The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd, Thrissur V. ACIt, Trichur

CO 36/COCH/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8296 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUSAN GEORGE VARGHESE
• Keywords: Depreciation; Proportionate interest; Question of law; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JM AND B.R.BASKAR AN, AM I.T.A. NO.541/COCH/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., ST MARYS COLLEGE ROAD, THRISSUR-680 020. [PAN: AABCT 0024D] VS. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-1, THRISSUR. (ASSESSEE-APPELLANT) (REVENUE- RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO. 545/COCH/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR. VS. THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., ST MARYS COLLEGE ROAD, THRISSUR-680 020. (REVENUE-APPELLANT) (ASSESSEE - RESPONDENT) C.O. NO. 36/COCH/2011 (ARSG. OUT OF I.T.A. NO.545/COCH/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., ST MARYS COLLEGE ROAD, THRISSUR-680 020. [PAN: AABCT 0024D] VS. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-1, THRISSUR. (ASSESSEE-APPELLANT) (REVENUE- RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI G. SARANGAN, SR. COUNSEL FOR SHRI JOSE POTTOKK ARAN, CA REVENUE BY SMT. SUSAN GEORGE VARGHESE, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 08/01/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 08/03/2013 I.T.A. NOS. 541 & 545/COCH/2011 & C.O. NO.36/COCH/2011 2 O R D E R PER B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE CROSS APPEALS AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02-06-2011 PASSED BY THE LD . CIT(A)-V, KOCHI AND THEY RELATE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER, FOR THE SAKE OF C ONVENIENCE. 3. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE STATED IN BRI EF. THE ASSESSMENT RELATING TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS COMPLETED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BY MAKING VARIOUS TYPES OF ADDITIONS. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) CHALLENGING THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDE R WAS PARTLY ALLOWED. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE HAVE TABULATED BELOW THE ADDITIO NS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A). DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) SL. NO. ADDITIONS MADE BY AO AMOUNT CONFIRMED SET A SIDE DELETED 1. BAD DEBTS 118367726 _/ 2. BAD DEBTS(INCLUDED IN OTHER EXPENDITURE) 1613937 _/ 3. PENSION PAYMENT 1246000 _/ 4. AMORTISATION OF PREMIUM ON PURCHASE OF INVESTMENTS 71052000 _/ 5. DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A ON DIVIDEND INCOME 2152000 _/ 6. UNCLAIMED OVERDUE DEPOSITS 1584524 _/ 7. SURPLUS ON SALE OF JEWELLERY 386565 _/ 8. EXCESS CASH 133533 _/ 9. DEPRECIATION IN HELD TO MATURITY INVESTMENTS 24650000 _/ AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A), BOTH TH E PARTIES ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. I.T.A. NOS. 541 & 545/COCH/2011 & C.O. NO.36/COCH/2011 3 4. WE SHALL FIRST TAKE UP THE APPEAL FILED BY THE A SSESSEE. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATE TO THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:- (A) DISALLOWANCE OF BAD DEBTS : RS. 11,99,81,663/ - (B) DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A ON DIVIDEND INCOME : RS . 21,52,000/- (C) SURPLUS REALISED ON SALE OF JEWELLERY : RS. 3 ,86,565/- (D) ASSESSMENT OF EXCESS CASH FOUND : RS. 1,33,53 3/-. (E) DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON HELD TO MATUR ITY INVESTMENTS : RS. 2,46,50,000/- . 5. THE FIRST ISSUE RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 11.99 CRORES. BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED THAT THE ISSU E NEEDS RE-EXAMINATION AT THE END OF THE AO, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE REPORTED IN 343 ITR 270 ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE TH E MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, REFERRED SUPRA. 6. THE NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S. 14A OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE DIVIDEND INCOME. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN I.T.A. NO. 467/2009 DATED 21 .10.2010 HAS CONSIDERED AN IDENTICAL ISSUE WHEREIN THE HIGH COURT HAS RESTORED THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF PROPORTIONATE INTEREST TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF PROPORTIONATE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. THE HON BLE HIGH COURT ALSO RENDERED AN IDENTICAL DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DHANALAKS HMY BANK LTD (2012)(344 ITR 259). IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, REFERRED SUPRA, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE NEEDS RE-EXAMINATION AT THE END OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED IN A CCORDANCE WITH THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. WALFORT SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS P LTD (2010)(326 ITR 1). ACCORDINGLY, WE SE T ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE SAME TO THE FILE OF T HE AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO EXAMINE I.T.A. NOS. 541 & 545/COCH/2011 & C.O. NO.36/COCH/2011 4 THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF TH E HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT AND ALSO THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT, REFERRED SUP RA. 7. THE NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT OF SURP LUS REALISED ON SALE OF JEWELLERY. THE ASSESSEE AUCTIONS THE JEWELLERY PLEDGED AS SECU RITY BY THE DEFAULTING BORROWERS IN ORDER TO RE-COUP THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE. ON SALE OF JEWELLERY, THE BANK SOME TIMES REALISES MONEY IN EXCESS OF THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE AND SUCH EXCESS AMOUNTS WERE HELD BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED TO TAX BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER, SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH BREAK-UP OF THESE AMOUNTS AND THE DAY FROM WHICH SUCH AMOUNTS ARE RETAINED BY THE BANK. IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR, ON IDENTICAL REASONING, A SUM OF RS.30,14,201/- OUT WAS ASSESSED TO TAX. IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED A SUM OF RS.3,86,565/- A S THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAME. IT WAS BROUGHT TO OU R NOTICE THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT OF KERALA AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE I.T.A. 101/2011 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 20-03-2012. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE EXTRACT BELOW THE RELEV ANT OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. SO FAR AS THE THIRD QUESTION IS CONCERNED, THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE SURPLUS AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE SALE OF OLD GOLD ORNAMENTS PLEDGED TO THE BANK KEPT IN THE SUSPENSE ACCOUNT IS INCOME ASSESSABLE AT THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CONTENTION RAISED B Y SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT TREATED IT AS T HEIR INCOME AND SO LONG AS IT IS KEPT IN THE SUSPENSE ACCOUNT, IT CANNOT BE TR EATED AS ASSESSEES INCOME. HOWEVER, ON GOING THROUGH THE TRIBUNALS O RDER WHAT WE NOTICE IS THAT AMOUNTS ARE KEPT IN SUSPENSE ACCOUNT FOR SEVER AL YEARS AND EVEN THE BORROWERS WHOSE GOLD ARE SOLD, ARE NOT TRACEABLE. SO MUCH SO, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ASSESSEE TO RETAIN T HE AMOUNT PERPETUALLY IN SUSPENSE ACCOUNT AND TO CLAIM EXEMPTION. IN VIEW O F THE FINDING OF FACT BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THERE IS NO CLAIMANT TRACEABLE FO R REPAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY EFFORT TO TRACE THE CUSTOMER FOR REPAYMENT OF AMOUNT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATI ON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. CONSEQUENTLY, THIS ISSUE IS ANSWERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND WE REJECT THE APPEAL ON THIS GROUND. I.T.A. NOS. 541 & 545/COCH/2011 & C.O. NO.36/COCH/2011 5 8. DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING, THE LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO SEC. 176 OF INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 AND CONTENDED THAT THE SURPLUS REALISED ON SALE OF JEWELLERY HAS TO BE RETURNED BA CK TO THE BORROWER AS PER THE SAID PROVISIONS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COU RT OF KERALA HAS RENDERED ITS DECISION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, REFERRED SUPRA. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE EXTRACT BELOW THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 176 OF INDIAN CONTRACT ACT: THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 176. PAWNEES RIGHT WHERE PAWNOR MAKES DEFAULT. IF THE PAWNOR MAKES DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF THE DEBT, OR PERFORMANCE, AT THE STIPULATED TIME, OR THE PROMISE, IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE GOODS WERE PLEDGED, THE PAWNEE MAY BRING AS SUIT AGAINST THE P AWNOR UPON THE DEBT OR PROMISE, AND RETAIN THE GOODS PLEDGED AS A COLLATERAL SECURITY; OR HE MAY SELL THE THING PLEDGED, ON GIVING THE PAW NOR REASONABLE NOTICE OF THE SALE. IF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH SALE ARE LESS THAN THE AMOU NT DUE IN RESPECT OF THE DEBT OR PROMISE, THE PAWNOR IS STILL LIABLE TO PAY THE BALANCE. IF THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE ARE GREATER THAN THE AMOUNT SO DUE, THE PAWNEE SHALL PAY OVER THE SURPLUS TO THE PAWNOR. 9. HOWEVER, AT THIS POINT OF TIME, WE ARE BOUND BY THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ACCOR DINGLY, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT, WE DECIDE THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY, UPHOLD THE ORDER OF T HE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE 10. THE NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF EXCESS C ASH OF RS. 1,33,533/-. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME ARE EXPLAINED IN BRIEF. THE C ASHIER OF ALL BRANCHES HAS TO TALLY THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS OF CASH OF EACH DAY WITH THE RECORD MAINTAINED BY THE ACCOUNTANT. SOMETIMES, IT SO HAPPENS THAT THE CASH BALANCE PHYSICALLY AVAILABLE WITH THE CASHIER MAY EXCEED THE CASH BALANCE THAT SHOULD BE AVAILABLE WITH HIM. THIS MAY SO HAPPEN FOR VARIOUS REASONS. TO NAME FEW, THE CUSTOM ER MIGHT HAVE REMITTED MORE THAN WHAT WAS ACTUALLY MENTIONED IN THE CHALLAN OR THE C ASHIER MIGHT HAVE DISBURSED LESSER I.T.A. NOS. 541 & 545/COCH/2011 & C.O. NO.36/COCH/2011 6 AMOUNT THAN THAT MENTIONED IN THE CHEQUE LEAF. THE BANKS USUALLY TREAT THE EXCESS CASH AS ITS LIABILITY, AS THE BANK MAY RECEIVE CLA IM FROM THE CONCERNED PARTY AT ANY POINT OF TIME. HOWEVER, THE AO TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE SAME REPRESENTS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAID VIEW WAS ALSO UPHELD BY LD CI T(A). 11. THIS ISSUE HAS SINCE BEEN DECIDED BY THE HONBL E JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN I.T.A. 98/2011 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 20-03-2012. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE EXTRAC T BELOW THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN THE CAS E CITED ABOVE. NEXT QUESTION PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT OF EXCESS CA SH IN THE CUSTODY OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS KEPT IN SUSPENSE ACCOUNT UNDER T HE HEAD OTHER LIABILITIES AND PROVISIONS. ON GOING THROUGH THE TRIBUNALS OR DER WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE THEMSELVES CONCEDED THAT THE AMOUNT IS EXC ESS CASH WITH THEM RETAINED FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND THERE IS NO CLAIMANT FOR THE SAME. WE DO NOT KNOW WHY IT IS NOT INCOME AS THE ASSESSEE THEMSELVE S HAVE NO CASE THAT IT IS PAYABLE TO ANYBODY OR IT IS A LIABILITY DUE FROM ASSESSEE TO ANY PERSON. WE DO NOT FIND ANY QUESTION OF LAW ARISING FROM DEC ISION OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THIS ISSUE WHEREIN THE FINDING RECORDED IS THAT THE AMOUNT DOES NOT REPRESENT LIABILITY AND IT IS WRONGLY SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS LIABILITY. EVEN THOUGH COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED ON DECI SION OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. BANK OF RAJAS THAN REPORTED IN (2010) 40 DTR (BOM.) 173, WHAT WE NOTIC E IS THAT UNLIKE IN THIS CASE CASH FOUND IS NOT EXCESS CARRIED OVER FOR SEVE RAL YEARS BUT IS EXCESS CASH AVAILABLE IN THE IMMEDIATE PAST YEAR. SO MUCH SO, WHEN THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF ANY ONE CLAIMING ANY AMOUNT AGAINST THIS SURPLUS IN THE SUSPENSE ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN OUR VIEW, APPELLANT CANNOT TREAT IT AS A LIABILITY OR A PROVISION FOR LIABILIT Y. FURTHER, AS AND WHEN A CLAIM IS MADE AND THE APPELLANT HAS TO MAKE ANY PAYMENT, THE SAME WILL BE ALLOWABLE AS A DEDUCTION IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE C LAIM IS MADE. SO MUCH SO, IN OUR VIEW, THE TRIBUNAL RIGHTLY REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ATLEAST IN RESPECT OF THE ARREARS CARRIED OVER SEVE RAL YEARS. HOWEVER, WE FEEL THAT THE EXCESS FOUND DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR NEED NOT BE TREATED AS INCOME AND CAN BE TREATED AS SURPLUS IN THE SUSPENS E ACCOUNT FOR THREE YEARS TO MEET A LIABILITY IN THE EVENT OF ANY CLAIM BEING MADE. WE, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL ON T HIS ISSUE IN RESPECT OF ARREARS BROUGHT FORWARD EXCEPT RS. 95,000/- WHICH I S THE EXCESS FOUND IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR. I.T.A. NOS. 541 & 545/COCH/2011 & C.O. NO.36/COCH/2011 7 12. SINCE THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF KERALA, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH HIS DECISION ON THIS I SSUE. 13. THE NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF C LAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON HELD TO MATURITY INVESTMENT. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR SUBMIT TED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN I.T.A. NO. 38/2010 DATED 24-02-2011. HENCE WE ARE OF THE VIE W THAT THIS ISSUE NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED AFRESH AT THE END OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER . ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE T HE SAME TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE SAME AFRESH BY DULY CONSID ERING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN I.T.A. NO. 38/2010, REFERRE D SUPRA. 14. THE ONLY ISSUE URGED IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 7,10,52,000/- PERTAINING TO AMO RTIZATION OF PREMIUM ON PURCHASE OF GOVERNMENT SECURITIES. THE ASSESSEE IS SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IN THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY IT. 15. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE ABOVE SAI D CLAIM BY HOLDING THAT THE PREMIUM GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF PURCHA SING PERMANENT CATEGORY OF INVESTMENT IS CAPITAL IN NATURE. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) GRANTED RELIEF BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN I.T.A. NO. 106/COCH/2009 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97. THE REV ENUE IS ASSAILING THE SAID DECISION OF LD CIT(A). WE NOTICE THAT THIS BENCH OF THE TRI BUNAL CONSIDERED AN IDENTICAL ISSUE IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.74/COCH/2011 RELA TING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07 AND THE TRIBUNAL, VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 05-07-201 2, DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE EXTRACT BELOW THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ABOVE SAID ORDER. 6. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A COPY OF ORDER DATED 11-02-2011 PASSED BY THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE I N ITA NOS. 10 & I.T.A. NOS. 541 & 545/COCH/2011 & C.O. NO.36/COCH/2011 8 66/COCH/2009 RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-0 6. IN PARAGRAPHS 11 AND 12 OF THE SAID ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED A N IDENTICAL ISSUE AND UPHELD THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD CIT(A) IN THAT YEAR, BY FO LLOWING THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.106/COCH/2009 REFERRED SU PRA. SINCE THE TRIBUNAL IS TAKING A CONSISTENT VIEW IN THE IMPUGNED ISSUE AND SINCE THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE LD CIT(A) IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SAID VIE W, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH HIS DECISION ON THIS ISSUE. THUS, WE NOTICE THAT THE TRIBUNAL IS CONSISTENTLY T AKING THE DECISION ON THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO NOTICE THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE E IN EARLIER YEARS IN ITA NO.10/COCH/2009 DATED 11.02.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2005-06 AND IN ITA NO.106/COCH/2004 RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 19 96-97. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH HIS DECISION ON THIS I SSUE. 16 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AN D THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY ON 08 -03-20 13 SD/- SD/- (N.R.S.GANESAN) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: ERNAKULAM DATED: 8TH MARCH, 2013 GJ COPY TO: 1. THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., ST MARYS COLLEGE ROAD, THRISSUR-680 020. 2. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-1, T HRISSUR. 3.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), THRISSUR. 3.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-V, KOCHI 4.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, THRISSUR. 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) I.T.A.T, COCHIN