The ACIT, Cochin V. Sri. Hattangadi Sanjay Bhat, Cochin

ITA 123/COCH/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8578 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 30-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 16-03-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M LAKSHMI BAI
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition
• Section: 54

Judgement Text

ITA NO.123/COCH/2016 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI B P JAIN, AM & GEORGE GEORGE.K, JM ITA NO.123/COCH/2016 (ASST YEAR : 2012-13) THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1) (NON- CORPORATE), KOCHI. DR. HATTANGADI SANJAY BHAT, NO.15, SPRING TIDE, TAGORE LANE, ELAMAKKARA, KOCHI-682 026. ( REVENUE APPELLANT) VS (ASSESSEE-RESPONDENT) PAN NO. ACUPB 0674R] REVENUE BY SMT. M. LAKSHMI BAI, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY SHRI MATHEW JOSEPH, CA DATE OF HEARING 30/05/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 01/06/2016 ORDER PER B.P. JAIN, AM: THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARISES FROM THE O RDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-II, KOCHI DATED 23-12-2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS)-II, KOCHI IN APPEAL NO. I.T.A.-47/R1/E/CIT(A)-II/13/R-2/CIT(A)-II/2014- 15 DATED 23/12/2015, IS OPPOSED TO LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE . 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN ALLOWING EXEMPTION U/S. 54 ON A NEW ASSET WHICH NOT A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE BUT RATHER A TENNIS COURT. ITA NO.123/COCH/2016 2 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE DETAILED FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE NEW ASSET IS NOT A RESID ENTIAL HOUSE BUT RATHER A TENNIS COURT. THE ENQUIRY REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR R EVEALED THAT THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTED IS USED AS A DRESSING ROOM FOR TENNIS P LAYER. THERE WERE NO PHYSICAL AMENITIES LIKE FURNITURE, UTENSILS ETC. MA KING IT CLEAR THAT THE BUILDING WAS NOT UTILIZED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDER AND A SCERTAIN THE TRUE CHARACTER AND NATURE OF THE PROPERTY WHETHER A RESIDENTIAL HO USE WAS CONSTRUCTED ON THE PURCHASED LAND AND THE PROPERTY WAS INTENDED TO BE PUT TO USE FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO CONSIDER THE ASSES SING OFFICERS EXPLANATION OF DISALLOWING THE INVESTMENT OF 17069 CENTS OF LAND U /S. 54F. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED THE MEANING OF LAND APPURTENANT TH ERETO UNDER EXPLANATION TO SEC.5(1)(IVC) OF WT ACT. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT EXTENT OF LAND EXCEEDING 1/3 RD OF PLINTH AREA OF BUILDING CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS LAND APPURTENANT THERETO AND 17.69 CENTS OF VACANT LAND WOULD NOT QUALIFY FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 54 F. 7. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED A T THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REST ORED. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW: DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD A JOINT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY BEARING NO. 509, PID NO. 68-2-509, COMPRISING RESID ENTIAL HOUSE, CONSISTING OF GROUND FLOOR AND FIRST FLOOR, SITUATED AT 3 RD CROSS, 15 TH MAIN III BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 034, MEASURING IN TOTAL 5480 SQUARE FEET, ALONG WITH 3 OTHER PEOPLE ON 14THJULY 2011 FOR A SALE CON SIDERATION OF ITA NO.123/COCH/2016 3 RS.4,00,00,000/-. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEES PORTION OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION IS RS.1,00,00,000/-. THE CAPITAL GAIN AFTER DEDUCTING THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION IS RS.79,19,750/-. FURTHER THE ASSESSE E HAS CLAIMED AN EXEMPTION U/S. 54 OF RS.71,86,800/-. ON VERIFICATION OF THE D ETAILS OF EXEMPTION CLAIMED, THE FOLLOWING FACTS EMERGED WHICH ARE DISCUSSED AS FOLLOWS:- OUT OF THE TOTAL CAPITAL GAIN THE ASSESSEE HAS PURC HASED A LAND PROPERTY ON 3 RD AUGUST, 2011 HAVING AN EXTENT OF 7.95 ARES IN SURV EY NO. 185/14/2 IN EDAPALLY SOUTH FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.71,86,800/ - INCLUDING STAMP DUTY AND COST OF REGISTRATION. AS PER THE PLAN OF LAND AND B UILDING APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION OF KOCHI (COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED IN TH E FILE) THE TOTAL EXTENT OF LAND IS 10.025 CENTS OF LAND AND THE PLINTH AREA OF THE BUILDING MEASURES 40.60 SQ. M. OR 1.003 CENTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAI MED AS EXEMPTION U/S. 54 THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT IN LAND OF RS.71,86,800/-. T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING MEASURING 40.60 SQ. M. THE TOTAL AREA OF THE LAND PROPERTY IS 19.025 CENTS. OUT OF THE TO TAL AREA 18.022 CENTS OF THE LAND IS LEFT VACANT AND A SMALL BUILDING WITH A PLI NTH AREA OF 1.003 CENTS IS CONSTRUCTED IN THE REAR PORTION OF THE LANDED PROPE RTY. OUT OF THE TOTAL EXTENT OF LAND, AROUND17 CENTS OF LAND IS TARRED. DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION ON VERIFICATION OF RECORDS, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED A BUILDING WITH A PLINTH AREA OF 1.003 CENTS IN THE T OTAL AREA OF 19.025 CENTS. HENCE PRACTICALLY 94.7% OF THE LAND IS VACANT. NORM ALLY AN EXTENT OF LAND NOT EXCEEDING ONE-THIRD OF THE PLINTH AREA OF THE BUILD ING, COMPRISING THE DWELLING UNIT OR UNIT AT THE GROUND LEVEL CONTIGUOU S TO THE LAND OCCUPIED BY SUCH BUILDING IS TAKEN AS LAND APPURTENANT THERETO TO THE BUILDING. IN THIS CASE 0.334 CENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED AS LAND APPURTEN ANT THERETO. THEREFORE THE AREA OF THE BUILDING ALONG WITH THE LAND APPURT ENANT THERETO WORKS OUT TO 1.337 CENTS. HENCE APPROXIMATELY 17.69 CENTS OR AROUND 92% OF THE TOTAL AREA IS NOT UTILIZED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NE W RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. HENCE INVESTMENT IN LAND WITH AN EXTENT OF 17.69 CENTS DO ES NOT QUALIFY FOR EXEMPTION. THEREFORE THE INVESTMENT RELATING TO TH IS IS DISALLOWED. ITA NO.123/COCH/2016 4 ENQUIRY REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE INSPECTOR AN ENQUIRY WAS CONDUCTED BY THE INSPECTOR ATTACHED TO THIS OFFICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASCERTAINING THE EXTENT OF LAND REQUIRED FOR EFFECTIVELY AND PROPERLY ENJOYING THE BUILDING AND THE LAND APPURTE NANT THERETO. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE COPY OF THE REPORT ALONG W ITH THE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE ATTACHED HERE. AS DIRECTED I VISITED THE PROPERTY OF DR. H. SANJAY BHAT AT ADDRESS NO. 49/700A(1), PUTHUKKALAVATTOM, NEAR PUNNEKKAL TEMPL E, ELAMAKARA ON 18.12.2014 IN CONNECTION WITH ENQUIRY REGARDING CON STRUCTION OF NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AT THE ABOVE SAID PLACE. THE PRO PERTY CONSISTS OF AROUND 19 CENTS OF LAND AND A MAJOR PORTION OF IT WAS FULLY T ARRED. THE PROPERTY WAS DEVELOPED TO MAKE A TENNIS COURT AND NETS AND LIGHT S WERE ALSO INSTALLED THERE FOR PRACTICE AT NIGHT. ONE SMALL HOUSE WAS A LSO SEEN CONSTRUCTED AT A CORNER OF THE BACK SIDE OF LAND. I ALSO INSPECTED T HE HOUSE FROM INSIDE. THE HOUSE CONSISTED OF ONE SMALL HALL AND ONE SMALL STO RE ROOM. THERE WAS NO PHYSICAL AMENITIES LIKE FURNITURE, UTENSILS ETC. AV AILABLE IN THE HOUSE AND ONLY SOME TENNIS EQUIPMENTS LIKE RACKET, BALLS, NETS ETC . WERE KEPT IN THE HOUSE. IT APPEARED THAT THE PLACE IS MERELY USED AS A DRESSIN G ROOM FOR THE TENNIS SPORT. THE AREA OUTSIDE THE HOUSE WAS ALSO COVERED WITH WEEDS AND IT APPEARED THAT NOBODY IS PERMANENTLY RESIDING IN THE HOUSE. SOME PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE LAND TAKEN DURING THE ENQUIRY AR E ALSO ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR REFERENCE. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE REPORT THAT THE BUILDING IS NO T UTILIZED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE AND NO ONE IS RESIDING IN THAT BUILDING. FURTHER I T IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEVELOPED THE PROPERTY TO MAKE A TENNIS COURT ALONG WITH THE SMALL BUILDING WITH A PLINTH AREA OF 1.003 CENTS FOR THE PLAYERS T O RETIRE AND REST. EXCEPT FOR THE PARAPHERNALIA RELATING TO THE GAME OF TENNIS, N OTHING MORE WAS FOUND IN THE BUILDING AS EVIDENCED FROM THE PHOTOGRAPHS ATTA CHED. HENCE IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE BUILDING WAS NOT UTILIZED FOR RESIDE NTIAL PURPOSES AND THE REMAINING LAND OF AROUND 17.69 CENTS DOES NOT QUALIFY AS APPURTENANT LAND. HENCE THE ENTIRE EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE AS SESSEE FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND OF RS.71,86,800/- IS DISALLOWED AND ADDED B ACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.123/COCH/2016 5 4. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW:- 2.5 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. I T IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UTILIZED THE PROCEEDS OF THE CAPITAL GAINS IN P URCHASING LAND AND CONSTRUCTING A HOUSE UPON THE LAND. THE CORPORATIO N OF KOCHI HAS ISSUED THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE DATED 17/8/2012 AND THE ASSES SEE HAS ALSO PAID THE PROPERTY TAX FOR WHICH A COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 0.0. 2013 HAS BEEN FILED. IT HAS RIGHTLY BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE APPELLANT THAT NO S PECIFIED AREA OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN ORDER TO CLA IM THE BENEFIT U/S. 54 IS MANDATED BY THE LAW BUT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION HAS TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER TOO K PLACE. THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN SOLD ON 14/7/2011 AND, THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT HAS BEEN COMPLETED ALONG WITH PURCHASE OF LAND, WITHIN THE P RESCRIBED PERIOD. IT IS SUFFICIENT PRECONDITION FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S. 54. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IS FOUND APPROPRIATE AND HENCE THE APPEAL ON THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 5. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AND ARGUED THAT ONLY 1.033 CENTS OF THE TOTAL AREA OF THE 19.025 CE NTS WAS CONSTRUCTED AND 94.7% OF THE LAND WAS LYING VACANT. FROM THE ENQUIRY REP ORT OF THE INSPECTOR AND THE VISIT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WAS FOUND THAT T HE PROPERTY WAS DEVELOPED AS A TENNIS COURT AND ONE SMALL HOUSE WAS ALSO CONSTRUCT ED AT THE CORNER OF THE LAND WHICH CONSISTED OF ONE SMALL HALL AND ONE SMALL STO RE ROOM. NO PHYSICAL AMENITIES LIKE FURNITURE, UTENSILS ETC. WERE FOUND AVAILABLE IN THE HOUSE, INSTEAD ONLY SOME TENNIS EQUIPMENTS LIKE RACKET, BALLS, NET S ETC. WERE KEPT IN THE HOUSE. IT APPEARS THAT THE PLACE IS MERELY USED AS A DRESS ING ROOM FOR THE TENNIS SPORT. ITA NO.123/COCH/2016 6 NOBODY IS PERMANENTLY RESIDING IN THE HOUSE. SOME PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE LAND WERE TAKEN DURING THE ENQUIRY ARE ALSO ENCLOSED HER EWITH FOR REFERENCE. 6. THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BE FORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUS ED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE EXPLANATION THAT DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED 19.025 CENTS OF LAND ON 03/08/2011 OUT OF THE SALES PROCEEDS OF HIS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN BANGALORE FOR CONSTRUCTING A HOUSE IN KOCHI. THE PROPERTY IN BANGALORE WAS SOLD ON 14/07/2011 AND THE HOUSE C ONSTRUCTION PERMIT WAS OBTAINED ON 17/08/2012 AND THE WORK STARTED IMMEDIA TELY AND COMPLETED BY 12/08/2013. THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED B Y THE CORPORATION AND THE HOUSE PROPERTY TAX ALSO WAS PAID. 8. . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PRACTICIN G UROLOGIST AND HIS ONLY DAUGHTER IS A TENNIS PLAYER WHO HAD PARTICIPATED IN MORE THAN 200 REGIONAL AND NATIONAL TOURNAMENTS AND HAS WON MORE THAN 150 RECO GNITIONS. THE ASSESSEES FAMILY HAS ONLY THREE MEMBERS AND THIS HOUSE WAS IN TENDED FOR THEIR STAY FOR ITA NO.123/COCH/2016 7 ENABLING THE ASSESSEE TO PROVIDE THE DAILY PRACTICE TO HER. THERE WERE NO ALTERNATIVE COACHING CENTRES NEARBY. 9. SECTION 54 DOES NOT SPECIFY THE AREA OF THE H OUSE TO BE CONSTRUCTED . THE PROPERTY PURCHASED IS RECTANGLE IN SHAPE AND ALL TH E THREE SIDES ARE OWNED BY THREE FAMILIES AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY ONE OPENIN G TO THE PLOT FROM THE WESTERN SIDE. THE ASSESSEE ON A DAILY BASIS IS USI NG THE VACANT PORTION FOR COMING AND GOING OUT FROM HIS RESIDENCE AND FOR PAR KING HIS AND HIS VISITORS MOTOR VEHICLE INSIDE. INSTEAD OF MAKING A LAWN OR G ARDEN HE HAS MADE A TENNIS COURT AS HER DAUGHTER IS A TENNIS PLAYER. THE REVE NUE CANNOT SAY THAT THIS DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE LAND APPURTENANT TO THE BUILDI NG. 10. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES DAUGHTER HAD AN ANKLE INJURY DURING HER COMPETITION IN MAY, 2014 AND IS STILL UN DER TREATMENT AND HAS BEEN ADVISED REST FOR ANOTHER TWO YEARS. HENCE THE ASSE SSEE HAS GIVEN THIS HOUSE PROPERTY ON LEASE FOR A MONTHLY RENT OF RS.10,000/- FROM 17 TH JUNE, 2015. COPY OF THE LEASE IS PLACED ON RECORD. 11. AS PER SECTION 54, IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE BEING AN INDIVIDUAL OR HUF, THE GAIN ARISES FROM THE TRANSFER OF A LONG TERM CAPITA L ASSET BEING BUILDINGS OR LANDS ITA NO.123/COCH/2016 8 APPURTENANT THERETO, AND BEING A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE , THE INCOME OF WHICH IS CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPER TY. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS CONSTRUCTED ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITHIN THE PERIOD OF THREE YEARS, CAPITAL GAIN BEING CHARGED TO INCOME TAX SHA LL BE DEALT WITH AS PROVIDED U/S. 54(1) OF THE ACT. ON READING OF THE PROVISION S CONTAINED IN SECTION 54(1) OF THE ACT, THE ONLY CONDITION MENTIONED IS THAT ONE R ESIDENTIAL HOUSE SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER THE DATE ON WH ICH THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET TOOK PLACE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, TH E ASSESSEE HAS WITHIN THE PERIOD OF THREE YEARS OF THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSE T HAS PURCHASED THE LAND AND HAS CONSTRUCTED THE HOUSE WHICH CONTAINS ONE SMALL HALL AND ONE SMALL STORE ROOM AND THE OPEN SPACE IS USED AS TENNIS COURT. T HERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THIS EFFECT AS THESE FACTS ARE COMING OUT OF THE INSPECT ION MADE BY THE INSPECTOR AND ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF TH E SAME ARE PLACED ON RECORD. THEREFORE, THE PROPERTY SO PURCHASED AND C ONSTRUCTED HAD THE HOUSE WHICH IS CAPABLE OF LIVING FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES . THE CORPORATION HAS ISSUED THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE AND HAS ALSO PAID HOUSE P ROPERTY TAX. INSTEAD OF MAKING A LAWN OR GARDEN, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEVELOPED A TENNIS COURT FOR HIS DAUGHTER WHO IS A TENNIS PLAYER WHO HAD PARTICIPATE D IN MORE THAN 200 REGIONAL AND NATIONAL TOURNAMENTS AND HAS WON MORE THAN 150 RECOGNITIONS. AS A MATTER OF FACT, WHETHER THE ASSESSEE LIVES IN THE H OUSE OR NOT, IS NOT THE DECIDING FACTOR. THE DECIDING FACTOR IS WHETHER SUCH A HOUS E IS CAPABLE OF BEING USED AS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OR NOT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, T HE HOUSE WHICH WAS ITA NO.123/COCH/2016 9 CONSTRUCTED WAS CAPABLE OF BEING USED AS A RESIDENT IAL HOUSE SINCE THE ASSESSEES DAUGHTER HAD AN ANKLE INJURY DURING HER COMPETITION IN MAY AND WAS UNDER TREATMENT AND WAS ADVISED REST FOR ANOTHER TW O YEARS AND THE SAID PROPERTY WAS GIVEN ON LEASE FOR A MONTHLY RENT OF R S.10,000/-, THE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW. IN TOTALITY, THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE LAND AND CONSTRUCTED THE RESIDENT IAL HOUSE AND THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT SPENT ON THE PURCHASE OF LAND AND CONSTR UCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 54(1) OF THE ACT. 12. IN VIEW OF OUR FINDINGS HEREINABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, ALL THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN I. T.A. NO.123/COCH/2016 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COUR T ON 01-06-2016 SD/- SD/- (GEORGE GEORGE K.) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE : COCHIN DATED: 1 ST JUNE,2016 GJ COPY TO: ITA NO.123/COCH/2016 10 1. DR. HATTANGADI SANJAY BHAT, NO.15, SPRING TIDE, TAGORE LANE, ELAMAKKARA, KOCHI-682 026. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCL E-1(1) (NON-CORPORATE), KOCHI. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-II, KOCH I. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOCHI. 5. THE DR/ITAT, COCHIN BENCH. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, COCHIN ITA NO.123/COCH/2016 11 1.DATE OF DICTATION : 30/05/2016 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED 30/05/2016 BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER OTHER MEMBER: 3.DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR . PS/PS: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER : 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. PS/PS : 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO BENCH CLERK: 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO HEAD CLERK: 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO ASSISTANT REGISTR AR 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER: