OF EARTH, MODE OF PAYMENT, ETC . THE CLAIM OF THE TAXPAYER IS THAT THE XEROX COPIES OF THE RECEIPTS S UBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONTAINED THE NAME OF THE RECIPIE NT AND THE NATURE OF WORK DONE BY THEM. FROM THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUT HORITIES IT IS APPEARS THAT THE MAJOR CLAIM TOWARDS IMPROVEMENT IS FILLING UP OF THE LAND BY SAND / EARTH. THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FOR FILLING UP OF LOW LYING AREA IS BEING DONE BY AN UNORGANISED SECTOR. THE ILLITERATE LABO URERS ARE BEING EMPLOYED FOR FILLING UP OF THE LAND. THEREFORE, SALARY, OTH ER WAGES, ETC. HAS TO BE NECESSARILY PAID IN CASH. IN THIS CASE, THE TAXPAY ER HAS FILED HANDWRITTEN RECEIPTS WITH NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE RECIPIENTS AND PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE AMOUNT WAS PAID. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) APPAREN TLY CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. EVEN DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY ATTEMPT TO EXAMI NE THE RECIPIENT OF THE MONEY AS PER THE RECEIPTS FILED BY THE TAXPAYER AND HE HAS NOT TAKEN ANY PAIN TO VISIT THE CONCERNED LAND TO MAKE A LOCAL EN QUIRY. THE ASSESSING 8 ITA NO.314/COCH/2011 CO 34/COCH/2011 OFFICER HAS SIMPLY REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE TAXPAY ER ON THE GROUND THAT THE VOUCHERS ARE DOUBTFUL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS A LSO FOUND THAT NO DOCUMENT WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPER ATION. MERELY BECAUSE NO DOCUMENT WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATION DOES NOT MEAN THAT NO COST WAS INCURRED FOR IMPROVE MENT OF THE LAND. IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE TAXPA YER HAS FILED COPIES OF THE RECEIPTS WHICH CONTAINED NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE RECIPIENTS AND THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT WAS PAID. THEREFORE, ON T HAT BASIS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE MADE ENQUIRY AND FOUND OUT WH ETHER THE CLAIM OF THE TAXPAYER IS CORRECT OR NOT? IN RESPECT OF SHORT TE RM CAPITAL GAIN, THE LAND WAS SOLD 4 TO 5 TIMES ABOVE THE PURCHASE PRICE. WI TH REGARD TO THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN, THE LAND WAS SOLD 11 TIMES HIGHE R THAN THE PURCHASE PRICE. THE TAXPAYER SPECIFICALLY CLAIMS THAT THE L AND IN QUESTION WAS 15 FT BELOW THE ROAD LEVEL AND HE HAD TO RAISE THE LAND B Y FILLING EARTH UPTO 15FT TO BRING THE SAME TO ROAD LEVEL. THE TAXPAYER HAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT 21 FT COMPOUND WALL WAS CONSTRUCTED FROM A DEPTH OF 6 FT CANAL. LABOUR CHARGES, SAND / MUD CHARGES WERE ALSO TO BE PAID. THE TAXPAYER HAS ALSO INCURRED EXPENDITURE ON GRANITE. IN SPITE OF THESE DETAILS, THE ASSESSING 9 ITA NO.314/COCH/2011 CO 34/COCH/2011 OFFICER FILED HIS REMAND REPORT WITHOUT ANY ENQUIRY ON THE GROUND THAT THE VOUCHERS ARE DOUBTFUL. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CON SIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THE VOUCHERS ARE DOUBTFUL W ITHOUT CONDUCTING ANY PROPER ENQUIRY EVEN THOUGH AN OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) BY CALLING FOR A REMAND REPORT. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCE S, THE CIT(A), AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE DEFECTS IN THE RECEIPTS H AS RESTRICTED THE EXPENDITURE TO 70% OF THE TOTAL CLAIM. THIS TRIBUN AL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT ON THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AN D AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT FILED BY THE TAXPAYER, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY EXERCISED HIS DISCRETION IN RESTRICTING THE EXPENDITURE TO 70% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE CLAIMED FOR DEVELOPMENT / IMPROVEMENT. THIS TRIBUN AL DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ACC ORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 7. NOW COMING TO THE CROSS OBJECTION, THE FIRST GRO UND IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF PART OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT. WHILE CONSIDERING THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY RESTRICTED THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT AT 70%. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUN AL DID NOT FIND ANY 10 ITA NO.314/COCH/2011 CO 34/COCH/2011 INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND C ONFIRMED THE ORDER. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF CROSS OBJECTION FAILS. 8. THE NEXT GROUND IS WITH REGARD TO CLASSIFICATIN OF THE INCOME. 9. SHRI KRISHNA IYER, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE TAXPAYER SUBMITTED THAT THE TAXPAYER IS NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF DEALING IN REAL ESTATE. THEREFORE, THE PROFIT ON SALE OF THE LAND CANNOT BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE INCOME OUGH T TO HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE S. 10. ON THE CONTRARY, SMT. SUSAN GEORGE VARGHESE, TH E LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE TAXPAYER EARNED COMMISSION AND BROKERAGE F ROM REAL ESTATE DEALINGS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY A LE TTER DATED 01-10-2009 ASKED THE TAXPAYER TO EXPLAIN WHY THE INCOME FROM C OMMISSION AND BROKERAGE SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM BUS INESS. THE TAXPAYER EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006- 07 A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF COMMISSION WAS RECEIVED LIKE A WINDFALL WHICH IS 11 ITA NO.314/COCH/2011 CO 34/COCH/2011 NOT THE REGULAR SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE TAXPAYER. THEREFORE, IT HAS TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND NOT AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTED LY, THE TAXPAYER HAS RECEIVED COMMISSION AND BROKERAGE FROM REAL ESTATE BUSINESS. THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL DEALINGS IN REAL ESTATE AND THE TAXPAYER HAS EARNED PROFIT BY WAY OF COMMISSION / BROKERAGE. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES HAVE RIGHTLY CLASSIFIED THE COMMISSION / BROKERAGE AS INCOME FR OM BUSINESS. THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 12. THE NEXT GROUND IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF R S.25,93,500 AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 12 ITA NO.314/COCH/2011 CO 34/COCH/2011 13. SHRI KRISHNA IYER, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR TH E TAXPAYER SUBMITTED THAT THE TAXPAYER INTRODUCED RS.1,21,30,500 IN THE COMPANY ACCOUNTS DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 OUT OF WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE INVESTMENT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.95,37,0 00. THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.25,93,500 WAS ADDED ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS NOT EXPLAINED. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION WITHOUT ANY REASONING. THE LD.REPRESENTAT IVE SUBMITTED THAT THE TAXPAYER IS IN BUSINESS FOR SO MANY YEARS AND HAS D ECLARED HUGE INCOMES FOR TAXATION. 14. WE HEARD, SMT. SUSAN GEORGE VERGHESE, THE LD.DR ALSO. 15. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTED LY, THE TAXPAYER IS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF LINK INDIA PVT LTD. A CASH CR EDIT WAS FOUND TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,21,30,500 OUT OF WHICH RS.95,37,000 WAS BY TRANSFER FROM SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT. THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.2 5,93,500 WAS CASH CREDIT. THE TAXPAYER CLAIMED THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM 13 ITA NO.314/COCH/2011 CO 34/COCH/2011 PURAVANKARA PROJECTS LTD. HOWEVER, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL IT WAS FOUND THAT THE TAXPAYER HAS NOT PROVED THE SOURCE F OR THE INVESTMENT. NO RE-CONCILIATION STATEMENT WAS ALSO FILED. THEREFOR E, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.25,93,500. IN THE ABSENCE OF A NY MATERIAL, THE CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER. EVEN BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, NO MATERIAL IS FILED BY THE TAXPAYER. TH EREFORE, THE CASH CREDIT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.25,93,500 CANNOT BE ALLOWED. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITY HAS RIG HTLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER O F THE CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED. 16. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE A ND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE TAXPAYER ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 28 TH MARCH, 2013. SD/- SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN, DT : 28 TH MARCH, 2013 PK/- 14 ITA NO.314/COCH/2011 CO 34/COCH/2011 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