Dr.K.P.Ali, Kasargode V. DCIT, Cochin

ITA 229/COCH/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73846 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 19-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-08-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K JOHN
• Assessee Lawyers: C B M WARRIER
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Valuation report; Competent authority
• Section: 54F; 54; 139

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. 229/COCH/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 DR. K.P. ALI, PADOOR HOUSE, THEKKIL POST, KASARGODE-671 541. [PAN:AKRPK 1758J] VS. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), KOCHI. (ASSESSEE -APPELLANT) (REVENUE- RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI C.B.M. WARRIER, CA REVENUE BY SHRI K.K. JOHN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 19/11/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17/01/2014 O R D E R PER B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 14- 06-2012 PASSED BY LD CIT(A)-III, KOCHI AND IT RELAT ES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF LD CIT(A) IN NOT GRANTING DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL GAIN REALIZED ON SALE OF A LAND. 3. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERAT ION ARE STATED IN BRIEF. THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH SEVEN OTHER PERSONS SOLD A PROP ERTY ADMEASURING 1.46 ACRES LOCATED AT KASARGOD. THE ASSESSEE HAD 1/8 TH SHARE IN THE ABOVE SAID PROPERTY AND ACCORDINGLY RECEIVED RS.68,43,750/- AS HIS SHAR E IN THE SALE CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE INCURRED A SUM OF RS.4,81,250/- AS EXP ENSES TOWARDS BROKERAGE. THUS THE NET CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.63,62,500/-. THE ASSESSEE COMPUTED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS UNDER:- I.T.A. NO.229/COCH/2012 2 NET CONSIDERATION RECEIVED 63,62,500 LESS:- COST ON 2.5.2003 11,44,500 IMPROVEMENT INCURRED IN F.Y 2003-04 4,96,000 ----------------- 16,40,500 ========= COST ATTRIBUTABLE TO ASSESSEES SHARE 2,05,057 --------------- LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS 61,57,443 LESS:- DEDUCTION U/S 54F 61,57,443 ---------------- NIL ======== ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, HE HAD DEPOSITED THE ENT IRE SALE CONSIDERATION IN CAPITAL GAINS SCHEME ACCOUNT OPENED WITH STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO TRANSFERRED FROM THE SAID ACCOUNT A S UM OF RS.10.00 LAKHS TO A TERM DEPOSIT A/C UNDER CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT SCHEME . IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED INTO THE BANK WAS PROPOSED TO BE U SED FOR RENOVATION AND EXTENSION OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. 3.1 THE AO NOTICED THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S 54F O F THE ACT IS ALLOWED EITHER FOR PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. A CCORDING TO SEC. 54F(4) OF THE ACT, THE AMOUNT OF NET CONSIDERATION WHICH IS NOT A PPROPRIATED TOWARDS PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE BEFORE T HE DATE OF FURNISHING RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139 SHALL BE DEPOSITED IN CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT SCHEME. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 54F (4) FOR THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN CAPITAL GAINS SCHEME, ONLY IF H E IS GOING TO USE THE SAME EITHER FOR PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIA L HOUSE. SINCE THE NET CONSIDERATION WAS USED BY THE ASSESSEE SUBSEQUENTLY FOR RENOVATION AND EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING HOUSE, THE AO TOOK THE VI EW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT IN RESPEC T OF DEPOSIT MADE WITH CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT SCHEME. I.T.A. NO.229/COCH/2012 3 3.2 BEFORE THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FILED A VALUATI ON REPORT OBTAINED FROM A REGISTERED VALUER. FROM THE SAID VALUATION REPORT, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD STARTED CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING I N THE YEAR 2001. THE EXISTING AREA OF THE BUILDING WAS 634.56 SQ. MTS AND THE ADD ITION/EXTENSION STATED TO BE DONE WAS 73.82 SQ. MTS. IN THE VALUATION REPORT, I T WAS STATED THAT THE SUPER STRUCTURE OF THE BUILDING WAS COMPLETED BY 2003, I. E., ABOUT 4 YEARS BEFORE THE DATE OF SALE OF LAND. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT, SUBSEQUENTLY DURING THE PERIOD FROM DECEMBER 2007 TO APRIL 2010, ADDITIONAL CONSTR UCTIONS ALONG WITH THE FINISHING WORKS LIKE FLOORING, PAINTING, POLISHING AND PLUMBING WORKS WERE EXECUTED. THE REGISTERED VALUER HAD ESTIMATED THE COST OF WHOLE BUILDING AT RS.62,54,101/-. BEFORE THE AO, THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT THE ESTIMATED COST OF ADDITION/EXTENSION WAS RS.30,00,000/-. THE AO F URTHER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD AVAILED LOAN FROM UNION BANK OF INDIA, KASARGOD BRANCH FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES ON VARIOUS DATES AS DETAILED BELOW:- ON 11.8.2001 - RS.25,00,000 ON 14.7.2004 - RS. 7,50,000 ON 18.10.2006 - RS. 5,00,000 ACCORDINGLY, THE AO TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD STARTED CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING FROM 11.8.2001 ITSELF. FURTHER THE AO TOOK THE VIEW THAT MOST OF THE WORK MIGHT HAVE BEEN BY DEC., 2006. THE AO ALSO NO TICED THAT THE PLAN APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY WILL BE VALID FOR T HREE YEARS ONLY. THE AO ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE DETAI LS OF DATE OF COMMENCEMENT AND COMPLETION OF THE CONSTRUCTION BEFORE HIM. FUR THER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- (A) THE DEPOSIT IS NOT PROPERLY APPLIED AS PER THE CAPI TAL GAINS ACCOUNT SCHEME IN ORDER TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 F. (B) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED EVIDENCE TO PROVE TH AT THE AMOUNTS WITHDRAWN FROM CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOS E OF CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ONLY. HOWEVER VERIFICATION OF ACCOUNT REVEALS I.T.A. NO.229/COCH/2012 4 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE BROKERAGE FROM THE D EPOSIT MADE IN THE CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT. (C) IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN THE DETAILS FURNISHED AL ONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME THAT THE AMOUNT WAS PROPOSED TO BE UTILIZ ED FOR RENOVATION / EXTENSION OF HIS EXISTING HOUSE PROPERTY. (AS PE R THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DECISION IN THE CASE OF MRS. MEERA JACOB (313 ITR 411) THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT. (D) AS PER THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND TH E BANK AUTHORITIES IT IS NOT CONCLUSIVELY PROVED THAT THE DEPOSIT WAS MADE IN THE CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT SCHEME. (E) THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE BANK APPEARS TO BE ER RONEOUS. (F) TAX RECEIPT HAS NOT BEEN PRODUCED. (THE ASSESSEE H AS FURNISHED ONLY TWO RECEIPTS WHICH IS BUILDING PERMIT FEE PAID AS A GAINST DEMAND NO. 301608 DATED 10.06.2008 OF RS.1600/- & BUILDING CON STRUCTION LICENSE FEE DATED 04.3.2008 PAID FOR A SUM OF RS.30 /-) (G) ORIGINAL APPROVAL OF COMPETENT AUTHORITY GRANTED FO R CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING WAS NOT FURNISHED. (H) THE PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION EXTENDED FOR ALMOST SEVE N YEARS. (I) AFTER THREE YEARS THE ORIGINAL APPROVED PLAN ISSUED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY HAS TO BE RENEWED. HOWEVER EVIDENCE NOT FURNISHED. (J) THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF THE INTEREST PAID ON THE LOAN ALSO UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AMOU NTING TO RS.30,000/-. THEREFORE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS COMPLETED THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE DURING TH E FINANCIAL YEAR 2003 ITSELF AND CONSTRUCTION DONE DURING THE RELEVA NT FINANCIAL YEAR IS ONLY ADDITION / EXTENSION OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTIO N 54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. I.T.A. NO.229/COCH/2012 5 WITH THE OBSERVATIONS MENTIONED ABOVE, THE AO REJEC TED THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT. THE AO ALSO DID NOT ALLOW DEDU CTION FOR COST OF IMPROVEMENT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. BEFORE LD CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO T HE DECISION OF THE AO IN NOT RECOGNIZING THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT CLAIMED BY HIM. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE HOUSING LOAN EARLIER AVAILED BY HIM WAS CLOSED BY REMITTING THE AMOUNT FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE LAND. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING, THOUGH STARTED IN 200 1, YET ONLY THE SUPER STRUCTURE WAS COMPLETED. ONLY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSTRUC TION, THE BUILDING WAS MADE READY ALONG WITH THE ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION. THE LD CIT(A) TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT IS AVAILABLE FOR P URCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOUSE AND IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR ALTERATION / EXT ENSION OF THE EXISTING BUILDING. IN THIS REGARD, HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAW:- CIT VS. PRADEEP KUMAR (153 TAXMAN 138)(MAD) MRS. MEERA JACOB VS. ITO (313 ITR 411)(KER). ACCORDINGLY, THE LD CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE I S NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ST ARTED THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING IN THE YEAR 2001, BUT COULD NOT COMPLETE T HE SAME FULLY. A LOT OF WORK INCLUDING FLOORING, PAINTING, POLISHING, PLUMBING W ORKS WERE PENDING. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPLETED THOSE WORKS O NLY DURING THE PERIOD FROM DEC. 2007 TO APRIL 2010. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE, IN ADDITION TO DOING THE FINISHING WORKS OF THE EXISTING BUILDING, ALSO PUT UP ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTIONS BY UTILIZING THE SALE PROCEEDS OF LAND SOLD BY HIM. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION INCLUDES A SEPARATE RESIDEN TIAL UNIT AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION. THE ASSESSEE FILED COPIES OF BUILDING PERMITS DATED 27.7.2001 AND 10.6.2008 ISSU ED BY THE KASARGOD I.T.A. NO.229/COCH/2012 6 MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE COPIES OF BUILDING PERMITS COULD NOT BE FILED BEFORE THE T AX AUTHORITIES AND ACCORDINGLY PRAYED FOR ADMISSION OF THE SAME. HE ALSO FURNISHE D COPIES OF APPROVED PLANS AND SUBMITTED THAT THE PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SEC OND FLOOR WAS OBTAINED IN 2008 AND CONSTRUCTION WAS CARRIED OUT ON THE STRENG TH OF THE SAID PLAN. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT THE WORK UNDERTAKEN B Y THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MERE RENOVATION / EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING BUILDING, BU T CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RESIDENTIAL UNIT. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF AMOUNT D EPOSITED IN THE CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT SCHEME AND THE AMOUNT SPENT ON ADDITIONAL C ONSTRUCTIONS. 5.1 THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD AVAILED HOUSING LOAN FROM A BANK IN THE YEAR 2001 WHEN THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTIO N WAS STARTED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REPAID THE SAID LOA N OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF THE LAND. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE REPAYMENT OF BANK LOAN IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF ISHAR SINGH CHAWLA VS. DCIT (2 010)(130 TTJ (MUM)(UO) 108). 6. THE LD D.R, ON THE CONTRARY, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY PUT UP SMALL CONSTRUCTION BY EXTENDING EXISTING AREA OF TH E BUILDING. IN THIS REGARD, HE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PAGES 18 & 18A OF THE PAPE R BOOK, WHEREIN THE REGISTERED VALUER HAS IDENTIFIED THE AREA EXTENDED. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI T.B. KUNHIMAHIN HAJI HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THAT THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IS EXTENDED . HE SUBMITTED THAT REGISTERED VALUER HAS ALSO STATED THAT THE ADDITION AL CONSTRUCTION WAS ONLY 73.82 SQ. MT. ONLY. THE LD D.R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT ON EXTENSION OF THE EX ISTING BUILDING AND IN THIS REGARD, HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF JURIS DICTIONAL HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MEERA JACOB (313 ITR 411) AND PUSHPA VS. IT) (ORDER DATED I.T.A. NO.229/COCH/2012 7 22.8.2012 (2012)( 268 KLR 322). THE LD D.R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF T HE ACT IN RESPECT OF DEPOSIT MADE IN CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT SCHEME, SINCE IT WAS NOT PROVED THAT THE AMOUNT SO DEPOSITED WAS USED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 7. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE RECORD. WE NOTICE THAT THE TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE TAKEN THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY CARRIED OUT RENOVATION / EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING BUILDING. ACCORDINGLY, THE TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE TAKEN THE VIEW THAT THE DEPOSIT MA DE IN CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME FOR CARRYING OUT RENOVATION / EXTENSION OF T HE EXISTING BUILDING IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F, SINCE THE SAID SECT ION PROVIDES FOR DEDUCTION ONLY FOR EITHER PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDE NTIAL HOUSE. FURTHER, IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE LD D.R THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT P ROVED THAT THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT SCHEME WAS U SED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. THE AO HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE COPY OF APPROVAL OBTAINED FROM COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 8. HOWEVER, THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS T HAT HE HAS PUT UP SECOND FLOOR ALSO, BESIDES CARRYING OUT FINISHING WORKS IN THE E XISTING BUILDING. IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID SUBMISSIONS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPIES OF BUILDING PERMISSION GRANTED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND ALSO COPIES OF APPROVED FLOOR PLANS, AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. THUS THE MATERIALS FURNISHED BEFORE US IS IN TOTAL CONTRADICTION TO THE VIEW ENTERTAINED BY THE TAX AU THORITIES. ACCORDING TO LD A.R, THE SECOND FLOOR IS SELF CONTAINED RESIDENTIAL UNIT . IT IS ALSO HIS CONTENTION THAT EVEN THE EXISTING BUILDING WAS IN UNFINISHED STATE. 9. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE DETAIL S OF UTILIZATION OF SALE PROCEEDS OF RS.68,433,750/- AS UNDER IN PAGE 51 OF THE PAPER BOOK. BROKERAGE - 4,81,250 TRANSFER TO CAPITAL GAINS TERM DEPOSIT - 10,00,000 I.T.A. NO.229/COCH/2012 8 BUILDING CONSTRUCTION - 35,64,695* REPAYMENT OF HOUSING LOAN - 29,24,852 (*INCLUDING CAPITAL GAIN TERMS DEPOSIT OF RS.10.00 LAKHS REALIZED WITH INTEREST). THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE REPAYMEN T OF EXISTING HOUSING LOAN IS ALSO ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, HE HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON A CASE LAW. 10. THUS, WE NOTICE THAT THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE IN CONTRADICTION TO THE FACTS AS UNDERSTOOD BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED FRESH MATERIALS BEFORE US IN THE FORM OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTIONS. IN OUR VIEW, THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ARE REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED BY THE AO. FURTHER, IN VIEW OF THE CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THE PARTIES WITH REGARD TO THE FACTS RELATI NG TO THE ISSUE, IT ALSO REQUIRES TO BE EXAMINED AFRESH. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW, THAT THE ENTIRE ISSUES NEED TO BE EXAMINED AFRESH AT THE END OF THE AO. A CCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) AND RESTORE ALL THE ISSUES TO TH E FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO EXAMINE ALL THE ISSUES BY DULY CONSIDE RING RELEVANT FACTS AND OTHER SUBMISSIONS/CONTENTIONS THAT MAY BE MADE BEFORE HIM BY THE ASSESSEE AND TAKE APPROPRIATE DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY ON 17-01-2014 SD/- SD/- (N.R.S.GANESAN) (B. R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: KOCHI DATED: 17TH JANUARY, 2014 GJ I.T.A. NO.229/COCH/2012 9 COPY TO: 1. DR. K.P. ALI, PADOOR HOUSE, THEKKIL POST, KASARG ODE-671 541. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), KOCHI. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-III, KO CHI. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOCHI. 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) I.T.A.T, COCHIN