M/s. Mangalam Publications(India) P.Ltd, Kottayam V. DCIT, Kottayam

ITA 123/COCH/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 81334 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 05-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LATHA V KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: A S NARAYANAMURTHY
• Keywords: Difference of opinion; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 194C; 147; 148

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 123/COCH/2014 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) AND SHRI CHANDRA PO OJARI (AM) I.T.A NO.123/COCH/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS (INDIA) P LTD VS DY.CIT, CIR .1 S.H. MOUNT P.O, KOTTAYAM KOTTAYAM PAN : AACCM2086K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.S. NARAYANAMURTHY RESPONDENT BY : SMT. LATHA V KUMAR, JR DR DATE OF HEARING : 05-08-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21-10-2014 O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF CIT(A)- IV, KOCHI DATED 02-01-2014 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSME NT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS REOP ENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT. 3. SHRI A.S. NARAYANAMURTHY, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WAS COMPLE TED ON 30-12-2008 2 ITA NO. 123/COCH/2014 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 15,89,248. SUB SEQUENTLY THE ASSESSMENT WAS RECTIFIED BY REDUCING THE INCOME TO RS. 12,74,720. ON 13-09-2010 A NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED FOR REOPENIN G THE ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DISCLOSING AN INCOME OF RS.14,38,587. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSE SSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX ON THE AIR FREIGHT PAID TO THE EXTENT OF RS.24, 61,578. THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO NEW INF ORMATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CH ANGED HIS OPINION ON THE BASIS OF THE EXISTING MATERIAL. CHANGE OF OPINION CANNOT BE A REASON FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE L D.REPRESENTATIVE PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BE NCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN CIT VS JAGSON INTERNATIONAL LTD 321 ITR 544 (DEL). 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SMT. LATHA V KUMAR, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PRINTING AND PU BLICATION OF NEWSPAPER AND PERIODICALS. THE ASSESSEE INCURRED A N EXPENDITURE ON AIR FREIGHT CHARGES TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 24,61,578. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THESE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO THREE COMPANIES, V IZ. A.V. THOMAS & CO LTD, LEE MUIR HEAD LTD; AND AIR TRAVELS ENTERPRI SES. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR WHEN THE ASSESSEE PAID THE AMOUNT TO THESE TH REE COMPANIES FOR TRANSPORTING OF GOODS ON CONTRACT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO DEDUCT TAX U/S 194C 3 ITA NO. 123/COCH/2014 OF THE ACT. SINCE TAX WAS NOT DEDUCTED THE EXPEND ITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 40(A)(IA) HAS TO BE DISALLOWED. ACCOR DING TO THE LD.DR, THIS IS THE OBLIGATION AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. T HEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, EXCESS RELIEF WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE CO NTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. SINCE THE REOPENING IS WITHIN FOUR YEA RS, ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY REOPENED T HE ASSESSMENT. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NO T IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID RS.24,61,578 TOWARDS AIR FREIGHT TO THREE COMPANIES. IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TAX. SECTION 40(A)(IA) CLEARLY PROVIDES FOR DISALLOWANCE OF THE PAYMENTS WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE ALLOWED AS EXPENDITURE IN CASE THE ASS ESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX AS PROVIDED UNDER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS UNDER A BONA F IDE IMPRESSION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN EXCESSIVE RELIEF UNDER THE INCOM E-TAX ACT. 6. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THER E WAS A CHANGE OF OPINION. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINIO N THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT TAKEN ANY VIEW IN THE ORIGINAL ASSE SSMENT. WITHOUT APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT A RETURN F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS 4 ITA NO. 123/COCH/2014 ACCEPTED. THEREFORE, AT THIS STAGE WE MAY NOT BE A BLE TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CHANGED HIS OPINION. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENT OF T HE DELHI HIGH COURT IN JAGSON INTERNATIONAL LTD (SUPRA). THE ASS ESSEE BEFORE THE DELHI HIGH COURT CONTENDED THAT NO NEW INFORMATION / MATE RIAL HAVE COME TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER COMPLETING THE ORIGINAL ASS ESSMENT. THE DELHI HIGH COURT FOUND THAT THE LETTER RELIED UPON BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WAS DATED PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THEREFOR E, REAPPRAISAL OF THE MATERIAL ALREADY AVAILABLE ON RECORD AT THE TIME OF COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE A BASIS FOR REOPENING THE ASSE SSMENT. WE FIND THAT EXPLANATION 2(C)(III) TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT CLE ARLY SAYS THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WHERE AN A SSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE BUT EXCESS RELIEF WAS GRANTED UNDER THE A CT. THIS IS SUBJECT TO FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. WHEREVER AN ORDER U/S 143(3) WAS PASSED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT REOPEN THE CAS E AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS UNLESS THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX ESCAPED A SSESSMENT BY REASON OF FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE EITHER TO FI LE A RETURN OF INCOME OR TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSA RY FOR THE ASSESSMENT. IN CASE THE REOPENING IS WITHIN FOUR YEARS EXPLANATION 1 & 2 OF SECTION 147 WOULD COME INTO OPERATION. THEREFORE, WHEREVER EXC ESS RELIEF WAS GRANTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN RECTIFY THE SAME BY REOPE NING THE ASSESSMENT 5 ITA NO. 123/COCH/2014 U/S 147 OF THE ACT. THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF JAGSON INTERNATIONAL LTD (SUPRA) HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE EX PLANATIUON 2(C)(III) TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CO NSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ATTENTION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT WAS NOT INVITED T O EXPLANATION 2(C)(III) TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. HENCE, THE JUDGMENT OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IS PER IN CURIUM DOES NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. SINCE EX CESS RELIEF WAS GRANTED WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT. 8. NOW COMING TO THE MERIT OF THE DISALLOWANCE, SHR I A.S. NARAYANAMURTHY, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE EXPORTED THE PERIODICALS TO SULTANATE OF O MAN. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, AN AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO BE TWEEN THE ASSESSEE ON ONE PART AND M/S THREE STAR CORPORATION, SULTANA TE OF OMAN ON THE OTHER PART. THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT SINCE THE PAYMENT WAS NOT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON ITS BEHALF, THE ASS ESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX. THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT IN FACT THE ASSESEE IS NOT CLAIMING THE PAYMENT OF FREIGHT CHARGES AS D EDUCTION EVEN THOUGH THE FREIGHT CHARGES WAS DEBITED IN THE PROFIT & LOS S ACCOUNT AS EXPENDITURE. AS SOON AS THE AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED FROM THE FOREI GN PARTIES, THE SAME WAS SHOWN AS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD OTHER INCOME. HENCE, WHAT WAS 6 ITA NO. 123/COCH/2014 RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REIMBURSEMENT OF THE EX PENDITURE ON BEHALF OF THREE STAR CORPORATION. THE AMOUNT DEBITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT WAS NEUTRALIZED BY GIVING CREDIT AS SOON AS THE AMO UNTS ARE RECEIVED UNDER THE HEAD OTHER INCOME THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THERE WILL BE REVENUE NEUTRAL; H ENCE THE QUESTION OF DISALLOWNCE U/S 40(A)(IA) DOES NOT ARISE. THE LD.R EPRESENTATIVE PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HI GH COURT IN CIT VS UNITED RICE LAND 322 ITR 594 (P&H) AND THE DECISION OF THIS BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN DY.CIT SHRI REEZ KARAKKATTIL RAGHAVAN F RIENDS TRANSPORT COMPANY 140 ITD 598 (COCH). 9. ON THE CONTRARY, SMT. LATHA V KUMAR, THE LD.DR S UBMITTED THAT ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE FREIGHT CHARGE S. WHEN THE ASSESSEE PAID THE AMOUNT ON HIS OWN BEHALF OR ON BEHALF OF O THER PERSON, THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX. SINCE THE ASSESS EE DEBITED THE PAYMENT IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, ACCORDING TO THE LD.D R, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COU RT IN KALYANJI MAVJI & CO VS CIT 102 ITR 287 (SC). 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE AGRE EMENT SAID TO BE 7 ITA NO. 123/COCH/2014 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THREE STAR CO RPORATION CLEARLY SAYS THAT THREE STAR CORPORATION HAS TO BEAR THE AC TUAL FREIGHT FROM COCHIN AIRPORT. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT THE LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO MEET THE EXPENDITURE OF FREIGHT CHARGES. IN OTHER WORDS, TH E FREIGHT CHARGES ARE THE LIABILITY OF THREE STAR CORPORATION. AS PER THE AG REEMENT, THREE STAR CORPORATION HAS TO PAY THE FREIGHT CHARGES ALONG WI TH WEEKLY BILLS TO THE ASSESSEE IN DOLLARS. THEREFORE, AS RIGHTLY CLAIMED BY THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE IT IS AN EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY T HE ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF THREE STAR CORPORATION WHICH WAS REIMBURSED TO THE ASSESSEE. 11. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. SECTION 194C PROVIDES FOR DEDUCTION OF TA X BY ANY PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING PAYMENT FOR CARRYING OUT ANY WORK IN PURSUANCE OF A CONTRACT. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE IS A PRINTER AND PUBLISHER OF MAGAZINES. THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE MAGAZINES TO T HREE STAR CORPORATION AS PER THE RATE AGREED BETWEEN THEM. T HE PRICE AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES IS EXCLUSIVE OF FREIGHT CHARGES . THE PURCHASER HAS TO PAY THE FREIGHT CHARGES IN ADDITION TO THE PRICE AG REED UPON. THEREFORE, AS PER THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES, THE LIABILIT Y TO PAY THE FREIGHT CHARGES IS THAT OF THE THREE STAR CORPORATION, SULT ANATE OF OMAN. THE QUESTION ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHEN THREE STA R CORPORATION IS LIABLE TO PAY THE FREIGHT CHARGES AS PER THE ARRANGEMENT / AGREEMENT AND THE 8 ITA NO. 123/COCH/2014 ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO PAY THE AMOUNT INITIALLY T O THE RESPECTIVE COMPANIES WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX OR NOT? LANGUAGE OF SECTION 194C CLEARLY SAYS THAT ANY PERSON RESPO NSIBLE FOR PAYING.. THEREFORE, DEDUCTION OF TAX IS THE RE SPONSIBILITY OF THE PERSON WHO IS PAYING THE MONEY. A PERSON MAY BE RE SPONSIBLE FOR PAYING THE MONEY EVEN THOUGH HE IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY THE S AME. THE LEGISLATURE INTENTIONALLY WORDED ANY PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PA YING.. THEREFORE, IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO MAKE THE PAYMENT OR NOT? BY WAY OF ARRANGEMENT / AGREEMENT, WHEN THE RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE THE PAYMENT OF FREIGHT CHARG ES IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINIO N THAT IN VIEW OF THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED BY THE LEGISLATURE, I.E. ANY PER SON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX. TH EREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT EXPECTED TO DEDUCT TAX. LIABILITY TO PAY THE MONEY IS DIFFERENT FROM RESPONSIBILITY TO PAY THE MONEY. SECTION 194C REQU IRES THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING THE MONEY AND IT DOES NOT RE QUIRES TO DEDUCT TAX BY THE PERSON WHO IS LIABLE TO MAKE MONEY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING THE PAYMENT, THIS TRIBUNAL I S OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS EXPECTED TO DEDUCT TAX U/S 194C OF THE ACT. 9 ITA NO. 123/COCH/2014 12. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENT OF THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN UNITED RICE LAND LTD (SUPRA) AND THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN REEZ KARAKKATTIL RAGHAVAN FRIENDS TRANS PORT CO (SUPRA). IN THESE CASES, THE VEHICLE WAS HIRED. BUT IN THE CAS E BEFORE US THE GOODS, NAMELY PERIODICALS HANDED OVER TO THE RESPECTIVE CO MPANY, FOR TRANSPORT. THEREFORE, IT WAS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE RESPECT IVE COMPANY TO TRANSPORT THE GOODS TO THE DESTINATION. THEREFORE, THE JUDGM ENT FO THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AND THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNA L ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. 13. THE NEXT CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CLAIMING THE AMOUNT AS EXPENDITURE, THEREFORE, THER E CANNOT BE ANY DISALLOWANCE. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSE SSEE DEBITED THIS PAYMENT OF FREIGHT CHARGES IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. T HEREFORE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING THE SAME AS EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THREE STAR CORPORATIO N AS REIMBURSEMENT OF FREIGHT CHARGES WAS CREDITED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IF THAT IS SO, AS RIGHTLY CONTENDED BY THE LD.REPRE SENTATIVE, THERE WAS A REVENUE NEUTRAL. ONCE THE AMOUNT IS DEBITED AS FRE IGHT CHARGES AND THE VERY SAME AMOUNT IS CREDITED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES ON REIMBURSEMENT OF THREE STAR CORPORATION, THEN THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT FURTHER DISALLOWANCE US 40( A)(IA) MAY NOT BE 10 ITA NO. 123/COCH/2014 NECESSARY. IN OTHER WORDS, BY DEBITING THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT WITH THE FREIGHT CHARGES AND CREDITING THE AMOUNT RECEIVED F ROM THREE STAR CORPORATION AS REIMBURSEMENT OF FREIGHT CHARGES WOU LD RESULT IN REVENUE NEUTRAL. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWS THE CL AIM OF FREIGHT CHARGES U/S 40(A)(IA) THEN THE AMOUNT CREDITED AS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES ON THE REIMBURSEMENT OF FREIGHT CHAR GES HAS ALSO TO BE DELETED. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSID ERED OPINION THAT THERE IS NO FURTHER DISALLOWANCE REQUIRED PROVIDED THE ASSES SEE CREDITED THE REIMBURSEMENT OF FREIGHT CHARGES UNDER THE HEAD INC OME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS CLAIMED BY THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IT NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED WHETHER THE ASSESSEE CREDITED THE AMOUNT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SE T ASIDE AND THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF VERIFYING WHETHE R THE FREIGHT CHARGES DEBITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT IS CREDITED AS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS REIMBURSEMENT FROM T HREE STAR CORPORATION. IF IT IS CREDITED AS INCOME FROM OTHE R SOURCE, THEN, THERE IS NO NEED FOR FURTHER DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FUNDS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CREDITED TH E AMOUNT OF REIMBURSEMENT RECEIVED FROM THREE STAR CORPORATION AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND THERE IS ONLY A DEBIT IN THE PROFIT & L OSS ACCOUNT, THEN THE 11 ITA NO. 123/COCH/2014 EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS FREIGHT CHAR GES HAS TO BE DISALLOWED. 14. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FIL E OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 21 ST OCTOBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN, DT : 21 ST OCTOBER, 2014 PK/- COPY TO: 1. MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS (INDIA) P LTD, S.H. MOUNT P.O., KOTTAYAM 2. THE DY.CIT, CIR.1, KOTTAYAM 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOTTAYAM 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A)-IV, KOCHI-11 5. THE DR (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH