Sri.K.K.Venugopal, Cochin V. DCIT, Ernakulam

ITA 278/COCH/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73814 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 19-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K JOHN
• Assessee Lawyers: T M SREEDHARANSR
• Keywords: Period of limitation
• Section: 54; 139

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 278/COCH/2013 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. 278/COCH/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08) SHRI K.K. VENUGOPAL VS THE DY.CIT, CIR.2(2) KALAPURACKAL HOUSE ERNAKULAM KUNDANOOR, MARADU KOCHI 682 034 PAN : ABQPV0711N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :SHRI TM SREEDHARAN, SR.COUNSEL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.K. JOHN DATE OF HEARING : 19-12-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : -01-2014 O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF CIT(A)- II, KOCHI DATED 28-02-2013 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSME NT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS ADDI TION OF RS.3,50,000 TOWARDS THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT CLAIMED BY THE ASSE SSEE. 2 ITA NO. 278/COCH/2013 3. SHRI T.M. SREEDHARAN, THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS, T HE ASSESSEE CLAIMED COST OF IMPROVEMENT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3,50,000. ACCORDING TO THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE BORROWED A LOAN FRO M MARADU SERVICE CO- OPERATIVE BANK FOR IMPROVING THE HOUSE PROPERTY. T HE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PRODUCED A CERTIFICATE FROM MARADU SERVICE CO-OPERA TIVE BANK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE MERELY BECAUSE THE LOAN WAS CLASSIFIED AS A GENERAL LOAN AND NOT AS A HOUSING LOAN. ACCORDING TO THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL, THE BORROWED FU NDS FROM MARADU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK WAS USED FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE BUILDING, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO REASON FOR ANY DISALLOWANCE. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI K.K. JOHN, THE LD.DR SUBMI TTED THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT ANY IM PROVEMENT WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE PROPERTY. THE LOAN SAID TO BE BORROWED IS A GENERAL LOAN. MOREOVER, THERE IS NO MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO INDICATE THAT THE BORROWED FUNDS WERE USED FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE HOU SE PROPERTY. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE NOTES OF ARGUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IT S HOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD 5.5 CENTS OF LAND ALONG WITH THE RESIDENTI AL BUILDING HAVING A PLINTH 3 ITA NO. 278/COCH/2013 AREA OF 1,250 SQ.FT. IN MARADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT ON 0 8-03-2007. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT 1,250 SQ.FT. OF BUILDING WAS C ONSTRUCTED BY INVESTING RS.6 LAKHS AND ANOTHER SUM OF RS.3,05,000 WAS SPENT DURING THE YEAR 2006-07 FOR IMPROVEMENT. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION WAS MADE IN THE YEAR 1991-92. IF THAT IS SO, THEN THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN SOME KIND OF IMPROVEMENT / MAINTENANCE AF TER ELAPSE OF SO MANY YEARS. THEREFORE, WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO REJEC T THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN TOTO. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDER ED OPINION THAT THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION WAS MADE IN 1991-92, THEREFOR E, THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE SPENT CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT DURING THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2006-07 ATLEAST FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE BUILDING, IF NOT FOR IMPROVEMENT. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THI S AMOUNT OF RS.3.5 LAKHS SHALL BE TAKEN AS COST OF IMPROVEMENT. THE ONLY OB JECTION OF THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT WHAT WAS BORROWED FROM MARADU SE RVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD IS A GENERAL LOAN AND NOT A HOUSING LOAN. MARADU SERVICE CO- OPERATIVE BANK IS SERVING THE RURAL POPULATION, MOR E PARTICULARLY, AGRICULTURISTS. THEREFORE, THEY WOULD HAVE ADVANCE D AGRICULTURAL LOAN, GOLD LOAN AND PERSONAL LOAN, ETC. WHEN THE ASSESSEE BOR ROWED LOAN AND IT WAS USED FOR IMPROVEMENT OR MAINTENANCE OF THE BUILDING WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE USED THE FUNDS MERELY B ECAUSE HOUSING LOAN WAS NOT BORROWED. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE ASSE SSEE COULD HAVE INVESTED SOME FUNDS FOR IMPROVING THE PROPERTY IN T HE ABSENCE OF ANY 4 ITA NO. 278/COCH/2013 MATERIAL? THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE INVESTED THE FUNDS DUE TO PASSAGE OF TIM E AFTER THE CONSTRUCTION, THEREFORE, REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN TOTO IS NOT JUSTIFIED. BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SMALLN ESS OF THE AMOUNT, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE IS NO NEED FOR DISALLOWANCE OF ANY PART OF THE AMOUNT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW RS.3,50,000 AS COST OF IMPROVEMENT AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO ADDI TION OF RS.9 LAKHS TO THE SALE CONSIDERATION. 7. SHRI T.M. SREEDHARAN, THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.9 LAKHS ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED SALE CONSIDER ATION OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNT SHOWN IN THE SALE DEED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.9 LAKHS. ACCORDING TO THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECE IVED ANY AMOUNT AND WHAT WAS RECEIVED IS ONLY THE AMOUNT MENTIONED IN T HE SALE DEED. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 8. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI K.K. JOHN, THE LD.DR SUBMI TTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THE RECEIPT OF RS.9 LAKHS OVER AN D ABOVE THE AMOUNTS MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED. IN FACT, THIS AMOUNT W AS RECEIVED THROUGH 5 ITA NO. 278/COCH/2013 CHEQUE AND THE SAME WAS CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEES WIFE. REFERRING TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, MORE PARTICULARL Y PARAGRAPH 13 ON PAGE 6, THE LD.DR POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE IN FACT ADMITTED IN HIS LETTER DATED 18-09-2009 THAT HE RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.9 LAKHS OVER AND ABOVE THE SALE CONSIDERATION DISCLOSED IN THE SALE DEED. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NO T IN DISPUTE THAT BY A LETTER DATED 18-09-2009, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THE RECEIPT OF RS.9 LAKHS OVER AND ABOVE THE SALE CONSIDERATION DISCLOSED IN THE S ALE DEED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO FOUND THAT THIS RS.9 LAK HS WAS CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEES WIFE SMT. K.S. BEENA. SI NCE THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY CHEQUE AND IT WAS CREDITED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEES WIFE SMT. K.S. BEENA AND THE SAME WAS ALSO ADMITTED BY T HE ASSESSEE BY A LETTER DATED 18-09-2009, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CO NSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. ACCORDI NGLY, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT ANY MERIT IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 10. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO CLA IM OF EXEMPTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT. 6 ITA NO. 278/COCH/2013 11. SHRI T.M. SREEDHARAN, THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL SUB MITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF RS.33,33,805. HOWEVE R, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED ONLY RS.14,11,428 ON THE GROUND THA T THE AMOUNT SPENT ON THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME IS ONL Y RS.14,11,428. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN MUTHULETCHUMI JANA RDANAN IN ITA NO.372/COCH/2011 DATED 07-12-2012, THE LD.SENIOR CO UNSEL POINTED OUT THAT THIS TRIBUNAL, AFTER PLACING RELIANCE ON THE J UDGMENT OF THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS JAGRITI AGARWAL 339 IT R 610 (P&H) FOUND THAT THE TIME LIMIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT I N CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME IS AVAILABLE UPTO THE TIME FOR FILING RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(4) OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL, IF TH E TIME LIMIT IS EXTENDED TILL THE FILING OF RETURN U/S 139(4), THEN THE ASSESSEE HAS SPENT THE ENTIRE MONEY BEFORE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME; THEREFORE , THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR RS.33,33,805 HAS TO BE ALLOWED. 12. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI K.K. JOHN, THE LD.DR SUBM ITTED THAT SECTION 54(2) CLEARLY SAYS THAT THE NET SALE CONSIDERATION WHICH WAS NOT APPROPRIATED TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF THE NEW ASSET WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER OF ORIGINAL ASSET TO OK PLACE OR USED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ASSET BEFORE THE DATE OF FILI NG OF RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) SHALL BE DEPOSITED BEFORE FURNISHING THE RET URN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT UTILIZED THE PORTION OF THE AMOUNT BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR 7 ITA NO. 278/COCH/2013 FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1). THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION OF THE E NTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.33,33,805. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CO NFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE. 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. SECTION 54(2) READS AS FOLLOWS: (2) THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN WHICH IS NOT AP PROPRIATED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF THE NEW ASS ET MADE WITHIN ONE YEAR BEFORE THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSF ER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET TOOK PLACE, OR WHICH IS NOT UTILIZED BY HIM FOR THE PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW ASSET BEFORE TH E DATE OF FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER 139, SHALL BE DEPOSITED BY HIM BEFORE FURNISHING SUCH RETURN (SUCH DEPOSIT BEING MADE IN ANY CASE NOT LATER THAN THE DUE DATE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139) IN AN ACCOUNT IN ANY SU CH BANK OR INSTITUTION AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN, AND UTILIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, ANY SCHEME WHICH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY, BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, FRAME IN THIS BEHALF AND SUCH RETURN SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY PROOF OF SUCH D EPOSIT; AND FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUB-SECTION (1), THE AMOUNT , IF ANY, ALREADY UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURCHASE O R CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW ASSET TOGETHER WITH THE AMO UNT SO DEPOSITED SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET: 8 ITA NO. 278/COCH/2013 PROVIDED THAT IF THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED UNDER THIS SUB-SECTIO N IS NOT UTILIZED WHOLLY OR PARTLY FOR THE PURCHASE O R CONSTRUCTION F THE NEW ASSET WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN SUB-SE CTION (1), THEN, - (I) THE AMOUNT NOT SO UTILIZED SHALL BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45 AS THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET EXPIRES; AND (II) THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO WITHDRAW SUCH AMOUNT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCHEME AFORESAID. 14. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE PROVISION, IF THE AMOUNT O F CAPITAL GAIN IS NOT APPROPRIATED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS THE PURCHASE O F A NEW ASSET WITHIN ONE YEAR BEFORE THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER OF T HE ORIGINAL ASSET TOOK PLACE OR WHICH HAS NOT BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOS E OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW ASSET BEFORE THE DATE OF FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1), THEN THE SAME SHALL BE DEPOSITED BEFORE FURNISHING SUCH RETURN. IN THIS CASE, ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT UTILISED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT BEFORE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR. MOREOVER, IT WAS ALSO NOT DEPO SITED IN THE PRESCRIBED ACCOUNT BEFORE DUE DATE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN O F INCOME U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. 9 ITA NO. 278/COCH/2013 15. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENT OF THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN JAGRITI AGARWAL (SUPRA). IN THE CASE BEFORE THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, THE ASSESSEE SOLD HOUS E PROPERTY AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT. AFTER REFERRI NG TO SUB CLAUSE (2) OF SECTION 54 AND SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT, THE PUNJA B & HARYANA HIGH COURT FOUND THAT SUB SECTION 139(4) PROVIDES THE EXTENDED PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME WHICH IS AN EXCEPTION TO SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139. THE HIGH COURT FURTHER FOUND THAT DUE DATE FO R FURNISHING OF RETURN OF INCOME AS PER SECTION 139(1) IS SUBJECT TO EXTENDED PERIOD PROVIDED U/S 139(4) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF SECTION 54 OF THE AC T IT IS OBVIOUS THAT IF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT UTILIZE THE AMOUNT WITHIN ONE YE AR EITHER FOR PURCHASE OF A NEW ASSET OR FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ASSET, THE CAPITAL GAIN SHALL BE DEPOSITED IN THE APPROPRIATE ACCOUNT BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1). 16. THUS, THE QUESTION ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE DUE DATE MENTIONED IN SECTION 54(2) OF THE ACT WOULD BE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) OR THE DATE BY WHICH TH E ASSESSEE COULD FILES THE RETURN U/S 139(4) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF PRAKASH NATH KHANNA & ORS VS CIT & ANOTHER (2004) 2 66 ITR 1 (SC) HAD AN OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE WORDS DUE DATE AS MEN TIONED IN SECTION 139(1) AND 139(4) OF THE ACT. THE CASE BEFORE THE APEX COURT IS WITH 10 ITA NO. 278/COCH/2013 REGARD TO A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION U/S 276CC OF THE A CT. WHILE INTERPRETING SECTION 139(1), 139(2) AND 139(4) OF THE ACT, THE A PEX COURT FOUND THAT DUE DATE CERTAINLY MEAN DUE DATE AS PRESCRIBED IN S UB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139. IN FACT, THE APEX COURT OBSERVED AS F OLLOWS AT PAGES 10 & 11 OF THE ITR: ONE OF THE SIGNIFICANT TERMS USED IN SECTION 276C C IS IN DUE TIME. THE TIME WITHIN WHICH THE RETURN IS TO BE FURNISHED IS INDICATED ONLY IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 AND NOT IN SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 139. THAT BEING SO, EVE N IF A RETURN IS FILED IN TERMS OF SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 139 THAT WOULD NOT DILUTE THE INFRACTION IN NOT FURNISHING THE RETURN IN DUE TIME AS PRESCRIBED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139. O THERWISE, THE USE OF THE EXPRESSION IN DUE TIME WOULD LOSE ITS RELEVANT AND IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE SAID EXPRESSION WAS USED WITHOUT ANY PURPOSE. BEFORE SUBSTITUTION OF THE EX PRESSION CLAUSE (I) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 BY T HE DIRECT TAX LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1987, WITH EFFECT FROM APRIL 1, 1989, THE EXPRESSION USED WAS SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 139. AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME THE ASSESSING OFFICER WA S EMPOWERED TO ISSUE A NOTICE REQUIRING FURNISHING OF A RETURN WITHIN THE TIME INDICATED THEREIN. THAT MEANS THE INFRACTIONS WHICH ARE COVERED BY SECTION 276CC RELATE TO NON-FU RNISHING OF RETURN WITHIN THE TIME IN TERMS OF SUB-SECTION ( 1) OR INDICATED IN THE NOTICE GIVEN UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTIO N 139. THERE IS NO CONDONATION OF THE SAID INFRACTION, EVE N IF A RETURN IS FILED IN TERMS OF SUB-SECTION (4). ACCEPTING SU CH A PLEA WOULD MEAN THAT A PERSON WHO HAS NOT FILED A RETURN WITHIN THE 11 ITA NO. 278/COCH/2013 DUE TIME AS PRESCRIBED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OR (2) OF SECTION 139 WOULD GET BENEFIT BY FILING THE RETURN UNDER SE CTION 139(4) MUCH LATER. THIS CANNOT CERTAINLY BE THE LEGISLATI VE INTENT. THIS JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT WAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSES SEE ALSO HAD NO OCCASION TO EXPLAIN THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, THIS TRIB UNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL GIVE AN OP PORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THIS JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN T HE CASE OF PRAKASH NATH KHANNA (SUPRA) AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE MATTER AFR ESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORIT IES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO EXEMPTION U/S 54 IS REMANDED B ACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE- EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF PRAKASH NATH KHANNA (SUPRA) AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSE SSEE. 17. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 10 TH JANUARY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN, DT : 10 TH JANUARY, 2014 PK/- 12 ITA NO. 278/COCH/2013 COPY TO: 1. SHRI K.K. VENUGOPAL, KALAPURACKAL HOUSE, KUNDANN OOR, MARADU, KOCHI 682 034 2. THE DY.CIT, CIR.2(2), ERNAKULAM 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOCHI 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A)-II, 7 TH FLOOR, KERA BHAVAN, KOCHI 682 011 5. THE DR (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH