Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7470 (ITAT-COCHIN)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
6 year(s) 11 month(s) 20 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
25-01-2012
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
DB
Next Hearing Date
08-12-2011
Assessment Year
misc
Appeal Filed On
04-02-2005
Judgement Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN (JM) & SHRI SANJAY ARORA (AM) I.T.A.NO.194 & 195/COCH/2005 ASSESSMENT YEARS 1988-89 & 1989-90 DR R.P. PATEL HAHNEMAN HOUSE KOTTAYAM VS ASSIST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INVESTIGATION CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A.NO.372 /COCH/2005 ASSESSMENT YEARS 1989-90 DCIT, CIR.1, KOTTAYAM VS DR R.P PATEL KOTTAYAM (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI K.I JOHN REVENUE BY MS VIJAYAPRABHA DATE OF HEARING 08 - 12 - 2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 5 - 0 1 - 201 2 O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) ITA NO.194/COCH/2005 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1988-89. ITA NO.195/COCH/2005 IS ALSO FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1989-90. THE REVENUE HAS ALSO FILED THE APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1989-90 IN ITA NOS 372/COC H/2005. SINCE COMMON ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IN ALL THE TH REE APPEALS WE 2 HEARD THE SAME TOGETHER AND DISPOSE OF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. LEST US FIRST TAKE ITA NO.194/COCH/2005 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1988-89. 3. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL ARISES FOR CONSIDERAT ION IS REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 4. SHRI K.I. JOHN, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PASSED ANY ORDER EITHER U/S 143(1)(A) OR U/S 143(3). ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRE SENTATIVE, EITHER INTIMATION U/S 143(1)(A) OR ORDER U/S 143(3) WAS NO T SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT F OR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESE NTATIVE, THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS INVALID. THE LD.REP RESENTATIVE PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN M/ S PALAMPADAM PLANTATIONS LTD VS ITO IN ITA NO.812/COCH/05 ORDER DATED 24-11- 2005, A COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE AS ANNEXURE 11 I N THE PAPER BOOK. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, MS VIJAYAPRABHA, THE LD.DR SUBM ITTED THAT AFTER EXPIRY OF TIME LIMIT GRANTED FOR ISSUE OF NOT ICE U/S 143(2), THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO ISS UE NOTICE U/S 148 FOR ASSESSING THE INCOME WHICH ESCAPED THE ASSESSMENT. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, ONCE THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED U /S 147 IS SATISFIED, THE ASSESSMENT CAN BE REOPENED FOR ASSESSING THE IN COME WHICH ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, MERELY BECAUSE NO I NTIMATION WAS ISSUED OR SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AND NO ORDER WAS S ERVED ON THE ASSESSEE U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT IT WILL NOT PRECLUDE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSING THE INC OME WHICH ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. 3 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN M/S PALAMPADAM PLANTATIONS LTD VS ITO IN ITA NO.812/COC H/05 ORDER DATED 24-11-2005. IN THE CASE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN M/S PALAMPADAM PLANTATIONS LTD (SUPRA), THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(1)(A) OR U/S 143(3) WERE NOT COMPLETED. WHEN THE PROCEEDING S WAS PENDING BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY RELATING TO ASSESSME NT OR DETERMINATION OF INCOME EITHER U/S 143(1)(A) OR U/S 143(2) HE HAS TO CONCLUDE THE ASSESSMENT BEFORE ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148. IN THE C ASE BEFORE US, ADMITTEDLY, THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S 1 43(2) FOR MAKING ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) HAS EXPIRED. THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ASSIST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS (P) LTD 291 ITR 500 (SC) CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE ELAB ORATELY AND FOUND THAT MERELY BECAUSE NO ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 143(3) THAT WILL NOT PRECLUDE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM REOPENING THE A SSESSMENT U/S 147 BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 FOR ASSESSING THE INCOME WHICH ESCAPED THE ASSESSMENT. THE APEX COURT CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT WHAT IS REQUIRED IS THAT THE CONDITION PROVIDED U/S 147 HAS TO BE SATIS FIED. IN THIS CASE, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CONDITIONS PROVIDED U/S 147 HAS NOT BEEN SATISFIED. BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ASSIST.COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME-TAX VS RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS (P) LTD (SUPRA) WE HOL D THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY REOPENED THE ASSESSME NT. 7. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO ADDI TION OF RS. 3,69,178 AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. SHRI K.I. JOHN, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED RS.3,69,178 AS INCOME FROM PROFESSION. HOWE VER, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) ASSESSED THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. REFERRING TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE A PEX COURT IN THE CASE OF NALINKANT AMBALAL MODY VS S.A.L. NARAYAN RO W, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (1996) 61 ITR 428 (SC) AND SUBMITTED THAT ALL INCOMES 4 INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME ARE NOT LIABLE FOR TAX ATION. CHARGEABILITY OF AN INCOME TO TAX HAS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH, A ND SUBJECT TO, THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE INCOME HAS THEREFORE, T O BE BROUGHT UNDER ONE OF THE HEADS AS PROVIDED UNDER THE INCOME-TAX A CT. IF THE INCOME FROM PROFESSION CANNOT BE COMPUTED U/S 10 OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT, 1922, THE SAME CANNOT BE BROUGHT UNDER RESIDUARY HE AD FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXATION. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENT ATIVE, SINCE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) FOUND THAT IT IS INC OME FROM OTHER SOURCES, IT CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAXATION. 8. ON THE CONTRARY, MS. VIJAYAPRABHA, THE LD.DR SUB MITTED THAT ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT CAME OUT OF TH E PROFESSION. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INCOME COU LD NOT BE COMPUTED UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT IN RESPECT OF PROFESSION. THE LD.DEPATMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT THE CASE OF ASSESSMENT OF INCOME; THE ASSESSEE INVESTED FUNDS AND COULD NOT E XPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE INCOME FOR MAKING SUCH INVESTMENT. THOUGH T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) FOUND THAT THE PRESUMPTION THAT TH E INVESTMENT MIGHT HAVE COME OUT OF THE SUPPRESSED PROFESSIONAL INCOME BY ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE INVESTMENT CAME OUT OF THE PROFESSION, HE ASSESSED THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THEREFORE, ACCORDI NG TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT I N NALINKANT AMBALAL MODY VS S.A.L. NARAYAN ROW, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (1996) 61 ITR 428 (SC) IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION ON EITHE R SIDE AND HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE ADDITION OF RS.3,69,178 WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF TH E INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOUND THE INVESTMENT IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SO URCE OF SUCH 5 INVESTMENT. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) THAT THERE WAS NO CLINCHING EVIDENCE TO ASSESS THE INVESTMENT AS INCOME FROM PROFESSION. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) THAT IT HAS TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 10. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN NALINKANT AMBALAL MODY VS S.A.L. NARAYAN ROW, CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (1996) 61 ITR 428 (SC). THE APEX COURT, AFTER CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10 OF THE I.T . ACT, 1922 FOUND THAT THE INCOME WHICH COMES UNDER FOURTH HEAD, VIZ. PROFESSIONAL INCOME CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX ONLY IF IT CAN BE DON E UNDER THE RULES OF COMPUTATION LAID DOWN IN SECTION 10 OF THE I.T. ACT , 1922. IT IS WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW THAT WHEN THE COMPUTATION PROVISION FAILS THE CHARGING SECTION WOULD ALSO FAIL. IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE INCOME COULD NOT BE COMPUTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME-TAX AND THEN IT CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAXATION. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME. ADMITTEDLY, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOUND THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN HOW THE INVESTMENT CAME TO BE M ADE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE INCOME FOR MAKING INVESTMENT CAME FROM THE PROFESSION AND THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) THAT IT HAS TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. BY ACCEPT ING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) ASSESSED THE INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES . THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFI RMED THE ADDITION OF RS.3,69,178 UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SO URCES. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME- TAX(A). ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 6 11. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO ADD ITION OF RS. 1,46,018 AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THIS ADDI TION CONSISTS OF INTEREST OF RS.1,23,716 ACCRUED ON INVESTMENT IN IV PS AND RS. 2,302 BEING INTEREST FROM FIXED DEPOSIT. ACCORDING TO TH E LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THIS COULD NOT BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SO URCES. WE HEARD THE LD.DR ALSO 12. WE FIND THAT THE INTEREST RECEIVED FROM THE DEP OSIT AND THE INVESTMENT HAS TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF TUTICORIN ALKALI CHEMICALS & FERITILIZERS LTD VS COMMISSIONER OF INC OME-TAX 227 ITR 172 (SC) AND SINCE ADMITTEDLY, WHAT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS INTEREST ON INVESTMENT IN FIXED DEPOSIT AND IVP, TH E SAME HAS TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THEREFORE , WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITY. ACC ORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 13. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED ONE MORE CONTENTIO N THAT INTEREST OF RS.1,23,716 FROM IVPS WAS A CAPITAL RECEIPT. TH E LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE HIGH COURT CONFI RMED THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER AS SESSMENT YEAR HOLDING THAT THE INTEREST HAS TO BE ASSESSED ON AC CRUAL BASIS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY FILED AN SLP BEFOR E THE APEX COURT AND THE SAME WAS ADMITTED. REFERRING TO THE JUDGME NT OF THE APEX COURT IN KUNHAYAMMED AND OTHERS VS STATE OF KERALA & ANR 246 ITR 360 (SC), THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE LEAVE WAS GRANTED, THE FINALITY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH CO URT IS IN JEOPARDY THOUGH IT CONTINUES TO BE BINDING AND EFFECTIVE BET WEEN THE PARTIES UNLESS IT IS A NULLITY OR UNLESS THE COURT PASSES A SPECIFIC ORDER STATING SO SUSPENDING THE OPERATION OR EXECUTION OF THE JUD GMENT UNDER CHALLENGE. SINCE THE SLP WAS ADMITTED, ACCORDING T O THE 7 LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE JUDGMENT OF THE KERALA HIGH COURT IS IN JEOPARDY, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE FOLLOWED. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.DR ALSO. 15. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE CERTIFIED CO PY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE APEX COURT ON THE SLP FILED BY THE AS SESSEE BEFORE THE APEX COURT. WHEN THE SLP WAS HEARD BY SUPREME COUR T, THE SUPREME COURT ORDERED NOTICE TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR HEARING A PARTICULAR POINT. THE SLP IS NOT ADMITTED. IT IS STILL PENDING FOR H EARING. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COU RT IN KUNHAYAMMED AND OTHERS VS STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTH ER (SUPRA). THE APEX COURT, AFTER EXAMINING ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOUND THAT THERE ARE TWO STAGES INVOLVED IN A RTICLE 136. THE FIST STAGE IS FOR THE DISPOSAL OF THE SLP. THE SECOND S TAGE COMMENCES IF AND WHEN THE LEAVE TO APPEAL IS GRANTED AND THE PET ITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL IS CONVERTED INTO APPEAL. ONCE THE LEAVE WAS GRANTED, THE FINALITY OF THE JUDGMENT APPEALED AGAINST IS TO BE IN JEOPARDY THOUGH IT CONTINUES TO BE BINDING AND EFFECTIVE BET WEEN THE PARTIES. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE APEX COURT ADMITTEDLY ORDER ED NOTICE ON THE SLP. THE SLP WAS NOT FINALLY DISPOSED OF, SO FAR. THEREFORE, IT IS IN THE FIRST STAGE OF CONSIDERING THE PRAYER FOR SPECIAL L EAVE TO APPEAL. WHEN THE PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE IS PENDING BEFORE TH E APEX COURT FOR CONSIDERATION, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE JUDGMENT OF T HE KERALA HIGH COURT IS NOT BINDING ON THIS TRIBUNAL. WHEN THIS T RIBUNAL, ON SIMILAR SET OF FACTS, FOUND THAT THE INTEREST INCOME FROM I NVESTMENT IN IVPS HAS TO BE ASSESSED ON ACCRUAL BASIS, WHICH WAS CONF IRMED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE FIND NO REASON TO TAK E A DIFFERENT VIEW FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE PENDENCY OF THE SLP BEFORE THE APEX COURT CANNOT BE A REASON TO TAKE A DIFFERENT V IEW BY THIS TRIBUNAL FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE APEX COURT H AS NOT SUSPENDED THE OPERATION OF THE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT. THEREFORE , IT WOULD BE 8 BINDING BETWEEN THE PARTIES. THEREFORE, BY RESPECT FULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE KERALA HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. 16. THE THIRD ISSUE IN THE APPEAL PERTAINS TO CHARG ING OF INTEREST U/S 234B AND U/S 234C OF THE ACT. CHARGING OF INTEREST IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE; THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO GRANT CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF. 17. NOW COMING TO THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 19 89-90 IN ITA NO.198/COCH/2005. 18. THE FIRST ISSUE IS AKIN TO GROUND NO.6 FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 1988- 89. WE HAVE ALREADY UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) IN HOLDING THE IMPUGNED INCOME AS IN COME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE UNDISPUT EDLY IDENTICAL TO THAT PREVAILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1988-89. TH EREFORE, FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN ELSEWHERE IN THIS ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1988-89, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INC OME-TAX(A) AND DISMISS THE GROUND. 19. THE NEXT ISSUE PERTAINS TO CONFIRMING THE ACTIO N OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING THE INCOME OF RS.2,59,116 AS I NCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THIS ISSUE IS ALSO IDENTICAL TO GROUND N O.7 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1988-89. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES ARE UNDISPUTEDLY IDENTICAL TO THAT PREVAILED FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 1988- 89. THEREFORE, FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN ELSE WHERE IN THIS ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1988-89, WE UPHOLD THE ORDE R OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) AND DISMISS THE GROUN D. 20. THE THIRD ISSUE IN THE APPEAL PERTAINS TO CHARG ING OF INTEREST U/S 234B AND U/S 234C OF THE ACT. CHARGING OF INTEREST IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE; THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO GRANT CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF. 9 21. NOW COMING TO THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IN ITA NO.372/COCH/2005, THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDE RATION IS RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 154 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 22. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.DR AND THE LD.REPRESENTATI VE FOR THE ASSESSEE. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOS ED THE DEPOSITS IN THE IVPS AND THE INTEREST ACCRUED THEREON IN THE RE TURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE, NO PARTICULARS WITH REGARD TO DEPOSIT OR INTEREST ARE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ON THE BASIS OF INF ORMATION AVAILABLE ON THE RECORDS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93 RECTIFIED T HE ORDER. THEREFORE, AS RIGHTLY FOUND BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A), AT BEST, IT MAY BE AN INCOME ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR TH E YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE IS A PRIMA FACIE ERROR ON RECORD. THE VERY FACT THAT NO MATERIAL IS AVAILABL E ON RECORD FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1989-90 TO SHOW THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE IVPS AND INTEREST ACCRUED THEREON THERE CANNOT BE ANY PR IMA FACIE ERROR WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 154 OF THE I.T. ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LO WER AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 23. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE ALSO DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH JANUARY , 2012 SD/- SD/- (SANJAY ARORA) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ERNAKULAM, DT : 25 TH JANUARY, 2012 PK/- 10 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. DR. R.P. PATEL, HAHNEMAN HOUSE, KOTTAYAM 2. THE ASSIST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INV.CIR.KOT TAYAM 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A)-IV, KOCHI 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOTTAYAM 5. THE DR (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , COCHIN
Mehul