K.V.Balagangadharan, Palakkad V. DCIT, Trichur

ITA 144/COCH/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73806 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 01-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K JOHN
• Assessee Lawyers: T M SREEDHARAN
• Keywords: Gift; Business income; Principle of natural justice; Peak credit
• Section: 143(3); 263; 63

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. NOS. 144&145/COCH/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2007-08 & 2008-09 SHRI K.V. BALAGANGADHARAN, DEEPA, 100 FEET MALAMPUZHA ROAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 001. [PAN:ANPBP 4087G] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR. (ASSESSEE -APPELLANT) (REVENUE-RESPONDEN T) ASSESSEE BY SHRI T.M. SREEDHARAN, SR. ADV. REVENUE BY SHRI K.K. JOHN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 01/01/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 03/01/2014 O R D E R PER B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTE D AGAINST THE COMMON REVISION ORDER DATED PASSED BY LD CIT, CENTRAL U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND THEY RELATE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AND 2008-09. 2. IN BOTH THE APPEALS THE ASSESSEE IS QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF THE REVISION ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT. 3. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE STATED IN BR IEF. THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE COMPLETED IN THE HAN DS OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 153C OF THE ACT. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED INCOME FROM SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARISIN G FROM PURCHASE AND SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES AND THE SAME WAS ACCEPTED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER I.T.A. NOS. 144&145/COCH/2012 2 WITHOUT MAKING ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT IT. THE LD. CI T NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD UNDERTAKEN MANY TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE AND SA LE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES AND ACCORDINGLY, HE TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON BUSINESS IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD CIT TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE PROFIT ARISING FROM SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES SHOULD HA VE BEEN ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS. THE LD CIT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK WAS REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHILE ARRIVING AT THE BUSINESS PROFITS, HOWEVER, IT WAS NOT CONSIDERED WHILE WORKI NG OUT THE GAIN ARISING ON SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES. THE LD CIT ALSO WORKED OU T THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK AT RS.46.21 LAKHS AND RS.64.52 LAKHS RESPECTIVELY F OR THE YEAR ENDING 31.3.2007 AND 31.3.2008. 3.1 THE LD. CIT ALSO NOTICED THAT THE INCOME AS SESSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AND 2008-09 ARE LESSER THAN THE INCOM E THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASSESSED, IF THE INVESTMENTS AND INCOME ARE CONSIDE RED. THE LD. CIT WORKED OUT THE INCOME DETAILS AS UNDER FOR THE ABOVE SAID TWO YEARS:- SL. NO. ASST. YEAR INCOM E RETURNE D ADDITIONS TO BE MADE INCOME ASSESSED INCOME UNDER ASSESSED PROFIT FROM LAND SALE PEAK FUND DEFICIE NCY GIFT TOTAL 1 2007-08 1024280 829059 3792295 102373 5748007 31 18573 2629434 2 2008-09 2195210 1550760 2085111 5831081 3443250 2387831 ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT CONCLUDED THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ASSESSED FULLY AND CORRECTLY FOR THE TWO YEARS UNDE R CONSIDERATION, WHICH HAS LED TO PASSAGE OF ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. I.T.A. NOS. 144&145/COCH/2012 3 3.2 ACCORDINGLY, HE INITIATED REVISION PROCEEDIN GS FOR THE ABOVE SAID TWO YEARS. AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT SET ASIDE T HE ASSESSMENT ORDERS WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE TRA NSACTIONS IN REAL ESTATE AS A BUSINESS VENTURE CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALS O TO RE-WORK THE PEAK CREDITS BASED ON SPECIFIC INVESTMENTS AND OUTGO AND ALSO TO RE-WORK THE DEFICIT IN CASH ARISING FROM THE TRANSACTIONS. AGGRIEVED, THE ASS ESSEE HAS FILED THESE APPEALS BEFORE US. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CARRY ON THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES AS PRESUMED BY LD CIT. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE OFFERED TH E PROFIT ARISING FROM SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES UNDER THE HEAD SHORT TERM CAP ITAL GAIN. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT HAS REACHED CONC LUSIONS ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTIONS ONLY AND HE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERI AL ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS VIEWS. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN ORD ER TO INVOKE THE REVISION PROCEEDINGS U/S. 263 OF THE ACT, TWO CONDITIONS SPE CIFIED IN THAT SECTION HAVE TO BE CUMULATIVELY SATISFIED, I.E., THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER SHOULD NOT ONLY BE ERRONEOUS BUT IT SHOULD ALSO BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT EVEN IF ONE OF THE CONDITIONS ARE NOT SATISFIED, THEN THERE IS NO JURISDICTION TO INITIATE REVISION PROCEEDINGS U/S 2 63 OF THE ACT. THE LD COUNSEL PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LTD. VS. CIT (243 ITR 83)(SC) AND MAX INDIA LTD (295 ITR 282)(SC) IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE SAID PROP OSITION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE RATE OF TAX LEVIABLE ON THE INCOME ARISING ON S ALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES ISA ONE AND SAME, IF IT WAS ASSESSED EITHER UNDER THE H EAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM SHORT TERM CAPITAL G AIN. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT NO PREJUDICE WOULD BE CAUSED TO THE REVENUE, EVEN IF THE GAIN ON SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES IS ASSESSED AS BUSINES S INCOME INSTEAD OF ASSESSING THE SAME AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING THE REVISION PROCEEDINGS ON THE ISSUE OF I.T.A. NOS. 144&145/COCH/2012 4 SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN OTHERWISE, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ONE OF THE POSSIB LE VIEWS AND ON THAT COUNT ALSO, THE INITIATION OF REVISION PROCEEDING ON THIS ISSUE IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 4.1 WITH REGARD TO THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE LD . CIT TO ASSESS THE PEAK FUND DEFICIENCY, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE FUND DEFICIENCY WAS CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTESTED THE SAME IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY PASSED THE ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, HE SUBMITTED THAT ISSUE R ELATING TO FUND DEFICIENCY GOT MERGED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE TRI BUNAL AND HENCE, THE LD. CIT WAS NOT LEGALLY CORRECT IN INVOKING REVISION PROCEE DINGS ON THIS ISSUE. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER DID NOT DISCUSS ANYTHING ABOUT THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND IT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT AP PLIED HIS MIND ON THIS ISSUE. WITH REGARD TO THE PEAK DEFICIENCY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE DEPARTMENT SUBMITTED THAT THE PEAK FUND DEFICIENCY WORKED OUT BY THE LD. CIT WAS MORE THAN THAT ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCOR DINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT THE REVISION PROCEEDINGS SHALL LIE IN RESPECT OF THE DI FFERENCE BETWEEN THAT WORKED OUT BY THE LD CIT AND THE AO. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ON FUND DEF ICIENCY ONLY IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. HOWEVER, FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2008-09, THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DID NOT FILE ANY APPEAL. HENCE, THE QUESTION OF MERGER OF THE ISSUE DOES NOT ARISE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 6. BEFORE GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE, W E WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS ABOUT THE LEGAL POSITION WITH REGARD TO THE POWER OF LEAR NED CIT TO INVOKE REVISION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THE SCOP E OF REVISION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT WAS CONSIDER ED BY HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH I.T.A. NOS. 144&145/COCH/2012 5 COURT, IN THE CASE OF GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. V CIT (321 ITR 92) BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME CO URT. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS ARE EXTRACTED BELOW: SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 EMPOWERS TH E COMMISSIONER TO CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORD OF ANY PROCEED INGS UNDER THE ACT AND, IF HE CONSIDERS THAT ANY ORDER PASSED THEREIN, BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, TO PASS AN ORDER UPON HEARING THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER AN ENQUIRY AS IS NECESSARY, ENHANCING OR MODIFYING THE ASSESSMENT OR CANCELLING THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTING A FRESH ASS ESSMENT. THE KEY WORDS THAT ARE USED BY SECTION 263 ARE THAT THE ORD ER MUST BE CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSIONER TO BE ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THIS PROVISION HAS BEEN INTERPRETED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN SEVERAL JUDGMEN TS TO WHICH IT IS NOW NECESSARY TO TURN. IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LT D. V. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE PROVISI ON CANNOT BE INVOKED TO CORRECT EACH AND EVERY TYPE OF MISTAKE O R ERROR COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IT IS ONLY WHEN AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS THAT THE SECTION WILL BE ATTRACTED. THE SUPREME CO URT HELD THAT AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACT OR AN INCORRECT APPLIC ATION OF LAW, WILL SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ORDER BEING ERRONEOU S. AN ORDER PASSED IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE O R WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND, WOULD BE AN ORDER FALLING IN THAT CATEGORY. T HE EXPRESSION PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, THE SUPREME COURT HELD, IT IS OF WIDE IMPORT AND IS NOT CONFINED TO A LOSS OF TAX. WHAT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE IS EXPLA INED IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT (HEAD NOTE) : THE PHRASE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE RE VENUE HAS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF A N ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN AN INCOME-TAX OFFICE R ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULT ED IN LOSS OF REVENUE, OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE IN COME-TAX OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THE PRINCIPLE WHICH HAS BEEN LAID DOWN IN MALABAR I NDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) HAS BEEN FOLLOWED AND EXPLAI NED IN A I.T.A. NOS. 144&145/COCH/2012 6 SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V . MAX INDIA LTD. [2007] 295 ITR 282. 6.1 FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD (SUPRA) IS ALSO RELEVANT HERE. A BARE READING OF THIS PROVISION MAKES IT CLEAR.. THE COMMISSIONER HAS TO BE SATISFIED OF TWIN CONDITIONS , NAMELY, (I) THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED IS ERRONEOUS; AND (II) IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. IF ONE OF THEM IS ABSENT IF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFF ICER IS ERRONEOUS BUT IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE OF IF IT IS NOT ERRONEOUS BUT IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE RE COURSE CANNOT BE HAD TO SECTION 263(1) OF THE ACT. 6.2 IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE POWER TO REVISE THE ORDER SHALL EXTENT ONLY ON SUCH MATTERS WHICH WERE NOT CONSIDER ED AND DECIDED IN ANY APPEAL, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (C) TO EXPLA NATION BELOW SEC. 263(1) OF THE ACT. 7. KEEPING IN MIND ABOVE CITED THE PROPOSITIONS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND ALSO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, W E SHALL EXAMINE THE ISSUES CONTESTED BEFORE US. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 , TWO ISSUES WERE CONSIDERED BY LD CIT VIZ., ASSESSMENT OF GAINS ARIS ING ON SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES AND THE DETERMINATION OF PEAK FUND DEFIC IENCY, WHICH RESULTED IN UNDER ASSESSMENT. WITH REGARD TO THE FIRST ISSUE, THE LD A.R HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE RATE OF TAX IS ONE AND SAME, IF THE GAIN A RISING ON SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES IS ASSESSED EITHER UNDER THE HEAD INCO ME FROM BUSINESS OR UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS. A CCORDINGLY, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT NO PREJUDICE IS CAUSED TO THE REVENUE IN ASSES SING THE GAINS AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS. WE FIND FORCE IN THE SAID SUBMISSIO NS. WE NOTICE THAT THE LD CIT APPEARS TO BE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT IF THE GAIN S ARE ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE DISCLOSING THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES AND IT WILL INCREASE THE PROFI T AMOUNT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE VIEW ENTERTAINED BY LD CIT, IN OUR V IEW, IS NOT CORRECT. WHETHER I.T.A. NOS. 144&145/COCH/2012 7 THE GAIN ARISING ON SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES IS ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME OR AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN, WHAT IS RE QUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED IS THE COST RELATABLE TO THE PORTION OF LAND SOLD BY THE A SSESSEE. IT IS TO BE APPRECIATED THAT THE CLOSING STOCK IS CREDITED TO THE PROFIT AN D LOSS ACCOUNT ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF MATCHING THE COST RELATABLE TO SALES U NDER REVENUE - COST MATCHING PRINCIPLE. HENCE, THE CLOSING STOCK VALUE WILL NOT INCREASE THE PROFIT FROM BUSINESS AS PRESUMED BY THE LD CIT. SINCE NO PREJU DICE IS CAUSED TO THE REVENUE ON ASSESSING THE GAIN ARISING ON SALE OF IM MOVABLE PROPERTIES, ONE OF THE TWIN CONDITIONS DOES NOT GET SATISFIED, IN WHIC H CASE, THE REVISION ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT ON THIS ISSUE SHALL FAIL. ACCORDI NGLY WE SET ASIDE HIS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. 8. WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE RELATING TO PEAK F UND DEFICIENCY RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, I.E., NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BE FORE LD CIT(A) CHALLENGING THE SAID ISSUE. THE AMOUNT OF DEFICIENCY ASSESSED BY T HE AO WAS RS.12,48,040 FOR THIS YEAR, WHEREAS THE LD CIT HAS WORKED OUT THE DE FICIENCY AT RS.20,85,111/-. THUS, THERE IS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO FIGURES, WHICH NEEDS TO BE RECONCILED. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE DI RECTION ISSUED BY THE LD CIT ON THIS ISSUE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 9. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, THE CONTENTION O F THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ISSUE RELATING TO PEAK FUND DEFICIENCY GOT MERGED W ITH THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) AND THE TRIBUNAL. WE NOTICE THAT THE LD CIT HAS WO RKED OUT THE PEAK FUND DEFICIENCY AT RS.37,92,295/-, WHERE AS THE AO HAS M ADE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF ABOUT RS.20.00 LAKHS. THE REASONS FOR THE DIFFEREN CE WERE NOT SPOTTED BY BOTH LD CIT AND THE ASSESSEE. WHATEVER MAY BE THE REASO NS, THE FACT REMAINS THAT LD CIT APPEARS TO HAVE CONSIDERED CASH OUTFLOW IN E XCESS OF THAT CONSIDERED BY THE AO, IN WHICH CASE, THE EXCESS PORTION OF THE CA SH OUTFLOW REQUIRES EXAMINATION AT THE END OF THE AO. ACCORDINGLY WE D O NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN I.T.A. NOS. 144&145/COCH/2012 8 THE ORDER OF LD CIT ON THIS ISSUE TO THE EXTENT OF ITEMS OF CASH OUTFLOW, WHICH WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE AO. 10. HOWEVER, WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE AO SHOULD EXAMINE THE ABOVE SAID ISSUE IN BOTH THE YEARS INDEPENDENTLY WITHOUT BEING INFLU ENCED BY THE OBSERVATIONS OR WORKINGS MADE BY THE LD CIT. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL FILED FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2008-09 IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED ON 03-01-2014 SD/- SD/- (N.R.S.GANESAN) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: KOCHI DATED: 3RD JANUARY, 2014 GJ COPY TO: 1. SHRI K.V. BALAGANGADHARAN, DEEPA, 100 FEET MALAM PUZHA ROAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL C IRCLE, THRISSUR. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS), TRIVAND RUM. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TRIVANDRUM. 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) I.T.A.T, COCHIN I.T.A. NOS. 144&145/COCH/2012 9