M/s.Anson financial holdings, Ernakulam V. The ITO, Kottayam

CO 49/COCH/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9237 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 03-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 30-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K JOHN
• Assessee Lawyers: JAMESKUTTY ANTONY
• Keywords: Fair market value
• Section: 139

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 468 & CO 49/ COCH/ 2013 1 IN THE INCOME TAX A P PEL LATE TIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH , COCHIN BEFORE S/SH RI N.R.S. GANESAN, JM & B. R. BASKARAN, AM ITA NO. 468 /COCH/ 2013 & CROSS OBJECTION NO. 49/COCH/2013 (ASST YEAR 2008 - 09 ) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, KOTTAYAM VS M/S ANSON FINANCIAL HO LIDAYS 2 ND FLOOR PENDANATHUR PLAZA PALA, KOTTAYAM 686 575 ( APPELLANT /RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT /CROSS OBJECTOR ) PAN NO. AAOFA7377A ASSESSEE BY SRI JAMESKUTTY ANTONY REVENUE BY SHRI K K JOHN, JR DR DATE OF HEARING 6 TH NOV 2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 3 RD JAN 2014 OR D ER PER B.R. BASKARAN, AM: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.2.2013 PASSED B Y THE LD CIT(A) - IV, KOCHI AND THEY RELATE TO THE AY 2008 - 09. 2 THE APP EAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS BARRED BY LIMITATION BY 60 DAYS. SIMILARLY, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BARRED BY LIMITATION BY 21 DAYS. BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE FILED PETITION REQUESTING THE BENCH TO CONDONE THE DELAY . WE HEARD THE PARTIES ON THESE PRIMARY IS SUE S . HAVING REGARD TO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THEIR RESPECTIVE PETITION, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FOR HEARING. ITA NO. 468 & CO 49/ COCH/ 2013 2 3 THE GROUNDS NO. 1 & 7 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE. THE GROUND NO.2 & 3 RELATE TO THE V ALIDITY OF REDUCTION OF DISALLOWANCE MADE FROM SALARY EXPENSES FROM 10% TO 5%. THE GROUND NO. 4 RELATES TO N ON - CONSIDERATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF AGENTS INCENTIVE EXPENSES U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. WE NOTICE THAT T HE GROUNDS 5 & 6 RAISED BY THE REVENUE DO NOT ARISE OUT OF EITHER TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER OR THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A). HENCE , THE LD DR WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE REASON FOR URGING TH OS E GROUND S BEFORE US. IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE LD DR SOUGHT CLAR IFICATION S FROM THE A O, WHO HAS CLARIFIED THAT TH OSE G ROUNDS WERE RAISED TO SUPPORT THE GR OUND RELATING TO THE DISALLOWANCE TO BE MADE 40A(2)(B)OF THE ACT. THUS WE NOTICE THAT WE NEED TO ADJUDICATE THE FOLLOWING TWO ISSUES: - (A) REDUCTION OF DISALLOWANCE MADE FROM SALARY EXPENSES. (B) DISALLOWANCE OF AG ENTS INCENTIVE EXPENSES U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. 4. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE S REFERRED ABOVE ARE STATED IN BRIEF. THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM CONSISTING OF 8 PARTNERS . IT IS ENGAGED IN SHARE BROKING BUSINESS BY UNDERTAKING FRANCHISE LICEN SE FROM M/S JRG SECURITIES LTD. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HA S CLAIMED A SUM OF RS.42,00,895/ - AS DEDUCTION UNDER THE HEAD A GENT S INCENTIVE. THE AO NOTICED THAT THE I NCENTIVES WERE GIVEN TO M/S ANSON WEALTH MANAGEMENT, M/S SYSTEMATIC ASSOCIATES AND M/S IMAGE ASSOCIATES. ACCORDING TO THE AO, ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM NAMED SHRI SOBY MATHEW IS THE PROPRIETOR OF THE M/S IMAGE ASSOCIATES AND THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S SYSTEMATIC ASSOCIATES NAMED SRI TITU S JOSEPH IS NEAR RELATIVE OF ANOTHER PARTNER OF THE FIRM. M/S ANSON WEALTH MANAGEMENT IS ONE OF THE GROUP COMPANIES. THUS, ACCORDING TO AO ALL THE THREE CONCERNS CITED ABOVE ARE RELATED PARTIES AS DEFINED U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. A CCORDINGLY, THE AO T OOK THE VIEW THAT THE EXPENSES CLAIMED AS AGENTS INCENTIVE IS DISALLOWABLE U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, ITA NO. 468 & CO 49/ COCH/ 2013 3 SINCE T HE AO DISALLOW ED THE ABOVE SAID EXPENSES U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF NON - PAYMENT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE WITHIN THE DUE DA TE , HE DID NOT CONSIDER DISALLOWING THE SAME AGAIN U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. 4 .1 T HE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE PAYMENTS MADE AS AGENTS INCENTIVE , BUT HAS REMITTED THE SAME BELATEDLY, I.E., ON 30.9.2008. SINCE THE TDS WAS NOT PAID WITHIN THE DUE DATE PRESCRIBED UNDER THE INCOME TAX RULES , THE AO DISALLOWED AGENTS INCENTIVE EXPENSES U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 4 .2 THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD SALARY AND ALLOWANCES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 60.72 LA CS. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF EMPLOYEES TO WHOM THE SALARY WAS PAID. IT WAS NOTICED THAT THERE ARE 65 EMPLOYEES AND MOST OF THEM HAILED FROM TAMIL NADU. ACCORDING TO THE AO, NONE OF THE EMPLOYEES WE RE FROM KOTTYAM DISTRICT. THE AO FURTHER NOTICED THAT ALL THE EMPLOYEES WERE DRAWING SALARY IN THE RANGE OF RS. 5,000/ - TO RS. 12,000/ - AND NONE OF THE M WERE FALLING UNDER THE PROVIDENT FUND ACT OR ESI. FURTHER IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE VOUCHERS HAVE BEEN PREPARED AT A STRETCH AND THEY HAVE NOT BE EN STAMPED . UNDER THESE SET OF FACTS , THE AO DISALLOWED 10% OF SALARY EXPENSES , APPARENTLY TO COVER UP POSSIBLE DEFICIENC IES . 5 IN THE APPE A L FILED, THE LD CIT(A) NOTICED THAT THE TDS DEDUCTED FROM AGENTS INCENTIVE WAS FOUND REMITTED TO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME PRESCRIBED U/S 139 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY HE DELE TE D THE DISALLOWANCE OF AGENTS INCENTIVE EXPENSES MADE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT . IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE AO, AFTER DISCUSSING ABOUT THE A PPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT, DID NOT MAKE DISALLOWANCE ITA NO. 468 & CO 49/ COCH/ 2013 4 UNDER THAT SECTIO N ONLY FOR THE REASON THAT HE DISALLOWED THE SAME U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. H ENCE, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT THE LD CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE SUSTAI NED THE DISALLOWANCE OF AGENTS INCENTIVE EXPENSES , ALTERNATIVELY BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. H OWEVER, T HE LD CIT(A) DID NOT CONSIDER THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. THE LD CIT(A) REDUCED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE FR OM THE SALARY EXPENSES FROM 10% TO 5%. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US CHALLENGING THE DECISION OF LD CIT(A) IN REDUCIN G THE DISALLOWANCE MADE FROM S ALARY EXPENSES FROM 1 0 % TO 5% AND ALSO IN NOT CONSIDERING THE DISALLOWANCE OF A GEN T S INCENTIVES U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. 6 IN THE CROSS OBJECTION, THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A) AND ALSO CONTEND S THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF AGENTS INCENTIVE EXPENSES U/S 40A(2)(B) IS NOT WARRANTED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS ON BOTH THE ISSUES AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RECORD. WITH REGARD TO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE FROM SALARY EXPENSES, WE NOTICE THAT THE AO DID NOT EXPRESS ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF EXPENSES CLAIMED. THE DEFICIENCIES, ACCORDING TO AO WERE T HAT THE VOUCHERS SEEM TO HAVE BEEN PREPARED AT A STRETCH AND FURTHER THEY HAVE NOT BEEN STAMPED. HENCE, THE AO HAS DISALLOWED 10% OF SALARY EXPENSES TO COVER UP POSSIBLE DEFICIENCIES. THE LD CIT(A) HAS REDUCED THE DISALLOWANCE FROM 10% TO 5% WITH THE REA SONING THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF 10% IS ON THE HIGHER SIDE. BEFORE US, LD D.R PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL KERLA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MIL CONTROLS LTD (340 ITR 190) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF 50% MADE IN THAT CASE WAS UPHELD BY THE HIGH COURT. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SAID DECISION AND WE NOTIC E THAT THE ASSESSEE THEREIN MADE CERTAIN PAYMENT TO A GROUP COMPANY FOR THE CORPORATE SERVICES RENDERED TO IT AND CLAIMED THE SAME AS DEDUCTION . SINCE THE DETA ILS OF SERVICES WERE NOT GIVEN, THE AO DISALLOWED ITA NO. 468 & CO 49/ COCH/ 2013 5 ENTIRE CLAIM. HOWEVER, THE LD CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 50% AND THE SAME WAS UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE HIGH COURT UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: - .THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION THAT THE CLAIM IS ALLOWABLE MERELY BECAUSE THE PAYMENT IS MADE AND THE SAME IS BONA FIDE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THIS IS BECAUSE THE PAYEE IS A RELATED COMPANY WITHIN THE GROUP AND, THEREFORE, THE STANDARD OF PROOF REQUIRED FOR ALLOWIN G THE CLAIM IS MORE THAN WHAT IS REQUIRED IN OTHER CASES. IF THE PAYMENT WAS TO A STRANGER AND BONAFIDE, PRESUMPTION OF REASONABLENESS OF PAYMENT WOULD APPLY BUT NOT WHEN PAYMENTS ARE BETWEEN RELATED PARTIES . THIS IS BECAUSE IN THE CASE OF RELATED COMPAN IES BENEFICIARIES ARE THE SAME SET OF PEOPLE AND, THEREFORE, UNLESS DETAILS ARE FURNISHED JUSTIFYING THE PAYMENT OF SERVICE CHARGES, THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT BOUND TO ALLOW THE CLAIM. IN THE ABOVE CITED CASE, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE TO A R ELATED PERSON, WHICH IS NOT THE CASE HERE IN RESPECT OF SALARY PAYMENTS . HENCE, IN OUR VIEW, THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE. 7.1 ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, IT HAS GOT 10 BRANCHES IN TAMI LNADU AND ONE BRANCH IN KERALA AND THE SALARY EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS. SINCE THE BRANCHES WERE SPREAD MOSTLY IN TAMILNADU, THE ASSESSEE HAD TO EMPLOY PERSONS HAILING FROM TAMILNADU. WE FIND FORCE IN THE ABOVE SAID CONTENTIONS OF THE LD A.R. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DOUBTED ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE SALARY PAYMENT , EVEN THOUGH HE MADE CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE NATIVITY OF THE EMPLOYEES . FURTHER THERE IS NO FINDING THAT THE SALARIES WERE PAID TO RELATED PERSONS. EVEN THOUGH, T HE AO HAS POINTED OUT THE DEFICIENCIES IN THE VOUCHERS , YET WE NOTICE THAT THE AO DID NOT TAKE ANY STEP TO PROVE THAT THE VOUCHERS WERE BOGUS. THUS, AS STATED EAR LIER, THE AO HAS MADE A N ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE OF 10% ONLY TO COVER UP POSSIBLE DEFICIENCIES. THE LD CIT(A) HAS REDUCED THE SAID ESTIMATE TO 5%. THUS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ITA NO. 468 & CO 49/ COCH/ 2013 6 ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS ONLY THAT OF AN ESTIMATE FOR POSSIBLE DEFICIENCIES. UNDER THESE SET OF FACT , WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE DECISION OF LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 8. THE NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO THE CLAIM OF DISALLOWANCE OF AGENTS INCENTIVE U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, T HE DISALLOWANCE IF ANY IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE U/S 40A(2)(A) OF THE ACT, IF THE PAYMENT IS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE PERSONS SPECIFIED IN SEC. 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. HENCE, WHAT IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED IS SEC. 40A(2)(A) OF THE ACT. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE EXTRACT BELOW THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 4 0 A(2)(A ) OF THE ACT. 40A(2)(A) WHERE THE ASSESSEE INCURS ANY EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF WHICH PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE OR IS TO BE MADE TO ANY PERSON REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (B) OF THIS SUB - SECTION, AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OF OPINION THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE IS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE GOODS, SERVICES OR FACILITIES FOR WHICH THE PAYMENT IS MADE OR THE LEGITIMATE NEEDS OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE BENEFIT DERIVED BY OR ACCRUING TO HIM THEREFROM, SO MUCH OF THE EXPENDITURE AS IS SO CONSIDERED BY HIM TO BE EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. (B) THE PERSONS REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A) ARE THE FOL LOWING, NAMELY : - 8.1 A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(2)(A) WOULD SHOW THAT THE SAID SECTION DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR AUTOMATIC DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF PAYMENTS MADE TO THE PERSONS SPECIFIED IN SEC. 40A(2)(B) O F THE ACT, AS ASSUMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO FORM AN OPINION THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE IS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE. THE MEASURE OF EXCESS OR UNREASONABLE NATURE HAS TO BE DETERMINED HAVING REGARD TO (A) THE FAI R MARKET VALUE OF GOOD, SERVICES OR FACILITIES FOR WHICH PAYMENT IS MADE OR (B) THE LEGITIMATE NEEDS OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OR (C) THE BENEFIT DERIVED OR ACCRUING THERE FROM. ITA NO. 468 & CO 49/ COCH/ 2013 7 AFTER CARRYING OUT THE ABOVE SAID EXERCISE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN DIS ALLOW ONLY THAT PORTION OF EXPENDITURE, WHICH WAS CONSIDERED BY HIM AS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE. 8.2 IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CARRIED OUT THE EXERCISE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, BUT HAS SIMPLY TAKEN THE VIEW THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE TO RELATED PERSONS IS DISALLOWABLE U/S 40A(2)(A) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE M/S SYSTEMATIC ASSOCIATES AND M/S IMAGE ASSOCIATES FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF RELATED CONCERNS SPECIFIED U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS BEFORE US THAT THE ABOVE SAID OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO ARE AGAINST THE FACTS. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, M/S SYSTEMATIC ASSOCIATES AND M/S IMAGE ASSOCIATES WERE NOT PARTIES COVERED U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, BOTH THE ABOVE SAID CONCERNS ARE PARTNERSHIP FIRMS AND THE PARTNERS OF THE SAID FIRMS ARE NOT EITHER PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM OR RELATIVES OF ANY OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THUS, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, M/S ANSON WEALTH MANAGEMENT ALONE IS RELATED PARTY COVERED U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LD CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THESE FACTUAL ASPECTS. 8.3 ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, IT HAS SHARED THE COMMISSION INCOME AT THE UNIFORM RATE OF 60% WITH ALL THE THREE PARTIES. SINCE THE CONCERNS M/S SYSTEMATIC ASSOCIATES AND M/S IMAGE ASSOCIATES ARE NOT RELATED PARTIES, IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE LD A.R THAT THE PAYMENT MADE TO M/S ANSON WEALTH MANAGEMENT AT THE SAME LEVEL CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS EX CESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE. WE FIND FORCE IN THE SAID CONTENTIONS OF THE LD A.R. 8.4 THUS, WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, FIRST OF ALL, HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE CONCERNS M/S SYSTEMATIC ASSOCIATES AND M/S IMAGE ASSOCIATES ARE RELATED PARTIES A S DEFINED ITA NO. 468 & CO 49/ COCH/ 2013 8 U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. SECONDLY, THE VIEW ENTERTAINED BY THE AO THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE TO RELATED PARTIES AND CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE IS REQUIRED TO BE DISALLOWED U/S 40A(2)(A) IS NOT THE CORRECT VIEW. THIRDLY, THE AO HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE RELATED PARTIES ARE EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE UNDER THE THREE CRITERIA SPECIFIED IN SEC. 40A(2)(A) OF THE ACT. ON THE CONTRARY, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY IT TO BOTH RELATED AND UNRELATE D PARTIES AT THE SAME LEVEL AND HENCE THE QUESTION OF EXCESSIVENESS OR UNREASONABLENESS IN THE PAYMENT MADE TO THE RELATED PARTIES DOES NOT ARISE. THUS, IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISCUSSED ABOUT THE DISALLOWANCE TO BE MADE U/S 40A(2)(A) OF TH E ACT WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS. BEFORE US ALSO, THE REVENUE DID NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A(2)(A) CAN BE APPLIED TO THE PAYMENTS MADE AS AGENTS INCENTIVE. 8.5 IN VIEW OF THE F OREGOING DISCUSSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO CASE FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF AGENTS INCENTIVE EXPENSES BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(2)(A) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE REJECT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE. 9. WE HAVE ALREADY NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTION ONLY TO SUPPORT THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A). HENCE IT DOES NOT REQUIRE ADJUDICATION. ITA NO. 468 & CO 49/ COCH/ 2013 9 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 3 RD DAY OF JAN 2014 . SD/ - SD/ - (N.R.S. GANESAN) ( B.R. BASKARAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER COCHIN: DATED 3 RD JAN 201 4 RAJ* COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, KOTTAYAM 2. RESPONDENT M/SANSON FINANCIAL HOLIDAYS, 2 ND FLOOR PENDANATHUR PLAZA, PALA, KOTTAYAM 686 575 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, COCHIN