M/s Hotel City Light, Trivandrum V. DCIT, Trivandrum

CO 88/COCH/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4872 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 03-05-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 19-08-2008
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR BABU JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: M RAMESH KUMAR
• Section: 133A; 131; 145

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE T RIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COC HIN BEFORE S/SHRI N.VIJAYAKUMARAN, JM AND SANJAY ARORA, AM I.T.A. NOS. 544 & 694/COCH/ 2008 AND C.O. NOS. 88 & 89/COCH/2008 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2002-03 & 2005-06 M/S. HOTEL CITY LIGHT, 7/2, VENJARAMOODU ROAD, POTHENCODE PO, TRIVANDRUM. [PAN: AACFH 6089C] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM. (ASSESSEE) (REVENUE) REVENUE BY DR. BABU JOSEPH, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY SHRI M.RAMESH KUMAR, CA O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: THESE ARE A SET OF TWO APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND CORRESPONDING CROSS OBJECTIONS (COS) BY THE ASSESSEE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDERS BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I, TRIVANDRUM (CIT(A) FOR SH ORT) DATED 22.10.2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y. 2002-03) AND COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I, KOCHI (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 14.2.2008 FOR A.Y. 2005 -06. AS THE APPEALS RAISE COMMON ISSUES, THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DIS POSED OF BY A COMMON, CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT WAS NOTED BY THE BENCH TH AT THE CROSS OBJECTIONS BY THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE YEARS ARE DELAYED BY 72 DAYS AND 41 DAYS. THE SAME ARE ACCOMPANIED BY AN AFFIDAVIT (AS DATED 18.8.2008 FOR AY 2002-03) BY THE PARTNER, SHRI MOHAMMED RAFI, AVERRING OF THE CHANGE IN THE AUDITO R AND OF BEING ABROAD ON BUSINESS TOUR DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD AS THE REA SON FOR THE DELAY. IN VIEW THEREOF, TAKING A LIBERAL VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE SAME STOOD CONDONED, AND THE HEARING PROCEEDED WITH. LIKEWISE, FOR A.Y. 2005-06. ITA. NOS.544 & 694/ COCH./2008 & C.O. NOS. 88 & 89/COCH/2008 2 I.T.A. NO. 544/COCH/2008 AND C.O. NO. 88/COCH/2008 (FOR A.Y. 2002-03) 3.1 THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM - OF SHRI MO HAMMED RAFI AND HIS WIFE SMT. SHAFEEQUA - RUNNING A HOTEL WITH BAR AND RESTAURANT ATTACHED THERETO, IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF HOTEL CITY LIGHT AT POTHENCODE, TRIVANDRUM . FOR THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O.) CALLED FOR THE ASSESSE ES RECORDS U/S. 131 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT' HEREINAFTER) AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS PRODUCED WERE EXAMINED. WITH REGARD TO THE DOCUMENTS SUPPORTING THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE COULD PRODUCE ONLY PURCHASE BILLS, AND THE VOUCHERS FOR E XPENSES WERE NOT PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION. THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS DISCLOSED A G ROSS PROFIT ON SALES AT 26.53% . THE AO CONSIDERED THE SAME AS LOW IN VIEW OF THE FACT T HAT THE GROSS PROFIT ON INDIAN MADE FOREIGN LIQUOR (IMFL), WHEN SOLD IN PEGS, STOO D FIXED AT 40% (OF THE SALE VALUE) BY THE KERALA ABKARI ACT AND RULES. THE GRO SS PROFIT OF THE OTHER BAR-ATTACHED HOTELS RANGED BETWEEN 30% TO 40% (OF SALES). IN FA CT, IF THE BAR LICENCE FEE WAS ALSO DEDUCTED, THE ASSESSEES GROSS PROFIT WOULD FURTHER SCALE DOWN TO 20.09% , EVEN AS IN THE CASE OF HOTEL CHALUKYA, TRIVANDRUM, DOING THE S AME BUSINESS, THE GROSS PROFIT FOR THE SAME YEAR STOOD AT 28.9% . THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE COMPARISON WITH HOT EL CHALUKYA ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS LOCATED IN THE MAIN CITY, WHILE THE ASSESSEES HOTEL WAS AT POTHENCODE, I.E., AT A DIST ANCE OF 20 KMS FROM THE MAIN CITY. FURTHER, THE SAID HOTEL FORMS A PART OF A GROUP OF 10 BAR-ATTACHED HOTELS BASED IN TRIVANDRUM CITY, WHICH EXERCISED MONOPOLY CONTROL O VER THE RETAIL PRICES. THE AO FOUND THE SAME AS OF NO CONSEQUENCE, AS THE ASSESSE E DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE SALE (PEG) RATES OF ITS BAR WERE BELO W THAT OF HOTEL CHALUKYA, AND BY HOW MUCH, BOTH OF WHICH STOOD SUPPLIED IMFL FROM THE SAME SOU RCE AND AT THE SAME COST . ACCORDINGLY, HE ESTIMATED THE ASSESSEES TURNOVER IN RESPECT OF THE LIQUOR TRADE BY ESTIMATING THE G.P. RATE AT 28% ON SALES; THUS E FFECTING AN ADDITION FOR RS. 474500/-. IT WAS ALSO FOUND BY HIM THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHOWN ANY SALES OF EMPTY BOTTLES, AND WHICH STANDS FIXED BY THE VARIOUS ORDE RS OF THE TRIBUNAL (COCHIN BENCH), TO SOME OF WHICH REFERENCE WAS MADE BY HIM, AT 3/4% OF THE TURNOVER. HE, ITA. NOS.544 & 694/ COCH./2008 & C.O. NOS. 88 & 89/COCH/2008 3 ACCORDINGLY, ESTIMATED THE PROFIT FROM THE SAME AT RS.1 LAC; ITS DISCLOSED TURNOVER BEING RS. 233.05 LACS. FURTHER, DISALLOWANCES AGGREGATING TO RS. 9 9,000/- WERE MADE BY HIM BY EFFECTING A DISALLOWANCE, AT THE RATE OF 1/5 TH EACH, IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE ON TRAVELLING, REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE, TRANSPORTATION CHARGES, PRINTING AND STATIONARY, AND HANDLING CHARGES, IN VIEW OF ASSESSEES CLAIM QUA THE SAID EXPENSES BEING NOT SUPPORTED BY VOUCHERS. 3.2 THE FACTS IN RELATION TO A.Y. 2005-06 ARE THAT THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS PREMISES WAS SUBJECT TO SURVEY U/S. 133A OF THE INCOME-TAX A CT, 1961 (`THE ACT HEREINAFTER) ON 6.3.2006. THE RESTAURANT AND THE LIQUOR SALES FOR FOUR DAYS, I.E., FROM 2.3.2006 TO 5.3.2006, AS OBSERVED DURING THE SURVEY, REVEALED A N AVERAGE TURNOVER OF RS. 3343 AND RS.93139 PER DAY RESPECTIVELY. THE SAME WAS FOUND TO BE ABOUT 50% HIGHER THAN THE DAILY TURNOVER DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEES RETURN F OR THE PRECEDING TWO YEARS, I.E., AYS 2004-05 AND 2003-04. FURTHER ON, THE GROSS PROFIT (ON SALES), WHEN WORKED OUT WITH REFERENCE TO THE IMPOUNDED SALE-STATEMENTS (FOR THE FOUR-DAY PERIOD), REVEALED IT TO VARY FROM 28% TO 234%, WITH AN AVERAGE OF 92%. THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCORDINGLY QUESTIONED IN RESPECT OF THE SAME, PROPOSING FOR TH E ADOPTION OF GROSS PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 92% ON LIQUOR SALES. THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO I T PER ITS REPLY DATED 14.12.207 BY STATING THAT THE SALES, BOTH OF LIQUOR AND COOKED F OOD, DID NOT FOLLOW A FIXED PATTERN, AND WOULD VARY ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS FACTORS. THAT APART, THE SALES ARE USUALLY HIGH DURING THE FIRST WEEK OF THE MONTH. AS SUCH, THERE WAS NO CAUSE FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE AVERAGE TURNOVER FOR THE FOUR DAYS TO THE ENTIR E YEAR. SECONDLY, IN WORKING OUT THE GROSS PROFIT RATE AT 92%, THE AO HAD NOT FACTORED I N THE BAR LICENSE FEES, WHICH STOOD INCREASED IN 2006. THE AO, CONSIDERING THE SAID OB JECTIONS; THE RESULTS OF THE SURVEY; AND THE INDUSTRY AVERAGE, APPLIED A RATE OF 60% TO ESTIMATE THE GROSS PROFIT ON LIQUOR SALES, WHILE ACCEPTING THE GROSS PROFIT ON OTHER SA LES. ITA. NOS.544 & 694/ COCH./2008 & C.O. NOS. 88 & 89/COCH/2008 4 3.3 THE ASSESSEE HAVING BEEN ALLOWED SUBSTANTIVE RE LIEF FOR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER REFERENCE, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL, WITH THE ASSES SEES CROSS OBJECTION BEING SUPPORTIVE IN NATURE. 4.1 THE LD. DR WOULD SUBMIT THAT THE ESTIMATION OF THE GROSS PROFIT, IN VIEW OF THE NON- SUBSTANTIATION OF ITS SALES BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE DETECTION OF SUPPRESSION IN TURNOVER BY THE REVENUE, IS PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED. THERE WAS NO NEED TO SPECIFICALLY INVOKE THE PROVISION OF SECTION 145(2) OF THE ACT. TOWARD THIS, HE RELIED ON THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. H.M. ESUFALI H.M. ABDULALI , 90 ITR 271 (SC); VAZHAKALA ESTATE VS. STATE OF KERALA , 210 ITR 451 (KER.); WALL STREET CONSTRUCTION LTD. VS. DCIT , 87 ITD 43 (MUM.) (TM); AND OVERSEAS CHINESE CUISINE VS. ACIT , 56 ITD 67 (MUM.)(TM). FURTHER, THE REDUCTION IN THE PR OFIT ON THE SALE OF EMPTY BOTTLES BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS WITHOUT ANY VALID REASON, PAR TICULARLY CONSIDERING THAT THE AO HAD ASSESSED THE SAME AT RS. 1 LAKH, QUA A ESTIMATED TURNOVER OF RS. 237.81 LAKHS, I.E., AT 0.42%, AS AGAINST THE RATE OF 0.75% UPHELD BY TH E TRIBUNAL IN OTHER LIKE CASES. WITH REGARD TO THE AD-HOC DISALLOWANCES, AT THE RATE OF 1/5 TH , BY THE AO, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS NOT S UPPORTED BY PROPER VOUCHERS AND THAT THE EXISTENCE OF PERSONAL ELEMENT IN THE SAID EXPENSES, PARTICULARLY QUA MOTOR VEHICLES, TELEPHONE, ETC. COULD NOT BE DENIED. 4.2 THE LD. AR, ON THE OTHER HAND, WOULD CONTE ND THAT THERE WAS NO COMPARISON BETWEEN THE GROSS PROFIT DECLARED BY IT AND THAT BY HOTEL CHALUKYA, SO THAT IT WAS IMPROPER TO DISCREDIT ITS BOOK RESULTS WITH REFEREN CE THERETO, CONSIDERING THAT THE TWO WERE NOT SIMILARLY PLACED. THE REFERENCE TO THE G.P . RATE AT 40% BY THE AO UNDER THE KERALA SALES TAX ACT IS ALSO MISLEADING INAS-MUCH AS IT PROVIDES FOR PAYMENT OF TAX BY WORKING THE TURNOVER AT 140% OF THE PURCHASE VAL UE OF LIQUOR WHERE THE BAR IS SITUATED WITHIN THE LOCAL LIMITS OF THE MUNICIPAL C ORPORATION OR CANTONMENT, AND AT 130% OF THE PURCHASE VALUE FOR ANY OTHER PLACE, PLA CING A COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE SAID ACT ON RECORD. FOR THE AY 2005-06, IT STANDS TO REASON, AS ALSO POINTED OUT BY THE LD. CIT(A), AS TO HOW THE AO COULD DISTURB T HE DECLARED GROSS PROFIT WHILE ITA. NOS.544 & 694/ COCH./2008 & C.O. NOS. 88 & 89/COCH/2008 5 ACCEPTING VARIOUS COMPONENTS THEREOF, I.E., OPENING STOCK, PURCHASE AND SALES. FURTHER, AGAIN, NO IRREGULARITY IN STOCK REGISTER(S ) STANDS POINTED OUT, SO THAT THERE WAS NOTHING TO WARRANT INVOCATION OF SECTION 145 AND TH E CONCOMITANT ESTIMATION OF ITS GROSS PROFIT. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. WE SHALL TAKE THE RELEVANT GROUNDS ON YEAR-WISE BASIS. 5.1 THE REVENUES FIRST GROUND FOR A.Y. 2002-03, BE ING GENERAL IN NATURE, WARRANTS NO ADJUDICATION. 5.2 THE SECOND GROUND IS IN RESPECT OF GROSS PROFIT . THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO, DESPITE ABUNDANT OPPORTUNITY, ADDUCE SALE BILLS OR SUPPORTI NG RECEIPTS IN SUBSTANTIATION OF ITS ACCOUNTS. IT ALSO FAILED TO PRODUCE THE SALE RATES. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF H.M.ESUFALI H.M. ABDULALI (SUPRA) ARE DEEMED RELEVANT AND REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- HELD, THAT THE REASSESSMENTS WERE VALID. FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEALINGS OUTSIDE THE ACCOUNTS OF THE VALUE OF R S. 31,171.28 FOR 19 DAYS, IT WAS OPEN TO THE OFFICER TO INFER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD A LARGE-SCALE DEALINGS OUTSIDE THE ACCOUNTS. IN SUCH A SITUATION, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE OFFICER TO FIND OUT PRECISELY THE TURNOVER SUPPRESSED AND HE COULD ONLY MAKE AN E STIMATE OF THE SUPPRESSED TURNOVER ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL BEFORE HIM. SO LONG AS THE ESTIMATE MADE BY HIM WAS NOT ARBITRARY AND HAD A REASONABLE NEXUS WITH T HE FACTS DISCOVERED, IT COULD NOT BE QUESTIONED. IT WAS WRONG TO HOLD THAT THE OFFIC ER MUST HAVE MATERIAL BEFORE HIM TO PROVE THE EXACT TURNOVER SUPPRESSED. IN ESTIMATING ANY ESCAPED TURNOVER, IT IS INEVITABL E THAT THERE IS SOME GUESS-WORK. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WHILE MAKING THE BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT, NO DOUBT, SHOULD ARRIVE AT HIS CONCLUSION WITHOUT ANY BIAS AND ON A RATIONAL BASIS. THAT AUTHORITY SHOULD NOT BE VINDICTIVE OR CAPRICIOUS. IF THE ESTI MATE MADE BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY IS A BONA FIDE ESTIMATE AND IS BASED ON A RATIONAL BASIS, THE ACT THAT THERE IS NO GOOD PROOF IN SUPPORT OF THAT ESTIMATE IS IMMATERIAL. P RIMA FACIE, THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY IS THE BEST JUDGE OF THE SITUATION. IT IS HIS BEST JUD GMENT AND NOT ANY ONE ELSES. THE HIGH COURT CANNOT SUBSTITUTE ITS BEST JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. ITA. NOS.544 & 694/ COCH./2008 & C.O. NOS. 88 & 89/COCH/2008 6 UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AO WAS PERFECTLY JUSTI FIED IN ESTIMATING ITS SALES AND GROSS PROFIT, RELYING ON THE RELEVANT MATERIALS. IN THE INSTANT CASE, HE DOES SO BY COMPARING THE ASSESSEES DECLARED GROSS PROFIT RATE (26.53%) WITH THAT BY ANOTHER CONCERN IN THE TRADE FOR THE SAME YEAR (AT 28.90%), ADOPTING THE RATE OF 28%. THE ASSESSEES OBJECTION TO THE COMPARISON IS AGAIN GEN ERAL IN NATURE, WHILE IT COULD EASILY DO SO WITH REFERENCE TO THE RATES CHARGED BY IT AND THAT BY THE SAID CONCERN FOR THAT YEAR. BOTH THE GROSS PROFIT RATES UNDER REFERENCE ARE WITHOUT FACTORING IN THE BAR LICENSE FEES, WHICH WORKS TO CLOSE TO 6.5%, AND WOU LD STAND TO BE SEPARATELY ALLOWED, SUBJECT OF COURSE TO THE FULFILMENT OF THE CONDITIO N TOWARD THE SAME, IF ANY, AND QUA WHICH THERE IS IN ANY CASE NO DISPUTE. FURTHER ON, EVEN THE PRESCRIPTION UNDER THE SALES TAX ACT IS FOR A GROSS PROFIT RATE AT 40% AND 30% O F THE PURCHASE VALUE, DEPENDING UPON THE LOCATION OF THE BAR, AND WHICH WORKS TO A GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 28.57% AND 25.92% (ON SALES), I.E., FOR BARS LOCATED WITHIN AN D OUTSIDE THE LOCAL LIMITS OF THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OR CANTONMENT RESPECTIVELY. F URTHER, IT NEEDS TO BE BORNE IN MIND THAT, AS EMPHASIZED BY THE AO, THERE IS NO BAR WITHIN THE RADIUS OF 10 KMS OF POTHENCODE, AND THE ASSESSEES BAR HAS ACCESS TO, O N ACCOUNT OF ITS SAID LOCATIONAL ADVANTAGE, A LARGER FEEDER AREA. UNDER THE CIRCUMST ANCES, WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ADOPTION OF THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 28% BY THE AO IN ESTIMATING THE ASSESSEES TURNOVER AND GROSS PROFIT FOR THE YEAR. 5.3 THE THIRD GROUND IS IN RESPECT OF THE REDUCTION IN THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THE SALE OF EMPTY BOTTLES BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO RS. 35,0 00/-. WE FIND SUBSTANCE IN THE REVENUES ARGUMENT. THIS IS AS EVEN THOUGH THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM OF THE PACKAGING HAVING BEEN NOW SHIFTED TO PLASTIC BOTTLE S, ITS CLAIM IS WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING MATERIALS, AND WHICH RATHER OUGHT TO HAV E BEEN ADDUCED BEFORE THE AO. THIS IS MORE SO AS THE MATERIAL IS NOT DIFFICULT TO COME BY, BEING ONLY AT HAND IN THE FORM OF PURCHASE DETAILS. AS REGARDS THE OTHER CONT ENTION, I.E., OF THE EMPTY BOTTLES BEING APPROPRIATED BY THE STAFF AND SO ALLOWED BY T HE ASSESSEE BY TREATING IT AS AN INCENTIVE THERETO, WE OBSERVE THAT THE PERCENTAGE O F 0.75% ARRIVED AT BY THE TRIBUNAL IS ONLY AFTER CONSIDERING SUCH LEAKAGES, AS IT IS N OBODYS CASE THAT THE BOTTLES HAVE TO ITA. NOS.544 & 694/ COCH./2008 & C.O. NOS. 88 & 89/COCH/2008 7 BE ACCOUNTED FOR TO THE LAST NUMBER. THE ASSESSEE H AVING BEEN UNABLE TO EFFECTIVELY IMPUGN THE SOURCE OF INCOME, SO THAT IT STANDS ESTA BLISHED, AND THE ONLY QUESTION THAT SURVIVES IS THE REASONABILITY OF THE ESTIMATE, AND WHICH ITS SECOND (OTHER) ARGUMENT SEEKS TO ADDRESS. THE AO HAS ESTIMATED THE PROFIT A T 0.43% OF THE DISCLOSED TURNOVER. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO BASIS FOR THE R EVERSAL OF THE SAID ADDITION BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND SET ASIDE THE SAME, RESTORING THE AO S ORDER QUA THE SAME. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 5.4 THE FOURTH GROUND RELATES TO THE AD-HOC DISALLO WANCE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF FIVE EXPENSES FOR THE REASON OF THEIR BEING NOT PRO PERLY VOUCHED FOR AND ALSO OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING NOT MADE ANY DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOU NT OF THE PERSONAL USER OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND TELEPHONE. THE BASIS FOR THE TOTAL REV ERSAL BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS THAT THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN MORE CATEGORICAL WHEN HE STAT ES THAT THE VOUCHERS ARE NOT SATISFACTORY. SECONDLY, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFO RE HIM THAT IT HAD A PERSONAL VEHICLE FOR USE BY SELF AND FAMILY, EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF WHICH STANDS NOT CLAIMED BY THE FIRM. DURING HEARING, IT WAS SPECIFICALLY EN QUIRED BY THE BENCH OF THE LD. AR IF THE ASSESSEE HAD MAINTAINED ANY LOG BOOK IN RESPECT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, TELEPHONE, ETC. AND TO WHICH HE REPLIED IN THE NEGATIVE. HOWSOEVE R, WE FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE AO HAS MADE A SWEEPING STAT EMENT WITHOUT BEING SPECIFIC, PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDING BEF ORE HIM OF HAVING MAINTAINED PROPER VOUCHERS. NO DOUBT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ONLY PROPER FOR THE LD. CIT(A) TO HAVE EXAMINED THE SAME HIMSELF, ON A TEST CHECK BASIS, I N VIEW OF THE CONTRARY CLAIMS, AND ARRIVE AT HIS FINDING OF FACT; HIS POWERS BEING CO- TERMINUS, BEFORE REVERSING THAT OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. HOWEVER, WE ARE NOT INCLINED F OR A REMISSION IN VIEW OF THE NOMINALITY OF THE AMOUNT INVOLVED. UNDER THE CIRCUM STANCES, WE CONSIDER IT WOULD BE FAIR TO LIMIT THE DISALLOWANCE QUA EXPENSES ON TRAVELLING, MOTOR CAR, AND TELEPHONE, I.E., TO THE EXTENT INCLUDED IN THE IMPUGNED EXPEND ITURE, TO THE RATE OF 1/10 TH , AND CONFIRM THE DELETION OF THE BALANCE. WE DECIDE ACCO RDINGLY. ITA. NOS.544 & 694/ COCH./2008 & C.O. NOS. 88 & 89/COCH/2008 8 5.5 THE CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE, AS NOTED E ARLIER, IS ONLY SUPPORTIVE IN NATURE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL AND THE ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION FOR A.Y. 2002-03 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. I.T.A. NO. 694/COCH/2008 & C.O. NO. 89/COCH/2008 (F OR A.Y. 2005-06) 7.1 THE ONLY GROUND IN THE REVENUES APPEAL, PROJEC TED PER ITS SECOND GROUND, RELATES TO THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATION OF THE GROSS PROFIT ON LIQUOR SALES ( ALSO REFER PARA 3.2 ABOVE ). AS DISCUSSED EARLIER, THE SAME HAS BEEN ESTIMAT ED BY THE AO AT 60% OF THE DISCLOSED TURNOVER OF RS. 208.75 LACS, I .E., AT RS. 125.25 LACS, AS AGAINST THE DECLARED (G.P.) RATE OF 25.93%, OR AT RS. 54.13 LA CS, BY THE ASSESSEE, SO THAT THERE IS A NET ADDITION FOR RS. 71.12 LAKHS. IN THIS REGARD, W E FIRSTLY OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEES SALES FOR THE FOUR DAYS (2.3.2006 TO 5.3.2006) OVER WHICH ITS SALES STATEMENTS WERE FOUND AND IMPOUNDED DURING SURVEY U/S. 133A ON 6.3. 2006, ARE FOR A TOTAL OF RS. 372556/-, OR AT AN AVERAGE OF RS. 93,139/- PER DAY. AS AGAINST THIS, THE DISCLOSED DAILY TURNOVER FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR IS AT RS. 59673/-. THOUGH THE AO HAS ADOPTED THE DISCLOSED TURNOVER FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTIMATING TH E ASSESSEES GROSS PROFIT ON LIQUOR SALES, THAT WOULD NOT IMPLY THAT HE HAS ACCEPTED TH E RETURNED TURNOVER, BUT ONLY THAT HE HAS CHOSEN TO APPLY THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 60% , FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTIMATION OF INCOME, ON THAT FIGURE; HE CLEARLY OBSERVING AT PAG E 3 OF HIS ORDER THAT IN THE ASSESSEES CASE THE ADOPTION OF THE INDUSTRY AVERAG E WOULD GIVE A SKEWED PICTURE SINCE IN THE OTHER CASES THE NATURAL ASSUMPTION WOU LD BE THAT THE DISCLOSED TURNOVER IS THE ACTUAL TURNOVER, WHICH IS NOT SO IN THE ASSESSE ES CASE . IN THIS REGARD, THE QUESTION THAT ASSUMES RELEVANCE IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE COUL D BE SAID TO HAVE INDULGED IN SALES SUPPRESSION IN VIEW OF THE WIDE VARIATION BETWEEN T HE TURNOVER AS DISCOVERED DURING SURVEY AND AS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS FOR A PRIOR PER IOD. SIMPLY PUT, COULD THE OBSERVATIONS OF SURVEY BE MADE APPLICABLE TO AN EAR LIER PERIOD, I.E., THE PREVIOUS YEAR ENDING 31/3/2005. WE CONSIDER IT AS SO, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUPPORTED ITS DISCLOSED TURNOVER FOR THE YEAR WITH SALE BILLS AND OTHER SUPPORTING ITA. NOS.544 & 694/ COCH./2008 & C.O. NOS. 88 & 89/COCH/2008 9 DOCUMENTS, RECEIPTS ETC., EVEN AS FOUND BY THE AO, AND FURTHER OBSERVED BY US, WHILE DISCUSSING THE FACTS IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY 2002-03, AS ALSO THE CASE LAW CITED BY THE REVENUE, WHICH STAND PERUSED BY US, INCLUDING THE CELEBRATED CASE OF H.M.ESUFALI H.M. ABDULALI (SUPRA) AS WELL AS BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF VAZHAKALA ESTATE VS. STATE OF KERALA (SUPRA). THE SAID DECISIONS ACCORD APPROVAL TO THE PROCESS OF ESTIMATING THE TURNOVER FOR AN EARLIER PERIOD ALSO, ON THE BASIS OF THE TURNOVER FOR A LATTER PERIOD; THE APEX COURT VALIDATING THE ESTIMATION OF THE TURNOVER FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR, AND WHICH INCLUDED PE RIOD PRIOR TO THAT IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE DATA STOOD FOUND, I.E., THE OBSERVATION P ERIOD, ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID DATA. AS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF OVERSEAS CHINESE CUISINE (SUPRA), U/S. 114(D) OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT THERE IS A PRESUMPTION T HAT A THING OR A STATE OF THINGS, WHICH HAD BEEN SHOWN TO BE IN EXISTENCE WITHIN A PE RIOD SHORTER THAN THAT WITHIN WHICH THE SAID THINGS OR STATE OF THINGS USUALLY CE ASE TO EXIST, IS STILL IN EXISTENCE. IN THE SAID CASE, UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, THE SAL ES SUPPRESSION FOUND IN THE YEAR RELEVANT TO A.Y. 1990-91 WAS CONSIDERED AS VALID FO R A.Y. 1988-89 AS WELL. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE FINDING BY THE LD. CIT(A) T HAT NO SUPPRESSION IN SALES STANDS FOUND, OR THAT THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE DISCLOSED OR BOOK SALES, IS WITHOUT BASIS AND, THUS, VITIATED AND LEGALLY INFIRM. 7.2 THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THE BAR SALES ARE USUALLY HIGH DURING THE FIRST WEEK OF EVERY MONTH. THE SAID CLAIM IS AGAIN WITHOUT AN Y SUBSTANTIATION. ALL THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DO, TO EXHIBIT THE SAME, WAS TO PRODUCE ITS BOOKS FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR, OR EVEN FOR THE EARLIER YEARS, WHILE , AS OBSERVED EARLIER, IT HAS EVEN FAILED TO SUPPORT ITS DISCLOSED TURNOVER WITH THE S ALE BILLS AND/OR OTHER SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. FURTHER, WE OBSERVE THE ASSESSEES SALES FOR THE CURRENT YEAR TO BE AT 15% HIGHER THAN THAT FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR , I.E., A.Y 2004-05. ASSUMING THE SAME TREND TO HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED FOR A.Y. 2006-07, THE AVERAGE SALES FOUND DURING THE FOUR DAYS IN MARCH06, DISCOUNTED, THEREFORE, B Y A FACTOR OF 15%, WOULD YIELD AN AVERAGE SALE OF RS. 80,990/- PER DAY FOR A.Y. 2005- 06. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER STATED OF THE TURNOVER BEING INFLUENCED BY A VARIETY OF FA CTORS. THE SAME GOES WITHOUT ITA. NOS.544 & 694/ COCH./2008 & C.O. NOS. 88 & 89/COCH/2008 10 SAYING, AND THAT IS PRECISELY THE REASON WHY AN AVE RAGE OBTAINING OVER A LONGER PERIOD, AS SAY A 12 MONTH PERIOD, ASSUMES SIGNIFICANCE, BUT THEN IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO SUPPORT ITS CONTENTIONS WITH SOME MATERIAL, SO AS T O ENABLE AS INFORMED AN ESTIMATE OF ITS TURNOVER AND GROSS PROFIT AS POSSIBLE, WHILE IT S CASE REMAINS LARGELY UNSUBSTANTIATED, AND BASED ON GENERALIZED CONTENTIO NS; IT NOT EVEN SPECIFYING THOSE FACTORS, LET ALONE EVIDENCING THEM. IT WAS INCUMBE NT ON IT, IN VIEW OF ITS SUBMISSIONS, TO SHOW AS TO WHAT SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDED T HE FIRST WEEK OF APRIL06, FOR THE SALES TO BE HIGHER THAN USUAL DURING THE SAID PERIO D. WITH REGARD TO ITS CONTENTION OF THE SALES FOR THE FIRST WEEK BEING HIGHER, ALL THAT IT HAD TO DO FOR THE PURPOSE WAS TO DRAW A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE SALES FOR THE FIRST W EEK (FOR ALL THE MONTHS OF THE YEAR) WITH THAT FOR THE BALANCE WEEKS, AND WHICH WOULD AT ONCE EXHIBIT THE TRUTH OF ITS CONTENTION, IF SO, AND THE DATA ON WHICH WOULD ONLY BE AT HAND, BEING BORNE OUT BY ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT FURNISH MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE WHICH IS ONLY EXPECTED TO BE AVAILABLE WITH IT, AS THE SA LE PROFILE IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE LAW OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE PRESUMPTION OF THE SAME BE ING NOT SO DONE ONLY FOR THE REASON OF IT BEING ADVERSE. EVEN SO, ALLOWING A FUR THER MARGIN OF 5% TO 10%, TO ALLOW FOR VARIOUS `FACTORS, THE ASSESSEES TURNOVER IN L IQUOR TRADE FOR THE YEAR WOULD WORK TO NOT LESS THAN RS. 250 LACS. 7.3 WE, NEXT, EXAMINE THE QUESTION OF THE GROSS PROFIT (G.P.) RATE. THE SAME WAS FOUND TO VARY BETWEEN 28% AND 234% (OF THE SALE VAL UE) ON THE BASIS OF THE SURVEY DATA, AVERAGING TO 92%. THE SAID RESULTS HAVE NOT B EEN REFUTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ANY MANNER; IN FACT, WE DO NOT EVEN OBSERVE ANY EXPLANA TION BY IT TOWARD THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER, INCLUDING THE WIDE VARIATION WITH THE B OOK FIGURES, SO THAT THE SAME COULD BE SAID TO HAVE CRYSTALLIZED AS A MATTER OF FACT. T HE ASSESSEES ONLY EXPLANATION, IF WE COULD SAY SO, IS ITS CONTINUED RELIANCE ON ITS BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS, WHICH STANDS RENDERED OF NO MOMENT IN VIEW OF THEIR HAVING BEEN ALREADY F OUND AS DISCLOSING NO BASIS FOR THE SALES, AND THUS NOT RELIABLE, AND WHICH IS PRECISEL Y WHAT HAS LED TO THE RESORT TO AN ESTIMATION EXERCISE, WHICH WE ARE PRESENTLY ENGAGED IN VETTING, IN LIGHT OF THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE, BY DRAWING COGENT AND OBJECT IVE INFERENCES AND ASSUMPTIONS. ITA. NOS.544 & 694/ COCH./2008 & C.O. NOS. 88 & 89/COCH/2008 11 FURTHER ON, SIMILARLY, I.E., IN VIEW OF SPECIFIC FI NDINGS/DATA IN ITS OWN CASE, THE ASSESSEES ALLUDING TO THE INDUSTRY AVERAGE WOULD B E OF LITTLE CONSEQUENCE. THE AO HAS, WE FIND, GIVEN A SHORT SHRIFT TO THE MATTER BY HEAVILY DISCOUNTING THE SURVEY OBSERVATIONS, ESTIMATING THE GROSS PROFIT BY APPLYI NG A RATE OF 60% ON THE DISCLOSED TURNOVER AS AGAINST THE MATERIAL FOUND IN SURVEY RE VEALING HIGHER FIGURES AND, THUS, SUPPORTING HIGHER ESTIMATES ON BOTH THE PARAMETERS OF `SALES AND `G.P. RATE. THE ASSESSED GROSS PROFIT OF RS. 125.25 LACS WOULD STAN D JUSTIFIED AT A G.P. RATE OF 50%, I.E., ON THE BASIS OF A TURNOVER ESTIMATE OF RS. 250 LACS , WHICH CAN UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES BE SAID TO BE BACKED BY UNDISPUTED FACTS. THERE IS, OF COURSE, NO QUESTION OF AN ASSESSMENT HIGHER THAN THIS FIGURE OF RS. 125.25 LA CS, EVEN IF FOUND TO BE ON THE LOWER SIDE, SAY, WHERE THE GROSS PROFIT RATE IS FOUND TO BE HIGHER THAN THE SAID 50%. AT THE SAME TIME, IT MAY WELL BE LOWER, IN WHICH CASE THE ASSESSEE STANDS PREJUDICED. THERE CAN BE, IT NEEDS TO BE APPRECIATED, NO SHORT-CUT, A ND THE ESTIMATION EXERCISE WOULD HAVE TO BE TAKEN TO ITS LOGICAL END, EXCEPT, OF COU RSE, WHERE THE RESULTS AS DETERMINED ON ASSESSMENT ARE EITHER ACCEPTED (BY THE ASSESSEE) OR OTHERWISE FOUND AS REASONABLE I.E., ON ITS REVIEW BY A HIGHER APPELLATE AUTHORITY , AND THUS LEGALLY VALID INASMUCH IT SATISFIES THE STATUTORY MANDATE. HOWEVER, JUST BECA USE A FIGURE IS APPARENTLY LOW, AS IS THE ASSUMED G.P. RATE (OF 60%), IN COMPARISON TO TH AT FOUND TO OBTAIN (92%), WOULD NOT VALIDATE THE EXERCISE; WHOSE PURPORT IS TO ARRI VE AT A FAIR ESTIMATE OF THE TRADING PROFIT FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR ON THE LIQUOR SALES. T HE FOREGOING HAS BEEN NECESSITATED IN VIEW OF OUR OBSERVING THE G.P. RATE OF 92% TO BE, F IRSTLY, A SIMPLE AVERAGE, WHILE WHAT IS RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE IS THE WEIGHTED AVERAGE . SECONDLY, WE OBSERVE IT TO BE MUCH OUT OF SYNC WITH BOTH THE ASSSESSEES OWN PAST RECORD, EVEN AS ASSESSED (WHICH THOUGH WOULD ONLY BE ON THE BASIS OF THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION) AS WELL AS THE INDUSTRY DATA, SO THAT BOTH POINT TO ITS INAPPLICABILITY. NO DOUBT, THE AO HAS NOT APPLIED THE SAID RATE, BUT ONLY A LOWER ONE AT 60%, BUT THEN TH E SAME IS ARBITRARY, BEING DE HORS ANY MATERIALS, SANS WHICH ANY ESTIMATE, BE IT 50% OR 60%, WOULD NOT BE PROPER. WHY NOT (SAY) 50% OR 40% OR EVEN LOWER, ONE MAY ASK? AG AIN, HE APPLIES THE SAME ON THE DISCLOSED TURNOVER, AS AGAINST THE DERIVED (BASED O N SURVEY DATA) TURNOVER, BUT THEN THAT ALSO INJECTS A MEASURE OF SUBJECTIVE-NESS IN T HE ESTIMATION PROCESS, IF NOT ACTUALLY ITA. NOS.544 & 694/ COCH./2008 & C.O. NOS. 88 & 89/COCH/2008 12 VITIATING IT, INASMUCH IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHAT I S THE EFFECTIVE G.P. RATE. THE TWO PARAMETERS ARE INDEPENDENT, ARE THUS WOULD BE REQUI RED TO BE ESTIMATED SEPARATELY ON THE BASIS OF THE SUPPORTING MATERIALS. FURTHER, TH E WEIGHTED AVERAGE, THE SAME, TO ENABLE AS INFORMED AND VALID AN ESTIMATION AS POSSI BLE, MAY NOT BE NECESSARILY BE RESTRICTED TO SALES DATA FOR THE 4 DAYS OF THE SURV EY, WHICH IS IN OUR VIEW A SMALL BASE, EVEN CONSIDERING IT TO BE ONLY A SAMPLE, WHICH IT I S, BUT FOR THE WHOLE YEAR. WE ARE AWARE, WHILE WE SAY SO, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT F URNISHED ANY BREAK-UP OF ITS SALES, I.E., ITEM WISE. THIS IS HOWEVER PERPLEXING CONSIDE RING THAT IT CLAIMS TO BE MAINTAINING STOCK REGISTER(S), AND WHICH WOULD BEAR THE RELEVAN T INFORMATION, I.E., ON THE COMPOSITION OR THE CONSTITUENT-WISE SALE FOR THE YE AR. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAVING ITEM-WISE DETAIL OF OPENING STOCK, CLOSING STOCK AN D PURCHASES, ITEM-WISE SALES CAN BE EASILY WORKED OUT. AT ANY RATE, THE ITEM-WISE PURCH ASE IS A GOOD SURROGATE MEASURE FOR ITEM-WISE SALES, PARTICULARLY AS WE FIND THE INVENT ORY FIGURES TO BE ONLY NOMINAL IN RELATION TO THE SALES VOLUME, SO THAT THE DISTORTIO N IN THE ABSENCE OF THE INVENTORY BREAK-UP - WOULD BE MINIMAL. IN OTHER WORDS, THE WE IGHTED AVERAGE OF THE SALE RATE, WHICH WOULD GIVE DUE (PROPORTIONATE) WEIGHT TO EACH ITEM COMPRISING THE SALES, WOULD EXHIBIT THE G.P. RATE FOR THE YEAR. IT IS ONL Y THEN THAT THE VERACITY AND, THUS, THE VALIDITY OF THE ESTIMATE AS MADE BY THE REVENUE CAN BE PROPERLY ASSESSED. IF THE SAME IS AT 35% (SAY), THEN, NOTWITHSTANDING THE HIGHER G .P. RATE ON THE BASIS OF THE SAMPLE RESULTS, THE SAME WOULD PREVAIL. IN FACT, IT WOULD BE SO INDEPENDENT OF THE RESULT, WHICH WOULD ONLY BE SUBJECT TO THE CAP ON THE GROSS PROFIT, WHICH CANNOT EXCEED RS. 125.25 LACS, AND ONLY FOR THE REASON THAT THE REVEN UE CANNOT BE ALLOWED A SECOND INNINGS; THEIR BEING NO SCOPE UNDER THE ACT FOR IT TO CONTEST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER (EXCEPT U/S. 263), AND THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PUT I N A POSITION WORSE THAN WHERE IT WAS PRIOR TO ITS TAKING TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE. FURTH ER, THE SALES COMPOSITION COULD ALSO THROW LIGHT ON AND VALIDATE THE SALES ESTIMATE AS M ADE. 7.4 NEEDLESS TO ADD THAT THE BASIS FOR THE DELETION BY THE L D. CIT(A), I.E., OF THE AO HAVING ACCEPTED ALL THE CONSTITUENTS OF THE TRADING ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR, ONLY NEEDS TO BE STATED TO BE REJECT ED. ALL THAT THE AO HAS DONE, FOR ITA. NOS.544 & 694/ COCH./2008 & C.O. NOS. 88 & 89/COCH/2008 13 ASSESSING THE TRADING MARGIN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ITS LIQUOR SALES FOR THE YEAR, IS ADOPTING A GROSS PROFIT OF 60% ON THE DISCLOSED TUR NOVER, IN VIEW OF THE HOST OF ADVERSE MATERIAL WITH HIM IN THE MATTER, CATEGORICA LLY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT REVISED ITS RETURN AFTER THE SURVEY TO ACCOMMOD ATE ANY SUPPRESSED SALES OR G.P. RATE TO TAKE CARE OF THE SITUATION. ALSO, HIS ADVER TENCE TO THE COMPARISON WITH THE BOOK RESULTS OF OTHER BAR HOTELS IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OBTAINING IN THIS CASE. 7.5 IN THE CONSPECTUS OF THE CASE, WE ARE, THEREFOR E, OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE MATTER IS TO GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DETE RMINATION OF THE WEIGHTED AVERAGE GROSS PROFIT RATE ON LIQUOR SALES, IN AS ACCURATE A MANNER AS IS PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, PER A SPEAKING ORDER, GIVING DEFINIT E FINDINGS, AND WHICH MAY BE APPLIED TO THE ESTIMATED LIQUOR SALES OF RS. 250 LA CS, TO ARRIVE AT THE ESTIMATE OF GROSS PROFIT THEREON, SUBJECT TO IT NOT EXCEEDING RS. 125 .25 LACS, AND FOR THE REASONS AFOREMENTIONED. NEEDLESS TO ADD, THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE ALLOWED REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO STATE ITS CASE, I.E., ITS OBJECTIONS TO THE AOS WORKING, WHICH, IF NOT ACCEDED TO, SHALL BE MET BY THE AO IN HIS ORDER, BEING SUBJECT TO JUD ICIAL REVIEW. IN THE ABSENCE OF RELEVANT INFORMATION OR MATERIALS, HOWEVER, IT SHAL L BE OPEN TO THE AO TO DRAW AN INFERENCE AS PERMISSIBLE IN LAW. WE DECIDE ACCORDIN GLY. 7.6 THE ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION, AGAIN BEING ONL Y SUPPORTIVE IN NATURE, REQUIRE NO ADJUDICATION. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR AY 20 05-06 (IN I.T.A. NO. 694/COCH/2008) IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, AND THE ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION FOR THAT YEAR (IN C.O. NO. 89/COCH/2008) IS DISMISS ED. SD/- SD/- (N.VIJAYAKUMARAN) (SANJAY ARORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: ERNAKULAM DATED: 30TH JUNE, 2010 ITA. NOS.544 & 694/ COCH./2008 & C.O. NOS. 88 & 89/COCH/2008 14 GJ COPY TO: 1. M/S. HOTEL CITY LIGHT, 7/2, VENJAAMOODU, POTHENC ODE PO, TRIVANDRUM 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL C IRCLE, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, TRI VANDRUM. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I, KOCH I. 5. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL, KOCHI. 6. D.R./I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 7. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (ASSISTAN T REGISTRAR)