M/s.Hykon India P. Ltd, Trichur V. The ITO, Wd-1(1), Trichur

ITA 171/COCH/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8965 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 11-10-2018
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A S BINDHU
• Assessee Lawyers: SIJO P L
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Transfer pricing; Principle of natural justice; International transaction; Wrong claim; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 43B; 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM & GEORGE GEORGE K., JM I .T . A. NO 171 / COCH/ 201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014 - 15 HYCON INDIA PRIVATE LTD., HYKON HOUSE, IKKANDA WARRIER ROAD, THRISSUR-680 001. [PAN:AAACH 6869H] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), THRISSUR. (ASSESSEE - APPELLANT) (REVENUE - RESPONDENT) A SS ESSEE BY SHRI SIJO P.L., FCA REVENUE BY SMT. A.S. BINDHU, DR D ATE OF HEARING 11/10/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15 /10/ 2018 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT, THRISSUR DATED 19/02/2018 PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE I.T. ACT AND PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: THE CIT HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER FOR RE-OPENING THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 263 OF THE ACT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: I) SECTION 43B BEING THE MAIN SECTION FOR DEDUCTION OF CONTRIBUTION PAYABLE BY THE EMPLOYER, WHETHER IT IS THE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION OR EMPLOYER I.T.A. NO.171 /COCH/2018 2 CONTRIBUTION, NO DISTINCTION SHOULD BE MADE AS FAR AS SECTION 43B IS CONCERNED. II. AFTER THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 43B VIDE FINANCE ACT, 2003, DEDUCTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED FOR CONTRIBUTION WHETHER IT IS EMPLOYER'S OR EMPLOYEE'S CONTRIBUTION IF THE SAME IS PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN UNDER SECTION 139. III. LANGUAGE USED IN SECTION 43B CONTAINS THE WORD 'AS EMPLOYER', NEVER GIVE MEANING THAT IT IS ONLY LIMITED TO THE EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION. AS AN EMPLOYER ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO PAY BOTH THE EMPLOYEE'S CONTRIBUTION AS WELL AS THE EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION TO THE FUND. IV. AFTER THE AMENDMENT IN SECTION 43B VIDE FINANCE ACT, 2003 THE SECTION 36 (1) (VA) SHALL ONLY BE APPLICABLE WHERE THE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION IS PAID AFTER THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN UNDER SECTION 139. V. PF AND ESI ACT ALLOWS THE EMPLOYER TO REMIT THE PF AND ESI EVEN AFTER DUE DATE WITH INTEREST THAT MEANS THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED IS FOR COMMENCEMENT OF CHARGING OF INTEREST. VI. DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 36 (L)(VA) IS AGAINST NATURAL JUSTICE, AS IT IS A PERMANENT DISALLOWANCE, EVEN IF IT IS PAID AFTER DUE DATE AS PER SPECIFIED UNDER RESPECTIVE ACTS. VII. CBDT INSTRUCTION 3/2016 DATED 10'' MARCH, OVERRIDE THE DISCRETIONARY POWER VESTED WITH AO VIDE SECTION 92CA(1). BOARD INSTRUCTION WHICH IS NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AND IS NOT BINDING ON THE ASSESSEE. VIII. BOTH THE ASSOCIATE COMPANIES HYCON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND HYCON POWER ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED WHICH TRANSACTED SPECIFIED DOMESTIC TRANSACTIONS ARE COMING UNDER THE SAME TAX BRACKET, IE, 30.9%, WHICH IS THE MAXIMUM TAX RATE FOR A CORPORATE ASSESSEE. HENCE, EVEN FROM THE DEPARTMENT POINT OF VIEW, REFERRAL TO TPO IS A REVENUE NEUTRAL EXERCISE. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING AND SERVICING OF UPS AND SOLAR EQUIPMENTS. I.T.A. NO.171 /COCH/2018 3 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15, THE ASSESSEE E-FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME, DECLARING INCOME OF RS.16,64,260/-/ THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 19/12/2016, DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.20,64,260/- BY DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS.4,00,000/- FROM THE CLAIM OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES. 4. ON EXAMINATION OF THE RECORDS, THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT EXAMINED THE FOLLOWING ISSUES: (A) THE ASSESSEE HAS COLLECTED EMPLOYEES' SHARE OF EPF AND ESI, BUT THE PAYMENT TOWARDS THE FUND HAS NOT BEEN MADE WITHIN THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED FOR THE PURPOSE BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. (B) EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS ESI CORPORATION FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,86,423/- AND EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND SCHEME AMOUNTING TO RS.9,00,593/- BEING UNPAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE TOWARDS ESI CORPORATION & EPF SCHEME, BOTH ARE TO BE DISALLOWED U/S.36(1)(VA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. (C) THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ENTERED INTO SPECIFIED DOMESTIC TRANSACTION (PURCHASE) WITH THE SISTER CONCERNS (I) M/S. HYKON POWER ELECTRONIC AND THE AMOUNT INVOLVED IS RS.16,89,12,234/- AND (II) M/S. HYKON SOLAR ENERGY (PURCHASE) RS.2,99,07,052/-. SINCE THE AMOUNT INVOLVED IS MORE THAN RS.15 CRORES, THE CASE HAS TO BE REFERRED TO TPO FOR COMPUTATION OF THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE IN RELATION TO THE SAID SPECIFIED DOMESTIC TRANSACTION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 3.1 DUE TO THE ABOVE OMISSIONS, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS CONSIDERED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. 4. BEFORE THE CIT, THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT PA YMENT OF ESI AND PF DUE WERE MADE BY CHEQUES AS PER THE PREVAILING SYSTEM OF PAYMENT DURING I.T.A. NO.171 /COCH/2018 4 THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2013-14. HOWEVER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS DELAY FROM THE SIDE OF BANK IN GENERATING THE CHALLANS, HENCE IN SOME MONTHS, THE ESI AND PF CHALLANS WERE DRAWN AFTER THE DUE DATE PRESCRIBED BY THE ESIC AND EPFO. REGARDING REFERRAL TO TPO, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE BOARD INSTRUCTION, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REFER THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS AND SPECIFIED DOMESTIC TRANSACTIONS TO TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER, IF HE THINKS IT NECESSARY OR EXPEDIENT TO DO SO. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE COMPANIES HYCON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND HYCON POWER ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED COME UNDER THE SAME TAX BRACKET, IE, 30.9%, WHICH IS THE MAXIMUM TAX RATE FOR A CORPORATE ASSESSEE. HENCE FROM THE DEPARTMENT POINT OF VIEW IT IS A REVENUE NEUTRAL EXERCISE. RELYING ON VARIOUS CASE DECISIONS OF THE COURTS AND TRIBUNALS, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT U/S.263, 'ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT IS ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE'. THE LD. AR RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VS. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 WHEREIN IT WAS CATEGORICALLY EXPLAINED THAT FULFILMENT OF BOTH THE CONDITIONS IS AN ESSENTIAL PREREQUISITE FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S.263.' 5. AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL, THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS WITHIN THE DUE DATES. 1. ESI PAYMENT (EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUTION) RS.1,86,423 2. EPF PAYMENT (EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUTION) RS.9,00,593 I.T.A. NO.171 /COCH/2018 5 ACCORDING TO THE CIT, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION OF EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND/ ESIC ONLY IF THE SAME IS CREDITED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EMPLOYEES' ACCOUNT IN THE RELEVANT FUNDS ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATES SPECIFIED IN THE RESPECTIVE LABOUR LAWS. THE CIT RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. KALYAN SILKS TRICHUR PVT. LTD., DATED 16.10.2017(ITA NO.68 OF 2016) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE BELATED DEPOSIT OF EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND OR EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE IS NOT DEDUCTIBLE WHILE COMPUTING TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN THOUGH THE PAYMENT WAS MADE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURNS UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. HENCE, THE CIT HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. 5.1 REGARDING LARGE SPECIFIED DOMESTIC TRANSACTIONS AND THE VOLUME OF TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH ITS SISTER CONCERNS EXCEEDING RS.15 CRORES, THE CIT OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE REFERRED THE CASE TO THE TPO FOR VERIFICATION. HOWEVER, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE AO HAS NOT REFERRED THE CASE TO THE TPO BEFORE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE IT ACT WHICH IS ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. 5.2 REGARDING THE PAYMENT OF CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS ESI & EPF AMOUNTING TO RS.1,86,423/- AND RS.9,00,593/- RESPECTIVELY , THE CIT DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE SAME WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES AND DISALLOW THE BELATED I.T.A. NO.171 /COCH/2018 6 DEPOSIT OF EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND OR EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE WHICH IS NOT DEDUCTIBLE WHILE COMPUTING TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN THOUGH THE PAYMENT WAS MADE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURNS UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ALSO DIRECTED TO REFER THE CASE TO TPO U/S.92CA(1) OF THE IT ACT FOR VERIFICATION OF ALL THE SPECIFIED DOMESTIC TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH ITS SISTER CONCERNS M/S.HYKON POWER ELECTRONIC AND M/S. HYKON SOLAR ENERGY DURING THE F Y 2013- 14. THEREFORE, THE CIT SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT BY EXERCISING JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE ISSUES DE-NOVO ON THE LINES MENTIONED IN HIS ORDER. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT SEEKS TO REMOVE THE PREJUDICE CAUSED TO THE REVENUE BY THE ERRONEOUS ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT EMPOWERS THE COMMISSIONER TO INITIATE SUO MOTO PROCEEDINGS EITHER WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TAKES A WRONG DECISION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD OR HE TAKES A DECISION WITHOUT MAKING AN ENQUIRY INTO THE MATTERS, WHERE SUCH INQUIRY WAS PRIMA FACIE WARRANTED. THE COMMISSIONER IS WELL WITHIN HIS POWERS TO TREAT AN ORDER AS ERRONEOUS ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE MADE FURTHER INQUIRIES BEFORE ACCEPTING THE WRONG CLAIMS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT REMAIN PASSIVE IN THE FACE OF A I.T.A. NO.171 /COCH/2018 7 CLAIM, WHICH CALLS FOR FURTHER ENQUIRY TO KNOW THE GENUINENESS OF IT. IN OTHER WORDS, HE MUST CARRY OUT INVESTIGATION WHERE THE FACTS OF THE CASE SO REQUIRE AND ALSO DECIDE THE MATTER JUDICIOUSLY ON THE BASIS OF MATERIALS COLLECTED BY HIM AS ALSO THOSE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS STATUTORILY REQUIRED TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) AFTER SCRUTINY AND NOT IN A SUMMARY MANNER AS CONTEMPLATED BY SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 143. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THEREFORE, REQUIRED TO ACT FAIRLY WHILE ACCEPTING OR REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN CASES OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AND TO SEE THAT NO ONE DODGED THE REVENUE AND ESCAPED WITHOUT PAYING THE LEGITIMATE TAX. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT EXPECTED TO PUT BLINKERS ON HIS EYES AND MECHANICALLY ACCEPT WHAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE HIM. IT IS HIS DUTY TO ASCERTAIN THE TRUTH OF THE FACTS STATED AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIMS MADE IN THE RETURN. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BECOMES ERRONEOUS WHEN AN ENQUIRY HAS NOT BEEN MADE BEFORE ACCEPTING THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM WHICH RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE. 6.1 IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE RELATING TO EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS ESIC AND EPF BOTH ARE TO BE DISALLOWED U/S. 36(1)(VA) OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MERCHEM LTD. (378 ITR 443) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT ON A READING OF SECTION 36(1)(VA) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, ALONG WITH SECTION 2(24)(X), IT IS CATEGORIC I.T.A. NO.171 /COCH/2018 8 AND CLEAR THAT THE CONTRIBUTION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE EMPLOYEES ALONE WAS TREATED AS INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 36(1)(VA) AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO GET DEDUCTION FOR THE SUM RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS EMPLOYEES TOWARDS CONTRIBUTION TO THE FUND OR FUNDS SO MENTIONED ONLY IF, THE AMOUNT WAS CREDITED BY THE ASSESSEE ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AS PER RESPECTIVE ACT TO THE EMPLOYEES ACCOUNT IN THE RELEVANT FUND AS PROVIDED UNDER EXPLANATION TO SECTION 36(1)(VA) OF THE ACT. SO FAR AS SECTION 43B(B) IS CONCERNED, IT TAKES CARE OF ONLY THE CONTRIBUTION PAYABLE BY THE EMPLOYER OR THE ASSESSEE TO THE RESPECTIVE FUNDS. THEREFORE, SECTIONS 36(1)(VA) AND 43B(B) OPERATE IN DIFFERENT FIELDS, I.E., THE FORMER TAKES CARE OF THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION AND THE LATTER THE EMPLOYERS CONTRIBUTION. THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO GET THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S. 43B(B) AS PROVIDED UNDER THE PROVISO THERETO ONLY WITH REGARD TO THE PORTION OF THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE EMPLOYER TO THE CONTRIBUTORY FUND. HELD, ALLOWING THE APPEAL, THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTEDLY NOT PAID THE REMITTANCE OF THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO THE PROVIDENT FUND AND ESIC WITHIN THE DATES PRESCRIBED UNDER THE RESPECTIVE ACTS, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 43B OF THE AMOUNTS DEDUCTED THEREUNDER FOR AN ON BEHALF OF THE EMPLOYEES. THIS JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED ON 8 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 19/12/2016. AT THE TIME OF PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE JUDGMENT WAS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE SAME AND DISALLOWED THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS ESIC AND EPF AFTER THE I.T.A. NO.171 /COCH/2018 9 PRESCRIBED DATE UNDER THE RESPECTIVE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO TAKE NOTE OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT CITED SUPRA. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE JUDGMENT, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 6.2 REGARDING REFERRING THE MATTER TO THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER U/S. 92CA(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, WHEN THE SPECIFIED TRANSACTIONS WITH THE SISTER CONCERNS EXCEEDED RS.15 CRORES, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE EXAMINED WHETHER THE ASSESSEES CASE IS FIT TO REFER TO THE TPO OR NOT. HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO WHISPER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REGARDING THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 92CA(1) OF THE ACT. IN OTHER WORDS, HE HAS NOT CALLED FOR ANY INFORMATION REGARDING THE APPLICABILITY OF TRANSFER PRICING PROVISIONS TO THE ASSESSEES CASE. BEING SO, WITHOUT MAKING ANY ENQUIRY AT ALL TO ASCERTAIN THE APPLICABILITY OF TP PROVISIONS TO THE ASSESSEES CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT. THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE NECESSARY ENQUIRY IN THIS MATTER, RENDERS THE ASSESSMENT ERRONEOUS WHICH ALSO RESULTED IN LOSS TO THE REVENUE, HENCE, IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, THE CIT EXERCISED THE POWER CONFERRED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE I.T. ACT IN SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND REMANDED THE CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE NECESSARY ENQUIRY INTO THE APPLICABILITY OF TP PROVISIONS AND DECIDE THEREUPON. AS SUCH, THE CIT REMITTED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. WE DO NOT FIND ANY I.T.A. NO.171 /COCH/2018 10 INFIRMITY IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE TPO BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT ON BOTH THE ISSUES. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 15 TH OCTOBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE GEORGE K.) (CHANDRA POOJARI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: KOCHI DATED: 15 TH OCTOBER, 2018 GJ COPY TO: 1. HYCON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYKON HOUSE, IKKANDA WARRIER ROAD, THRISSUR-680 001. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), THRISSUR. 3. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, THRISSUR. 4. D.R., I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 5. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) I.T.A.T., COCHIN I.T.A. NO.171 /COCH/2018 11