Sri.P.J.Paulose, Ernakulam V. CIT(central), Cochin

ITA 247/COCH/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2615 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-04-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S VIJAYAPRABHA
• Assessee Lawyers: T M SREEDHARANSR
• Keywords: Revised return; Ignorance of law
• Section: 142(1); 139(5); 263

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 247/COCH/2012 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) AND SHRI B.R. BASKA RAN(AM) I.T.A NO. 247/COCH/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10) SHRI P.J. PAULOSE VS THE DY.CIT, CENT.CIR.2 OLICKAL HOUSE ERNAKULAM 5/255, THENGODE KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM PAN : AESPJ7505B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TM SREEDHARAN, SR COUNSEL RESPONDENT BY : SMT. S VIJAYAPRABHA DATE OF HEARING : 08-04-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12-04-2013 O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) THIS APPEAL OF THE TAXPAYER IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2 ITA NO. 247/COCH/2012 2. SHRI T.M. SREEDHARAN, THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE TAXPAYER SUBMITTED THAT THE TAXPAYER FILED THE RETURN OF INC OME ON 17-12-2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 3,73,46,654 AND AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME OF RS.6,05,438. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE TAXPAYER HAS FILED A REVISED RETURN ON 20- 12-2010. ACCORDING TO THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL, THE A SSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS 2009-10 AND TIME LIMIT FOR FILING RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(4) IS AVAILABLE UPTO 31-03-2011. THE REVISED R ETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 20-12-2010 BEING MUCH BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FILIN G OF RETURN U/S 139(4) OF THE ACT, THE REVISED RETURN FILED BY THE TAXPAYE R IS A VALID RETURN. AFTER FILING THE ORIGINAL RETURN ON 17-12-2010, THE TAXPA YER CAME TO KNOW THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING OUT OF THE SALE OF AGRICUL TURAL LAND WAS WRONGLY INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN, THE TAXPAYER FILED A REVISED RETURN WAS FILED ON 20-12-2010. REFERRING TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, MORE PARTICULARLY, PARAGRAPH 13, THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE CLAIM OF THE TAXPAYER TO EXCLUDE THE CAPITAL GAIN WAS GENUINE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXCLUD ED THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING ON SALE OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND EVEN THOUGH HE FOU ND THAT THE REVISED RETURN FILED BY THE TAXPAYER WAS NOT VALID. REFERR ING TO THE ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER, THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE 3 ITA NO. 247/COCH/2012 COMMISSIONER FOUND THAT THE REVISED RETURN FILED BY THE TAXPAYER IS INVALID AND THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS GOETZE INDIA LTD (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), TH E TAXPAYERS CLAIM OF EXCLUSION OF THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING ON SALE OF AG RICULTURAL LAND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED. ACCORDING TO THE LD.SR.COUNSEL, THE RE VISED RETURN FILED BY THE TAXPAYER IS A VALID RETURN, AND THEREFORE, THE JUDG EMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE INDIA LTD (SUPRA) MAY NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 3. THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE O N THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MAX INDIA LTD (200 7) 272 ITR 282 (SC) AND SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEWS, THE COMMISSIONER CANNOT SAY THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SMT. VIJAYAPRABHA, THE LD.DR SU BMITTED THAT ADMITTEDLY, THE TAXPAYER HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN O F INCOME EITHER U/S 139(1) OR IN PURSUANCE OF A NOTICE ISSUED U/S 142(1 ). THE TAXPAYER BELATEDLY FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 17-12-2010. THEREFORE, THE RETURN FILED ON 17-10-2010 IS NOT A RETURN FILED EITHER U/ S 139(1) OR U/S 142(1) OF 4 ITA NO. 247/COCH/2012 THE ACT. REFERRING TO SECTION 139(5) OF THE ACT, T HE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT IF ANY PERSON HAVING FURNISHED A RETURN OF INCOME EITH ER U/S 139(1) OR IN PURSUANCE OF A NOTICE ISSUED U/S 142(1), DISCOVERS ANY OMISSION OR WRONG STATEMENT THEREIN, HE MAY FURNISH A REVISED RETURN AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASS ESSMENT YEAR OR BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT WHICHEVER IS EARLI ER. IN THIS CASE, ADMITTEDLY, THE TAXPAYER HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN O F INCOME EITHER U/S 139(1) OR WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED U/S 142( 1) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139(5) MAY NOT BE APPLICA BLE TO THE TAXPAYER. HENCE, THE REVISED RETURN FILED BY THE TAXPAYER ON 20-12-2010 IS INVALID, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE ACTED UPON. 5. THE LD.DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ADMITTEDLY, THE TAXPAYER OFFERED THE CAPITAL GAIN FOR TAXATION IN THE ORIGINAL RETUR N. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT BRINGING THE CAPITA L GAIN FOR TAXATION. HENCE, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER HAS RIGHTLY EXERCIS ED HIS JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT. 5 ITA NO. 247/COCH/2012 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT APPEARS THAT THE TAXPAYER WAS A TRUSTEE AND SECRETA RY OF CARMEL EDUCATION TRUST. IT APPEARS THAT THE TAXPAYER SURRENDERED HI S TRUSTEESHIP OF CARMEL EDUCATION TRUST IN FAVOUR OF THE TRUSTEES OF THE BE LIEVERS CHURCH. PRESENTLY, THE TAXPAYER IS THE CHAIRMAN OF CHRIST EDUCATION TR UST. CARMEL EDUCATION TRUST IS RUNNING VARIOUS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER FOUND THAT THE TRUSTEES OF CARMEL EDUC ATION TRUST SOLD THE ENGINEERING COLLEGE ALONG WITH LAND APPURTENANT THE RETO TO BELIEVERS CHURCH OF INDIA. THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER H AS ALSO FOUND THAT AS A PART OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CARMEL EDUCATION TRUS T AND BELIEVERS CHURCH OF INDIA THE TAXPAYER TRANSFERRED 15 ACRES O F LAND TO ANOTHER TWO TRUSTS NOMINATED BY BELIEVERS CHURCH OF INDIA. THE REFORE, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER FOUND THAT SALE OF 15 A CRES OF LAND BY THE TAXPAYER AND HIS WIFE IS A SALE IN PURSUANCE OF AN AGREEMENT TO SELL THE ENGINEERING COLLEGE. THEREFORE, THE COMMISSIONER F OUND THAT THE SUBJECT LAND IS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY; HENCE, CAPITAL GAIN HAS TO BE TAXED. THE COMMISSIONER HAS ALSO FOUND THAT SINCE THE REVISED RETURN WAS NOT VALID, 6 ITA NO. 247/COCH/2012 THE CLAIM OF THE TAXPAYER IN THE REVISED RETURN CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GO ETZE INDIA LTD (SUPRA). 7. ON A BARE READING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION FOUND THAT THOUGH THE REVISED RETURN IS NOT VALID, THE CLAIM OF THE TAXPAYER IS G ENUINE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISCUSSED ANYTHING AS TO WHETHER TH E LAND IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND OR NOT? THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISCUSS ED AS TO WHETHER THE LAND WHICH WAS TRANSFERRED BY THE TAXPAYER ALONG WITH HI S WIFE WAS LAND APPURTENANT TO THE ENGINEERING COLLEGE OR NOT? THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER FOUND THAT THE LAND WAS SOLD IN PURSUA NCE OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN CARMEL EDUCATION TRUST AND BELIEVERS CHURCH OF INDIA FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.3,81,07,099. THEREFORE, IT IS THE BOUNDEN DUTY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE TAXPAYER I S THE ABSOLUTE OWNER OF THE LAND OR HE WAS HOLDING THE LAND AS A TRUSTEE OR OTHERWISE OF ANY OF THE TRUSTS. IT IS ALSO NECESSARY TO EXAMINE WHETHER TH E LAND SOLD BY THE TAXPAYER IS APPURTENANT TO THE ENGINEERING COLLEGE WHICH WAS SOLD BY CARMEL EDUCATION TRUST TO BELIEVERS CHURCH OF INDIA . IT IS ALSO NECESSARY TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE LAND WAS SOLD AS PART OF THE AG REEMENT BETWEEN 7 ITA NO. 247/COCH/2012 CARMEL EDUCATION TRUST AND BELIEVERS CHURCH OF INDI A. SINCE THESE FACTS WERE NOT EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THIS TR IBUNAL OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. IN OTH ER WORDS, FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONDUCT A PROPER E NQUIRY AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND WITH REGARD TO THE LAND SOLD BY THE TAXPAYER IS AN ERROR AS FOUND BY THE APEX COURT IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO LTD VS CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). MOREOVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BO UND TO RECORD REASON IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHY HE FINDS THE CLAIM OF THE TAXPAYER AS GENUINE AS FOUND BY THE APEX COURT IN TOYOTO MOTOR CORPORATION (2008) 306 ITR 52 (SC). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE JUDGMENT OF THE AP EX COURT IN MAX INDIA LTD (SUPRA) MAY NOT BE OF ANY ASSISTANCE TO THE TAXPAYE R. 8. THE NEXT QUESTION ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WH ETHER THE REVISED RETURN FILED BY THE TAXPAYER IS VALID OR NOT? WE H AVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139(5) OF THE ACT WHICH ENABL ES THE TAXPAYER TO FILE A REVISED RETURN. AS PER SECTION 139(5), IF ANY PERS ON HAVING FURNISHED A RETURN OF INCOME EITHER U/S 139(1) OR IN PURSUANCE OF A NOTICE ISSUED U/S 142(1), DISCOVERS ANY OMISSION OR WRONG STATEMENT THEREIN, HE MAY FURNISH 8 ITA NO. 247/COCH/2012 A REVISED RETURN AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF O NE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR BEFORE THE COMPLETI ON OF THE ASSESSMENT WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. IN THIS CASE, ADMITTEDLY, TH E RETURN WAS NOT FILED EITHER U/S 139(1) OR U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, TH E TAXPAYER CANNOT REVISE THE RETURN. HENCE, THE REVISED RETURN FILED ON 20- 12-2010 IS NOT A VALID RETURN. 9. THE NEXT QUESTION ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WH EN THE TAXPAYER BY MISTAKE OR IGNORANCE OF LAW INCLUDED AN INCOME WHIC H IS NOT TAXABLE OTHERWISE, CAN IT BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS? THIS ISSUE WAS E XAMINED BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SHELLY PRODUCTS (2003) 261 ITR 367 (SC). THE APEX COURT HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS AT PAGE 382 OF T HE ITR: WE CANNOT LOSE SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE FAILURE OR INABILITY OF THE REVENUE TO FRAME A FRESH ASSESSMEN T SHOULD NOT PLACE THE ASSESSEE IN A MORE DISADVANTAGEOUS PO SITION THAT IN WHAT HE WOULD HAVE BEEN IF A FRESH ASSESSMENT WA S MADE. IN A CASE WHERE AN ASSESSEE CHOOSES TO DEPOSIT BY W AY OF ABUNDANT CAUTION ADVANCE TAX OR SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX WHICH IS 9 ITA NO. 247/COCH/2012 IN EXCESS OF HIS LIABILITY ON THE BASIS OF THE RETU RN FURNISHED OR THERE IS ANY ARITHMETICAL ERROR OR INACCURACY, IT I S OPEN TO HIM TO CLAIM REFUND OF THE EXCESS TAX PAID IN THE COURS E OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE CAN CERTAINLY MAKE SUCH A CLAIM ALSO BEFORE THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY CALCULATING THE REFUND. SIMILARLY, IF HE HAS BY MISTAKE OR INADVERTENCE OR ON ACCOUNT OF IGNORANCE, INCLUDED IN HIS INCOME ANY AMOUNT WHICH IS EXEMPTED FROM PAYMENT OF INCOME-TAX, OR IS NOT INCO ME WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF LAW, HE MAY LIKEWISE BR ING THIS TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, WHICH IF SAT ISFIED, MAY GRANT HIM RELIEF AND REFUND THE TAX PAID IN EXCESS, IF ANY. SUCH MATTERS CAN BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE CONCERN ED AUTHORITY IN A CASE WHEN REFUND IS DUE AND PAYABLE, AND THE AUTHORITY CONCERNED, ON BEING SATISFIED, SHALL GRAN T APPROPRIATE RELIEF. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN SHELLY PRODUCTS (SUPRA), IT IS OBVIOUS THAT ANY MISTAKE OR INADVERT ENCE OR ON ACCOUNT OF IGNORANCE ANY INCOME WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM PAYMENT O F TAX OR IS NOT AN INCOME WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF LAW IT MAY BE BR OUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, WHICH, IF SATISFIED, MAY G RANT HIM RELIEF OR REFUND THE TAXES PAID IN EXCESS, IF ANY. THEREFORE, IF AN Y INCOME WHICH IS OTHERWISE 10 ITA NO. 247/COCH/2012 NOT TAXABLE IS INCLUDED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, IT CAN BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 11. THE NEXT QUESTION ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS W HETHER SUCH A MISTAKE OR INADVERTENCE OR IGNORANCE NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY WAY OF REVISED RETURN IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE INDIA LTD (SUPRA). 12. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE INDIA LTD (SUPRA). NO DOUBT, TH E APEX COURT CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HOLDING THAT THE AMENDMEN T IN THE RETURN OF INCOME CANNOT BE MADE WITHOUT ANY REVISED RETURN. HOWEVER, THE APEX COURT AFTER REFERRING TO THEIR OWN JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER COMPANY LTD VS. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 OBSERV ED THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN GOETZE INDIA LTD (SUPRA) IS LI MITED TO THE POWER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IT DOES NOT IMPINGE ON THE PO WER OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL U/S 254 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. IN FACT, THE APEX COURT OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS AT PAGE 324 OF THE ITR: 11 ITA NO. 247/COCH/2012 THE DECISION IN QUESTION IS THAT THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 254 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1 961, IS TO ENTERTAIN FOR THE FIRST TIME A POINT OF LAW PROVIDE D THE FACT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ISSUE OF LAW CAN BE RAISED B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE DECISION DOES NOT IN ANY WAY RELATE TO THE POWER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ENTERTAIN A CLAIM FOR D EDUCTION OTHERWISE THAN BY FILING A REVISED RETURN. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DISMISS THE CIVIL APPEAL. HOWEVER, WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS LIMITED TO THE POWER OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AND DOES NOT IMPINGE ON THE POW ER OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 254 OF THE INCOME-TAX, 1961. THERE SHALL BE NO ORDER AS TO CO STS. 13. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT , THIS TRIBUNAL CAN ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE TAXPAYER WITHOUT ANY REVISE D RETURN. IN OTHER WORDS, THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE O F GOETZE INDIA LTD (SUPRA) IS ONLY LIMITED TO THE POWER OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AND IT DOES NOT IN ANY WAY IMPINGE ON THE POWER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. 14. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE C ONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CLAIM MADE BY THE TAXPAYER WITH REGARD TO THE A SSESSABILITY OF THE CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF LAND NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER 12 ITA NO. 247/COCH/2012 EVEN THOUGH SUCH A CLAIM WAS NOT MADE IN THE ORIGIN AL RETURN AND THE REVISED RETURN WAS INVALID. 15. IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN TH E CASE OF SHELLY PRODUCTS (SUPRA), THE CLAIM OF THE TAXPAYER WITH RE GARD TO THE ASSESSABILITY OR OTHERWISE OF THE CAPITAL GAIN NEEDS TO BE EXAMIN ED EVEN THOUGH THE REVISED RETURN FILED BY THE TAXPAYER IS INVALID ONE . SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED THE ASSESSABILITY OR OTHER WISE OF THE CAPITAL GAIN AND WITHOUT ANY APPLICATION OF MIND / DISCUSSION HE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE CLAIM WAS GENUINE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOUND TO APPLY HIS MIND TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND BRING ON RECORD THE REASONS FOR INCLUDING OR EXCLUDING THE C APITAL GAIN IN THE ASSESSED INCOME. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE ARE NOT EXPRESSING ANY OPINION ABOUT THE ASSESSABILITY OR OTHERWISE OF THE CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF THE LAND BY THE TAXPAYER. WE LEAVE IT OPEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE SAME INDEPENDENTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIV ING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE TAXPAYER. 13 ITA NO. 247/COCH/2012 16. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE MODIFY THE ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE OF ASSESSABILITY OR OTHERWISE OF THE CAPI TAL GAIN AND DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING REA SONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE TAXPAYER. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE TAXPAYER IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 12 TH APRIL, 2013. SD/- SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN, DT : 12 TH APRIL, 2013 PK/- COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. THE DR (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH