P D Abraham Alias Appachan, Calicut V. ACIT, Calicut

ITA 172/COCH/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 52339 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 17-10-2011
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 02-04-2009
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S VIJAYAPRABHA
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAGHUNANDAN CAAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Business expenditure; Proportionate interest; Onus to prove
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JM AND SANJAY AROR A, AM I.T.A NO.172/COCH/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 SHRI P.D.ABRAHAM ALIAS APPACHAN, SWARGACHITHRA, JAIL ROAD, CALICUT. [PAN: ACHPA 5114C] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CALICUT. (ASSESSEE-APPELLANT) (REVENUE-RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI S.RAGHUNANDAN, CA-AR REVENUE BY MS. S. VIJAYAPRABHA, JR. DR DATE OF HEARING 17/10/2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30/12/2011 O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISING OUT OF THE ORD ER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-II, KOCHI (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 12.12.2008, AND THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) UNDER REFERENCE IS 2003-04. 2. THE APPEAL RAISES A SINGLE ISSUE, I.E., MAINTAIN ABILITY OF THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THE CREDITS U/S. 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ('T HE ACT', HEREINAFTER), EFFECTED IN THE SUM OF ` 176.83 LAKHS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) VIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT, SINCE CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AT ` 161.325 LAKHS ALONG WITH THE PROPORTIONATE INTEREST ON THE UNEXPLAINED CREDITS; THE ASSESSEE HAVING CLAIMED INTEREST OF ` 10,76,902/- ON THE UNEXPLAINED CREDITS OF ` 176.83 LAKHS. I.T.A. NO.172 /COCH/2009 P.D.ABRAHAM VS. ACIT, KOZHIKODE 2 3. IT WOULD BE RELEVANT AND NECESSARY TO RECOUNT TH E BACKGROUND FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL IN THE BUSINESS OF FILM PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR AT A LOSS OF ` 67.87 LAKHS ON 28-11-2003. IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) OBSERVED THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE ASSUMED `LOANS FOR A SUM OF ` 181.455 LAKHS DURING THE YEAR. HOWEVER, AS THE ASSE SSEE WAS UNABLE TO FURNISH ANY CONFIRMATIONS IN RESPECT THEREOF, THE SAME, EXCLUDING THE CREDITS FROM THREE PARTIES TOTALLING TO ` 40.63 LAKHS - ON THE BASIS THAT THE CREDITS AT A MU CH HIGHER AMOUNTS HAD BEEN TAKEN FROM THESE PARTIES DU RING THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR, AND WHICH HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE WAS DE EMED AS HIS INCOME U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. PROPORTIONATE INTEREST THEREON, CLAIMED AS BUS INESS EXPENDITURE, WAS ALSO DISALLOWED. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE SAID ADDITION HAD BEEN MADE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE HAVING BEEN ADDUCED BY THE ASSESSEE, INCLUDING IN R ESPECT OF LOANS FROM BANKS, AT A TOTAL OF ` 15.50 LAKHS, THE LD. CIT(A) REMANDED THE MATTER BAC K TO THE FILE OF THE AO, CALLING UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE CONFIRMATION LETTE RS AND OTHER MATERIALS IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED CREDITS BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. VI DE HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 07-4-2008, THE AO STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED CONFIRMAT ION LETTERS, EXCEPT FROM 10 PARTIES FOR A TOTAL OF ` 32,82,500/-. HOWEVER, EVEN FOR THE BALANCE 14 PARTI ES, THERE WAS NO DOCUMENT OTHER THAN A MERE CONFIRMATION LETTER, SO THAT NO E VIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE SUM CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS A LOAN HAD BEEN FURNISHED. AS SUCH, APART FROM CREDITS FROM BANKS/QUASI-BANKS, BEING SUNDARAM FINANCIERS ( ` 4.60 LAKHS), VIJAYA BANK ( ` 5 LAKHS) AND SUNDARAM FINANCE ( ` 6 LAKHS), AGGREGATING TO ` 15.60 LAKHS (WRONGLY STATED IN THE ORDER AS AT ` 15.50 LAKHS), THE BALANCE AMOUNT WAS CONSIDERED BY HIM AS NOT SATISFACTORILY PROVED. THE LD. CIT(A) AFFORDED OPP ORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO MEET THE REMAND REPORT, AS WELL AS TO ADDUCE ANY FURTHER MAT ERIALS TOWARD PROVING THE IMPUGNED CREDITS, WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO IN SPITE BEING GIVEN A NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES BY HIM TO DO SO. THE CONFIRMATION CERTIFICATES FILE D DID NOT INDICATE THE EXACT SOURCE FROM WHICH THESE AMOUNTS WERE GIVEN BY THE CONCERNED PER SONS. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME WERE CONFIRMED AS INCOME BY WAY OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT U/ S. 68 OF THE ACT, EXCLUDING THE LOANS AVAILED FROM THE BANKS. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. I.T.A. NO.172 /COCH/2009 P.D.ABRAHAM VS. ACIT, KOZHIKODE 3 4. BEFORE US, THE APPELLANT HAS TABULATED/CATEGORIS ED THE IMPUGNED AMOUNTS INTO TWO CATEGORIES, LISTING THE PARTIES IN TWO SEPARATE TAB LES, I.E., ONE CONTAINING NAMES OF 14 (FOR AN AGGREGATE OF ` 145.775 LAKHS), FOR WHICH CONFIRMATIONS HAVE BEEN F ILED (TALE `A (SAY)), AND THE OTHER FOR THE 13 PARTIES, FOR A TOT AL OF ` 35.68 LAKHS FOR WHICH THOUGH NO CONFIRMATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED, THE APPELLANT HAS GI VEN FULL POSTAL ADDRESS AND PAN (WHERE POSSIBLE) (TABLE `B)(PB PG. 4 ). ON THAT BASIS, IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS OF PROVING THE CREDITS ON THE B ASIS OF THE THREE PARAMETERS, I.E., IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND THE GENUINENESS, PLA CING RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS BY THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS BY THE HIGH COURT. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, WOULD CONTEND THAT THE LAW IN THE MATTER IS TRITE, I.E., THAT THE CRED ITS FOR THE PURPOSE OF S. 68 HAD TO PROVED ON THE AFORE-REFERRED THREE PARAMETERS, THE ONUS OF WH ICH IS ON THE ASSESSEE, AND WHICH IS NOT DISCHARGED BY MERELY FURNISHING A CONFIRMATION FROM THE CREDITOR, EVEN AS ADMITTEDLY EVEN THE SAME HAD NOT BEEN FURNISHED IN ALL CASES. RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY ADVERTING TO THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF ROSHAN DI HATTI V. CIT (19777)107 ITR 938 (SC); CIT V. BIJU PATNAIK (1986)160 ITR 674(SC); MALABAR AGRICULTURAL CO. LTD. V. CIT , 229 ITR 548 (KER.) AND SANIL K.M.P. V. CIT , 177 TAXMAN 481 (KER.). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD. 5.1 COMING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE SECOND CAT EGORY OF CREDITS, AS AFORE-NOTED, CONSISTS OF 13 CREDITS FOR AN AGGREGATE OF ` 35.68 LAKHS. TWO CREDITORS, LISTED AT SL. NOS. 1 & 4 OF TABLE (B) FOR A TOTAL OF ` 2.88 LAKHS, STAND ALREADY ALLOWED BY THE AO PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF, LEAVING THE BALANCE OF ` 32.80 LAKHS FROM ELEVEN PARTIES. NO DOCUMENT OR MATERIALS HAVE BEEN ADMITTEDLY FURNISHE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THESE CREDITS AT ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS, INCLUDING BEFORE US. THE LOANS, BY ALL ACCOUNT, OUTSTAND EVEN AS ON DATE; THE ONLY REPAYMENT, AS WE NOTICE IS AT ` 2.50 LAKHS TO SIBI AVIRA AND ` 0.50 LAKHS TO M.M.BANKERS, LISTED AT SL. NOS. 12 & 13 RESPECTIVELY OF TABLE (B). NEEDLESS TO ADD, THE NON-PAYMENT OF INTEREST-FREE L OANS, EVEN YEARS AFTER, SERIOUSLY IMPUGNS THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDITS. UNDER THE C IRCUMSTANCES, WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF ` 32.80 LAKHS. I.T.A. NO.172 /COCH/2009 P.D.ABRAHAM VS. ACIT, KOZHIKODE 4 5.2 COMING TO THE NEXT CATEGORY OF CREDITS, AT AN A GGREGATE OF ` 145.775 LAKHS FROM 14 CREDITORS (TABLE A). THE ADDITION HAS BEEN SUSTAINE D ONLY AT ` 1,28,42,500/- FROM 10 PARTIES, EXCLUDING ` 17.35 LAKHS FROM 4 PARTIES LISTED AT SL. NOS. 2,11, 12 & 13 OF TABLE (A). THE SAME STANDS CONFIRMED IN VIEW OF THE ADMI TTED FAILURE TO FURNISH ANY MATERIAL TO ESTABLISH THE CREDITS ON THE THREE BASIC PARAMETERS , SAVE THE CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES, ALSO BEARING PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER (PAN) IN MOST CASES. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLARIFIED, BOTH BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS WELL AS BEFORE US, THAT HE IS UNABLE TO FURNISH ANY FURTHER MATERIAL F ROM THESE PARTIES IN VIEW OF THE TIME ELAPSED, I.E., 8 YEARS, PARTICULARLY AS THE ASSESSE E HAS NO BUSINESS WITH THESE PARTIES. THIS IS MOST SURPRISING; RATHER, QUEER. NOBODY WOULD GI VE AN UNSECURED LOAN TO ANOTHER, I.E., WITHOUT SECURITY, OR AT LEAST WITHOUT KNOWING THE B ORROWER, IF NOT ALSO THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH, OR THE AVENUE TO WHICH, THE SAME IS TO BE IN VESTED/APPLIED, PARTICULARLY WHERE THE LOAN AMOUNT RUNS INTO LAKHS OF RUPEES, AS IN THE IN STANT CASE. COUPLE THIS WITH THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN FILM TRADE (AND WHICH CAN ONLY B E PRESUMED TO BE KNOWN TO THE LENDER), WHICH IS WELL KNOWN TO BEAR A HIGH LEVEL OF (BUSINE SS) RISK, AND THE NORMAL PRESUMPTION WOULD ONLY BE, AS WE ALSO BELIEVE IT TO BE - THE IN TEREST THEREON BEING CLAIMED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE - THAT THE CAPITAL BORROWED IS TO BE UT ILISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR HIS SAID BUSINESS. FURTHER, THIS IS MORE SO AS THE CREDITORS , AS CLAIMED, AND WHICH WE HAVE NO REASON TO DISBELIEVE, ARE REGULAR FINANCIERS AND BA NKERS, SO THAT THEY WOULD ALSO BE WELL- AWARE OF SUCH REQUIREMENTS, ALL OF THEM ARE REGULAR ASSESSEES WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND, CONSEQUENTLY, WELL-INFORMED OF THEIR STATUTORY OBLI GATIONS. IN FACT, EVEN ADMITTING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM, I.E., FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, I T DOES NOT DILUTE IN ANY MANNER THE BURDEN OF PROOF CAST BY THE STATUTE ON THE ASSESSEE IN THE MATTER. RATHER, THE EIGHT YEAR PERIOD (FROM F.Y. 2002-03 TO F.Y. 2010-11) HAS ELAP SED ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE DELAYS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, EVEN IF CON SIDERED AS NOT AWARE OF HIS STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS IN ITS RESPECT, I.E., FOR THE SAKE OF A RGUMENT, HE BEING A REGULAR ASSESSEE, GETTING HIS ACCOUNTS AUDITED REGULARLY, HE STANDS P UT ON NOTICE (IN ITS RESPECT) ON THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) AND U/S. 142(1), OF WHICH THE FORMER WOULD BE LATEST BY NOVEMBER, 2004. IN FACT, TO OUR MIND, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE, AND EVEN AS EXPLICIT STATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER, IN VIEW OF THE HEAVY SUMS INVOLVED, EXTENDED MORE THAN I.T.A. NO.172 /COCH/2009 P.D.ABRAHAM VS. ACIT, KOZHIKODE 5 SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE, WHO FURNISH ED EVEN THE CONFIRMATIONS ONLY IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEES CLAIMS ARE SANS ANY MATERIALS AND OF NO MOMENT. IT IS TRITE LAW THAT ONLY A CONFIRMATION OF A CREDIT B Y THE CREDITOR, OR OF IT BEING DISCLOSED PER THE CREDITORS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, EVEN AS IT ALSO R EFLECTS IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE, OR OF THE MONEYS BEING RECEIVED BY CHEQUE, WOULD NOT BE S UFFICIENT TO PROVE THE CREDITS. THIS WOULD, AT BEST, SATISFY THE CONDITION OF ESTABLISHI NG THE IDENTITY (OF THE CREDITOR). WE SAY `AT BEST, AS ONLY THE CREDITORS BANK ACCOUNT WHER E-FROM THE CHEQUE TO THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ISSUED WOULD PROVE THE IDENTITY. SO, HOWEVER, TAKING THE CONFIRMATION AT THE FACE VALUE, THE REASONABLE INFERENCE WOULD BE THAT THE I DENTITY STANDS PROVED. AS SUCH, THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO INDICATE EVEN A PRIMA FACIE EXPRESSION OF OPINION AS REGARDS THE CAPACITY OF THE CREDITOR, I.E., THE SECOND ASPECT O N WHICH THE AO IS OBLIGED BY LAW TO SATISFY HIMSELF. CONTINUING FURTHER, THE LOANS, AS IT APPEARS, CONTINUE TO OUTSTAND TO DATE. THIS IS FLUMMOXING, PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE ASS ESSEES CONTENTION OF HAVING NO BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH THESE PARTIES, WHICH STA TEMENT ALSO CONTRADICTS ITS STATEMENT OF SOME CREDITORS BEING FINANCIERS AND BANKERS (PRIVAT E). IN FACT, SUCH PARTIES WOULD BE NOT ONLY BE CHARGING AND RECOVERING INTEREST, THEIR PRI NCIPAL SOURCE OF INCOME, BUT ALSO TAKE ADEQUATE STEPS TO SECURE THE LOAN/S AS WELL. ON TH E CONTRARY, WE FIND THAT NO INTEREST HAS BEEN CHARGED IN RESPECT OF LOANS AMOUNTING TO ` 80.80 LAKHS. FOR THE BALANCE ` 47.625 LAKHS, THOUGH INTEREST HAS BEEN CHARGED, THE SAME S TAND ACTUALLY PAID ONLY TO ONE PARTY (M/S. LEO INVETMENTS, CHENNAI), FROM WHICH ` 1.75 LAKHS HAS BEEN OSTENSIBLY AVAILED OF DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR. IN FACT, THE TOTAL CREDI T EXTENDED BY THE SAID PARTY IS AT ` 9.25 LAKHS; ` 7.50 LAKHS HAVING BEEN AVAILED OF DURING THE EARLIE R YEAR/S, AND WHICH AMOUNT REFLECTS AS THE OPENING (CREDIT) BALANCE FOR THE YE AR (AS ON 01-04-2002), ALSO INDICATING THAT INTEREST FOR THE EARLIER PERIOD HAS ALSO BEEN DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE AS SUCH, GOING BY THE AOS RATIONALE OF NOT INCLUDING THE CR EDITS WHERE HIGHER SUMS HAVE BEEN AVAILED OF AND ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE IN THE EARLI ER YEARS, WITH THERE BEING NOTHING ADVERSE ON RECORD, OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN PRIMA FACIE ACCEPTED BY HIM, I.E., AS HE DID FOR THE OTHER THREE PERIODS (REFER PARA 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER). WITHOUT DOUBT, CHARGING AND THE RECOVERY OF INTEREST ON A LOAN IS NOT IN ANY MA NNER BY ITSELF CONCLUSIVE OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN/CREDIT, WE, ON THE ENTIRETY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, ARE I.T.A. NO.172 /COCH/2009 P.D.ABRAHAM VS. ACIT, KOZHIKODE 6 INCLINED TO CONSIDER THE SUM OF ` 1.75 LAKHS FROM M/S. LEO INVESTMENTS, CHENNAI, AS REASONABLY EXPLAINED. THE PROPORTIONATE INTEREST WO ULD ALSO STAND TO BE ALLOWED. FOR THE BALANCE ` 126.675 LAKHS FROM 9 PERSONS (LISTED AT SL. NO. 1, 4 TO 10 AND 14 OF TABLE (A)), WE ARE UNABLE TO, BY ANY ACCOUNT, TAKE A VIEW THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN SATISFACTORILY PROVED ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, INCLUDING T HE ASSESSEES CONDUCT. THE LOANS, WHICH REPRESENT THE STOCK-IN-TRADE OF A FINANCIER OR THE WORKING CAPITAL OF THE BUSINESSMAN, AS IT APPEARS, CONTINUE TO OUTSTAND FOR/AFTER YEARS, WITH OUT PAYING INTEREST. NO REASON/S TOWARD THE SAME HAS BEEN FURNISHED. WE HIGHLIGHT THIS ASPE CT AS GENUINENESS IS ESSENTIAL CONDITION TO BE SATISFIED TOWARD PROVING A CREDIT I N TERMS OF S. 68, SO THAT AN INFERENCE AS TO IT HAS NECESSARILY TO BE DRAWN ON THE BASIS OF T HE AVAILABLE INFORMATION AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, RECKONING THE SAME IN ITS TOTALITY. ACCO RDINGLY, WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN RECORDING A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN UNABLE TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS OR THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON IT TO SATISFACTORILY PROVE THE C REDITS TO THE EXTENT OF ` 1,26,67,500/-. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 5.3 THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST TO THE PROPORT IONATE EXTENT IS ALSO CONSEQUENTLY, CONFIRMED. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 6. COMING TO THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESS EE, SUFFICE TO ADD THAT WE HAVE, AS WOULD BE APPARENT, DECIDED THE FACT-IN-ISSUE ARISIN G FOR ADJUDICATION ON AN APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS BORNE OUT BY THE REC ORD, AND APPLYING THE TRITE LAW IN THE MATTER, ON WHICH THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR ANY DISPUTE, AND THE CASE LAW ON WHICH IS LEGION, AND TOWARD WHICH WE MAY, APART FROM THE DECISIONS C ITED BY THE REVENUE STATING THE LAW IN THE MATTER, AND WHICH STAND NOT MET BY ASSESSEE, FURTHER ADVERT TO THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS TOWARD DECLARING THE LAW IN THE MATTER: GOVINDA RAJULU MUDALIAR V. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC); SREELEKHA BANERJEE & OTHRS. V. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC); KALEKHAN MOHAMMED HANIF V. CIT (!963) 50 ITR 1(SC); CIT V. DURGA PRASAD MORE (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC); S UMATI DAYAL V. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC). THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON , WHICH STAND ONLY CITED BY THE ASSESSEE, WITHOUT SHO WING AS TO HOW ARE THE SAME APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, HAVE BEEN PERUSED TO FIND THE SAME I.T.A. NO.172 /COCH/2009 P.D.ABRAHAM VS. ACIT, KOZHIKODE 7 AS RENDERED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT CASE AND, THUS, OF LITTLE ASSISTANCE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTANT CASE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY A LLOWED. SD/- SD/- (N.R.S.GANESAN) (SANJAY ARORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: ERNAKULAM DATED: 30TH DECEMBER, 2011 GJ COPY TO: 1. SHRI P.D.ABRAHAM ALIAS APPACHAN, SWARGACHITHRA, JAIL ROAD, CALICUT 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRA L CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-II, KOC HI. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL, KOCHI. 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 6. GUARD FILE .