DCIT, Thiruvalla V. Mini Muthoot Nidhi (Kerala) Ltd, Kozhencherry

ITA 291/COCH/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 81434 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 03-12-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K JOHN
• Assessee Lawyers: KURIYAN THOMAS
• Keywords: Depreciation; Business expenditure; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JM AND CHANDRA POOJ ARI, AM I.T.A. NOS. 296/COCH/2009, 542/COCH/2009 & 241/CO CH/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2 007-08 MINI MUTHOOT NIDHI (KERALA) LTD., MUTHOOTTU BUILDINGS, KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 641. [PAN: AABCM 5932D] VS. 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CIRCLE-1, THIRUVALLA. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, THIRUVALLA (ASSESSEE-APPELLANT) (REVENUE-RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NOS.363/COCH/2009, 10/COCH/2010 & 291/COC H/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 200 7-08 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CIRCLE-1, THIRUVALLA. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, THIRUVALLA VS. MINI MUTHOOT NIDHI (KERALA) LTD., MUTHOOTTU BUILDINGS, KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 641. [PAN: AABCM 5932D] (REVENUE-APPELLANT) (ASSESSEE-RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI KURIYAN THOMAS, ADV. REVENUE BY SHRI K.K. JOHN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 03/12/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 24/12/2014 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AN D THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-IV, K OCHI AND ORDER DATED I.T.A. NOS. 296/COCH/2009, 542/COCH/2009 & 241/COCH/2011 & 363/COCH/2009, 10/COCH/2010 & 291/COCH/2011 2 28/12/2009 PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-I, TRIVANDRUM FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06,2006-07 & 2007-08. 2. THERE WAS A DELAY OF 08 DAYS IN FILING THE REVEN UE APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO. 291/COCH/2011 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE REVENUE HA S FILED A PETITION SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR DEL AY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITHIN THE DUE DATE. THE LD. DR SUBMI TTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN THIS CASE WAS RECEIVED AT THE OFFICE OF T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, KOTTAYAM ON 18/02/2011. AS PER SECTION 253 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE INCOME TA X APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS 19/04/201. AN APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILED WITHIN THE DUE DATE ON ACCOUNT OF THE FOLLOWING FACTORS: 2.1 THERE WAS NO REGULAR COMMISSIONER POSTED AT KOT TAYAM AT THE TIME OF THE RECEIPT OF THE ORDER. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA X, ERNAKULAM WAS HOLDING THE ADDITIONAL CHARGE GRANTED APPROVAL FOR FILING T HE APPEAL. IMMEDIATELY, THEREAFTER, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ERNAKULAM HA NDED OVER THE ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF KOTTAYAM TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA X, TRIVANDRUM. SINCE THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE OTHER OFFICIAL CONCER NED WERE ON ELECTION DUTY. FOLLOWING THE ELECTIONS, THERE WERE CONTINUOUS HOLI DAYS. BASED ON THESE GROUNDS AND CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE DELAY IN FILING A PPEAL IS ONLY 7 DAYS, THE LD. DR I.T.A. NOS. 296/COCH/2009, 542/COCH/2009 & 241/COCH/2011 & 363/COCH/2009, 10/COCH/2010 & 291/COCH/2011 3 REQUESTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL MAY B E CONDONED AND APPEAL ACCEPTED. 3. THE LD. AR HAS NOT RAISED ANY SERIOUS OBJECTI ON FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED TH E RECORD. WE FIND THAT THERE EXISTS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL I N TIME AND THE REASONS ADVANCED BY THE REVENUE FOR THE DELAY ARE BONA FIDE . BEING SO, WE CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR ADJUDICATION. 5. SINCE THE ISSUES IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE IDENT ICAL IN NATURE, THEY WERE CLUBBED TOGETHER, HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 6. THE FIRST COMMON GROUND IN IN I.T.A. NO.296 & 54 2/COCH/2009 AND 241/COCH/2011, AND REVENUE APPEALS IN I.T.A. NO. 36 3/COCH/2009, 10/COCH/2010 & 291/COCH/2011 IS WITH REGARD TO DETE RMINATION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 7. WE ARE INCLINED TO CONSIDER THE FACTS AS NARRATE D IN THE ASSESSEE APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO. 296/COCH/2009. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF TH E ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS I.T.A. NOS. 296/COCH/2009, 542/COCH/2009 & 241/COCH/2011 & 363/COCH/2009, 10/COCH/2010 & 291/COCH/2011 4 WITH REGARD TO SUSTAINING OF ADDITION OF RS.10,69,8 87/- OUT OF RS.23,07,737/-. IT WAS NOTICED THAT AS PER THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AN AMOUNT OF RS.24,30,000/- WAS CREDITED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME UNDER THE HEAD OTHER INCOME AND THE CORRESPONDING AGRICULTURAL EXPENSES DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WAS RS.1,22,262/-, THE NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME BEING RS .23,07,737/-. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IT OWNED 250 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL L AND AT VALPARAI WHEREIN COFFEE, AN CASH CROPS SUCH AS POTATO, CARROT, CABBA GE, CAULIFLOWER, PLANTAIN AND TOMATO WERE CULTIVATED. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE SAID CASH CROPS WERE PLANTED IN 50 ACRES AND BALANCE AREA WAS UNDER COFF EE CULTIVATION. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT TH E AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS WERE SOLD IN ADVANCE BEFORE HARVESTING TO AN AGENT SHRI V. MURALI FROM WHOM A STATEMENT WAS RECORDED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE WAS AN AGENT FOR VARIOUS ESTATE OWNERS AT VALPARAI INCLUDING THE ASS ESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE STATEMENT OF SHRI V. MUR ALI FOR THE REASON THAT HE DOES NOT MAINTAIN ANY ACCOUNTS AND THE ENTIRE TRANSACTIO NS WERE IN CASH. FURTHER, NO BILLS AND VOUCHERS WERE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE EV IDENCING PURCHASE OR SALE OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AL SO REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT APART FROM 150 ACRES, IT HAD 100 ACRES OF EXCESS LAND PLANTED WITH COFFEE FOR THE REASON THAT THE PERMISSION FROM THE FOREST DEPARTMENT FOR REGISTRATION OF EXCESS LAND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE WAS STILL PENDING. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE INCOME FR OM COFFEE AT RS.4000 PER ACRE BASED ON THE REPORT OF COFFEE BOARD RESULTING IN ES TIMATION OF INCOME OF RS.6 I.T.A. NOS. 296/COCH/2009, 542/COCH/2009 & 241/COCH/2011 & 363/COCH/2009, 10/COCH/2010 & 291/COCH/2011 5 LAKHS FROM 150 ACRES, BRINGING TO TAX THE BALANCE O F RS.17,07,737/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 7.1 BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ESTATE WAS LOCATED IN REMOTE AREA AND THEREFORE THE ONLY MODE OF SETTLEME NT WAS BY CASH AND IN SUCH A SITUATION, THE COMMISSION AGENT WAS PRODUCED BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO CONFIRMED THAT HE PURCHASED COFFEE AND OTHER CASH C ROPS FROM ASSESSEE ON CASH BASIS. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE PLANTATION O F THE ASSESSEE IS LOCATED IN THE TRADITIONAL AREA AND THE AVERAGE PRODUCTION PER HEC TARE IS 0.88 MT AND THE GROSS PRODUCTION FOR THE AREA OF 150 ACRES IS 44 MT WHERE AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE PRODUCTION AT 0.116 MT PER HECTARE WH ICH IS WITHOUT BASIS. 7.2. IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FO UND THAT THE ASSESSEES ESTATE WAS LOCATED IN AN AREA WHICH HAS THE LEAST Y IELD AND THEREFORE THE ESTIMATION OF 5.94% IS REASONABLE. 7.3 AFTER GOING THROUGH THE REMAND REPORT AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ESTATE OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS WITHIN THE ANNAMALAI REGION AND THE EXTENT OF THE ESTATE W AS 150 ACRES. ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED INCOME FROM THE SAID ESTATE AT RS.4000/- PER ACRE WHICH WAS DISPUTED BY THE ASSESS EE. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT AS PER THE STATISTICS RELEASED BY THE COFFEE B OARD, THE ACTUAL PRODUCTION OF I.T.A. NOS. 296/COCH/2009, 542/COCH/2009 & 241/COCH/2011 & 363/COCH/2009, 10/COCH/2010 & 291/COCH/2011 6 COFFEE IN THAT AREA WAS 0.64 MT/HECTARE AND THE ARE A TAKEN TO BE UNDER CULTIVATION WAS 150 ACRES. IN THE REMAND REPORT, I T WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEES AREA IN THE ESTATE WAS ROCKY AND BARREN AND HENCE THE AREA UNDER CULTIVATION WAS CONSIDERED TO BE ONLY 70% OF 150 AC RES THOUGH THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT 90% OF THE AREA WAS CULTIVATED. THE CIT(A) FOUND FROM THE REMAND REPORT THAT THE YIELD FROM THIS AREA WAS ONL Y 0.38 MT/HECTARE AND AS PER THE REPORT OF COFFEE BOARD THE PRICE OF ARABICA PAR CHMENT FOR THE YEAR 2005 WAS RS.3878 FOR 50 KGS. HENCE, THE CIT(A) ESTIMATED TH E INCOME FROM THE ESTATE AS UNDER: AREA UNDER CULTIVATION 70% OF 60 HECTARES 42 HECTARES AVERAGE YIELD TAKEN AS 60% OF 0.64MT 0.38 MT PRODUCTION ESTIMATED IN QUANTITY 42X0.38 15.96 MT AVERAGE PRICE OF PARCHMENT AS PER COFFEE BOARD RS.12,37,850/- FOR TAMIL NADU RS.3878 FOR 50 KGS. BEING SO, THE CIT(A) ESTIMATED THE INCOME FROM 150 ACRES OF ESTATE OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AT ANNAMALAI AREA AT RS.12,37,850/- AS AGAINST RS.23,07,737/- TREATED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE BALANCE OF RS.10,69,887/- WAS BROUGHT TO TAX AS INCOME UNDER OTHER SOURCES. 9. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT YIELD PER HECTARE OF C OFFEE CONSIDERED BY THE CIT(A) IS VERY LOW AND HE HAS DETERMINED 0.38 MT AS YIELD PER ACRE INSTEAD OF 0.64 MT WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY THE STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE COFFEE BOARD. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO MAINTA IN REGULAR BILLS/VOUCHERS FOR I.T.A. NOS. 296/COCH/2009, 542/COCH/2009 & 241/COCH/2011 & 363/COCH/2009, 10/COCH/2010 & 291/COCH/2011 7 PURCHASE AND SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS. THEREF ORE, THE ASSESSEE, TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, HAS MAINTAINED REQUIRED BILLS/VOUC HERS. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT OWNED 250 ACRES OF AGRICULTURA L LAND WHEREIN COFFEE AND CASH CROPS SUCH AS POTATO, CARROT, CABBAGE, CAULIFL OWER, PLANTAIN AND TOMATO WERE CULTIVATED. OUT OF THIS, THE ASSESSEE PLANTED COFFEE IN 150 ACRES AND IN BALANCE 50 ACRES, CASH CROPS WERE PLANTED. THEREFO RE, THE ESTIMATION OF THE CIT(A) WAS ON A VERY LOW SIDE. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT DU RING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER VISITED T HE ESTATE OF THE ASSESSEE AND PERSONALLY ASCERTAINED THE FACTUAL POSITION REGARDI NG THE EXTENT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE REMAND R EPORT, THE EXTENT OF COFFEE PLANTED AREA IS MUCH LESS THAN WHAT WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THE YIELD OF COFFEE IS VERY LOW IN THAT AREA. BEING SO , THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS TO BE CONFIRMED. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAW: I) SUMATI DAYAL VS. CIT (1995 AIR 2109) (SC). II) CIT VS.DURGA PRASAD MORE (82 ITR 540) (SC). III) VAZHAKALA ESTATE VS. STATE OF KERALA (1994) 21 0 ITR 451) (KER.) 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CULTIVATING COFFEE PLANT ATION IN 150 ACRES. THE I.T.A. NOS. 296/COCH/2009, 542/COCH/2009 & 241/COCH/2011 & 363/COCH/2009, 10/COCH/2010 & 291/COCH/2011 8 ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.4000/- PER ACRE WHICH WORKED OUT RS.6 LAKHS AS AGAINST THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.23,07,737/-. AGAINST THIS, THE CIT(A) CONSIDERE D THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.8252/- PER ACRE WORKING OUT AT RS.12,37,850/-. IN OUR OPINION, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S REGARDING ACTUAL INCOME GENERATED FROM THE COFFEE PLANTATION, IT IS INEVITA BLE THAT THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME IS TO BE DONE. THE CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPORT OF THE COFFEE BOARD OBSERVED THAT THE ACTUAL PRODUCTION OF COFFEE IN THE ANNAMALAI AREA WAS 0.64 MT/HECTARE. SINCE THE ASSESSEES AREA IS ROCK Y AND BARREN AREA IN THE ESTATE, THE CIT(A) CONSIDERED 70% OF 150 ACRES, I.E . 105 ACRES OF AREA WHEREIN COFFEE PLANTATION WAS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE AN D SINCE THE YIELD IN THIS AREA IS LESS, HE CONSIDERED THE YIELD FROM THIS AREA AS ONLY 0.38 MT/HECTARE. HENCE, THE CIT(A) ESTIMATED THE INCOME FROM THE ESTATE AS UNDER: AREA UNDER CULTIVATION 70% OF 60 HECTARES 42 HECTARES AVERAGE YIELD TAKEN AS 60% OF 0.64MT 0.38 MT PRODUCTION ESTIMATED IN QUANTITY 42X0.38 15.96 MT AVERAGE PRICE OF PARCHMENT AS PER COFFEE BOARD RS.12,37,850/- FOR TAMIL NADU RS.3878 FOR 50 KGS. 12. IN OUR OPINION, THE ESTIMATION MADE BY THE CIT( A) IS VERY REASONABLE BASED ON THE REPORT FROM COFFEE BOARD. THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT PRODUCED CONTRARY MATERIAL TO CONTROVERT HIS FINDINGS. IN THE ABSENC E OF POSITIVE EVIDENCE BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENT, WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO REVERSE I.T.A. NOS. 296/COCH/2009, 542/COCH/2009 & 241/COCH/2011 & 363/COCH/2009, 10/COCH/2010 & 291/COCH/2011 9 THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE ESTIM ATION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME MADE BY THE CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED FOR ALL THE ASSESSM ENT YEARS. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND IN THE ASSESSEE APPEALS IN I.T.A. NOS. 296 & 542/COCH/2009 & 241/COCH/2011 AS WELL AS THE REVENUE APPEAL IN I.T. A. NO. 363/COCH/2009, 10/COCH/2010 & 291/COCH/2011 IS DISMISSED. 13. THE NEXT GROUND IN ASSESSEE APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO . 296/COCH/2014 IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE A SSESSEE AND TELESCOPING THE SAME AGAINST THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES. 14. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THERE WAS AN INCREASE IN THE OPERATING EXPENSES IN THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION BY RS.42,37,095/- BUT AT THE SAME TIME THE ASSESSING O FFICER ALLOWED EXPENDITURE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.12,94,459/- AND THE BALANCE INCREA SE WAS RS.29,42,636/- . THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED ONLY 20% OF THE INCREASE FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY BILLS/VOUCHERS TO SUB STANTIATE THE EXPENSES AND THEY WERE ONLY INTERNAL VOUCHERS, THUS, DISALLOWING RS.23,54,109/- AS NOT PROVED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TELESCOPED THE DISALLOWANCE A GAINST THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND TREATED AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLO SED SOURCES, MAKING ADDITION OF RS.6,46,372/-. I.T.A. NOS. 296/COCH/2009, 542/COCH/2009 & 241/COCH/2011 & 363/COCH/2009, 10/COCH/2010 & 291/COCH/2011 10 15. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) DID NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOTICED DISPROPORTIONATE INCREASE IN EXPENDITUR E WHEN COMPARED TO THE EARLIER YEAR AND HE HAS ALLOWED A PART OF THE SAID INCREASE AS GENUINE. ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A), THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LACK OF PROPER EVIDENCE/DOCUMENTS TO VOUCH FOR THE EXPENSES ESPECI ALLY IN THE FACE OF A DISPROPORTIONATE INCREASE. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ALLOWING ONLY 20% OF THE INCRE ASE AND TELESCOPING THE SAME AGAINST THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TREATING THE SAME A S INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 16. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON ACCOUNT OF LACK OF PROPER EVIDENCE LIKE VOUCHERS/BILLS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESS EE IN SUPPORT OF THE EXPENDITURE. WHEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS ANY EXPENSES, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE EXPENSES WERE ACTUALLY I NCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING INCOME. IN THIS CASE, THERE IS EVERY CHANC E OF INFLATING EXPENSES INCURRED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES TO BUSINESS PURP OSES. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED NECESSARY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT IT WAS INCUR RED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, THEN THE REVENUE WOULD BE IN A POSITION T O PINPOINT THE DISCREPANCIES IF ANY. AS DISCUSSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN T HEIR ORDERS, MOST OF THE EXPENSES ARE UNVOUCHED FOR AND ARE SUPPORTED BY SEL F-VOUCHERS. WHEN THE I.T.A. NOS. 296/COCH/2009, 542/COCH/2009 & 241/COCH/2011 & 363/COCH/2009, 10/COCH/2010 & 291/COCH/2011 11 ASSESSEE MAKES SELF-VOUCHERS, THERE IS EVERY CHANCE OF INFLATING THE SAME. BEING SO, IN THE ABSENCE OF NECESSARY EVIDENCE TO SHOW TH AT IT WAS ACTUALLY INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES, WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO REVE RSE THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE INCLINED TO CONFIR M THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DALMIA CEMENT (B.) LTD. (254 ITR 377) WH ICH CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE FACT OF THIS CASE. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NO. 296/COCH/2009 IS DISMISSED. 17. THE SECOND GROUND IN ASSESSEE APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO. 542/COCH/2009 IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF 50% OF THE INCREASE IN TR AVELING EXPENSES OF RS.1,54,464/-. THE REVENUE APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO. 10 /COCH/2010 IS AGAINST GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 18. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER FOUND THAT THERE WAS SUBSTANTIVE INCREASE IN EXPENSES AS COMPARED TO LAST YEAR. AFTER FINDING THAT VOUCHERS WERE AVAILABLE ONLY FOR SMALL PART OF EXPE NSES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED 80% OF THE INCREASE IN EXPENSES. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT WHEREAS RECEIPTS/TURNOVER HAD INCREASED FROM THE BA SE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004- 05 AT 16.97%, THE CORRESPONDING EXPENSES HAD ALSO I NCREASED BY ALMOST IDENTICAL FIGURE AT 15.6% THERE BEING NO JUSTIFICAT ION FOR SUCH INCREASE IN EXPENSES. DISALLOWANCES WERE MADE IN THE LAST YEAR S ASSESSMENT AT 20% OF THE I.T.A. NOS. 296/COCH/2009, 542/COCH/2009 & 241/COCH/2011 & 363/COCH/2009, 10/COCH/2010 & 291/COCH/2011 12 INCREASE IN EXPENSES, I.E., 80% OF THE INCREASE IN EXPENSES WERE ALLOWED AND BALANCE 20% WERE DISALLOWED. THIS YEAR, IT WAS FOU ND THAT ALTHOUGH INCREASE IN TURNOVER WAS ONLY 13.75% OF THE BASE YEAR 2004-05, CORRESPONDING INCREASE IN EXPENSES HAD GONE UP TO 34% WHICH WAS DISPROPORTION ATELY HIGH. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND IT REASONABLE TO ALLOW INCREASE IN EXPENSES OVER THE BASE YEAR 2004-05 AT 20% CONSIDERING THAT LAST YEAR INCREASE IN EXPENSES WERE ALLOWED AT 12.48% ONLY AS AGAINST INCREASE CLAIMED IN THE YEAR AT 15.6% WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS.54,15,404/- AND THE BALANCE OF RS.3 7,88,43/- WAS DISALLOWED (RS. 92,03,835 RS. 54,15,404/-). 19. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT OPERATIVE RESULT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31/03/2006 WAS VERY POSITIVE AND NET INC OME HAS INCREASED BY RS.71.77 LAKHS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR, THE FIXED DEPOSITS FROM MEMBERS HAS INCREASED BY RS.51.61 CRORES BUT INTEREST ON DEPOSI T HAS COME DOWN BY RS.1.95 CRORES COMPARED TO PREVIOUS YEAR AS THERE WAS DECRE ASE IN THE RATE OF INTEREST WHEN COMPARED TO PREVIOUS YEAR. THE LD. AR ALSO S UBMITTED THAT THERE WERE VARIATIONS IN THE EXPENDITURE BASED ON THE INCREASE D BUSINESS VOLUME AND OPERATION OF THE COMPANY. THE SALARIES AND DISALLO WANCES REGISTERED ALMOST RS. 40 LAKHS INCREASES COMPARED TO PREVIOUS YEAR. THIS WAS MAINLY DUE TO INCREASE IN STAFF STRENGTH CONSEQUENT TO NEW REGIONAL OFFICE S AND ADDITIONAL VIGILANT AND INTERNAL AUDIT DEPARTMENT AS THIS WAS REQUIRED FOR HIGH VALUE SECURITY OF GOLD I.T.A. NOS. 296/COCH/2009, 542/COCH/2009 & 241/COCH/2011 & 363/COCH/2009, 10/COCH/2010 & 291/COCH/2011 13 ORNAMENTS. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE FAC TS WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND MADE THE DISALLOWANCE. 19.1 THUS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICERS DISALLOWANCE OF APPORTION OF THE EXPENDITURE AND TELESCOPING THE SA ME WITH THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME MAY BE DELETED. 20. THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT ALL EXPENSES WERE DULY VO UCHED AND THE ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN DULY AUDITED. THE CIT(A) ALSO FOUND THAT PAYMENT ON THE BASIS OF SELF MADE VOUCHERS ARE MADE ONLY FOR TRAVELING EXPENSES AND ON EXAMINATION, IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE WAS INCREASE IN THE EXPENSES COMPA RED TO EARLIER YEAR ONLY IN THE FOLLOWING EXPENSES: 1) SALARY 2) RENT 3) PRINTING AND STATIONERY 4) ELECTRICITY CHARGES 5) RATES AND TAXES 6) REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 7) BANK CHARGES AND COMMISSION 8) LEGAL EXPENSES 9) INTERNAL AUDIT EXPENSES 10)AUDIT FEE 11)TELEPHONE CHARGES 12)CASH TRANSFER TAX 13)TRAVELING EXPENSES 14) LABOUR WELFARE FUNDS 15) DONATION ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A), NO DISALLOWANCE OF SALARY, RENT, ELECTRICITY CHARGES, RATES AND TAXES, REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE, BANK CHARGES AN D COMMISSION, LEGAL I.T.A. NOS. 296/COCH/2009, 542/COCH/2009 & 241/COCH/2011 & 363/COCH/2009, 10/COCH/2010 & 291/COCH/2011 14 EXPENSES, LABOUR WELFARE FUND INTERNAL AUDIT FEE, T AX AUDIT FEE, TELEPHONE CHARGES, CASH TRANSFER TAX, PRINTING AND STATIONERY ETC CAN BE MADE FOR THE REASON THAT THEY ARE DULY VOUCHED. THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT PAYMENTS AGAINST THE SELF MADE VOUCHERS ARE MADE ONLY FOR TRAVELING EXPE NSES OF STAFF AND DIRECTORS. ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A), DONATION IS DISALLOWED IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME ITSELF. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT DISALLOWANCE OF AGRICULTURAL EXPENSES WAS NOT JUSTIFIABLE SINCE AGRICULTURAL EXP ENSES ARE NOT CLAIMED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE CIT(A) DISALLOWED ONLY 50% INCREASE IN TRAVELING EXPENSES AT RS.1,54,464/- AND THE DISALLOWANCE OF BUSINESS EXPENSES WAS REDUCED FROM RS. 37,88,431/- TO RS.1,5 4,464/-. AGAINST THIS, BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE U S. 21. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS VERY REASONABLY CONSIDERED THAT NO DISAL LOWANCE OF SALARY, RENT, ELECTRICITY CHARGES, RATES AND TAXES, REPAIRS AND M AINTENANCE, BANK CHARGES AND COMMISSION, LEGAL EXPENSES, LABOUR WELFARE FUND INT ERNAL AUDIT FEE, TAX AUDIT FEE, TELEPHONE CHARGES, CASH TRANSFER TAX, PRINTING AND STATIONERY ETC CAN BE MADE FOR THE REASON THAT THEY ARE DULY VOUCHED. THE CIT(A) F OUND THAT SELF MADE VOUCHERS WERE MADE ONLY FOR TRAVELING EXPENSES OF S TAFF AND DIRECTORS AND HENCE SHE DISALLOWED 50% INCREASE IN TRAVELING EXPENSES A T RS.1,54,464/-. THE CIT(A) HAS TAKEN A REASONABLE VIEW AND THE SAME IS CONFIRM ED. ACCORDINGLY, THE I.T.A. NOS. 296/COCH/2009, 542/COCH/2009 & 241/COCH/2011 & 363/COCH/2009, 10/COCH/2010 & 291/COCH/2011 15 ASSESSEE APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO. 542/COCH/2009 IS DISM ISSED AND THE REVENUE APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO. 10/COCH/2010 IS ALSO DISMISSED . 22. THE SECOND GROUND IN ASSESSEE APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO. 241/COCH/2011 IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES. 23. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS INCURRED RS.7,57,749/- TOWARDS TRAVELING EXPENSES OF THE DIR ECTORS. THE DETAILS OF THIS WERE CALLED FOR DURING SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSEE INFO RMED THAT RS.3,99,910/- WAS INCURRED TOWARDS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT TOUR OF THE D IRECTORS TO USA. HOWEVER, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY DOCUMENT TO SHOW THAT THE TRIP WAS FOR PURPOSES OF BUSINESS AND NO DETAILS AB OUT THE PLACED VISITED, PEOPLE MET AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO THE BUSINESS HAVE BEE N PRODUCED. THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS IS CONFINED TO KERALA AND THEREFORE THE TR IP TO USA COULD NOT HAVE BEEN FOR PURPOSES OF BUSINESS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 24. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THAT THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS ORIGINATED FROM KOZHENCHERRY IN PATHANAMTH ITTA DISTRICT AND A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF FIXED DEPOSIT IS GENERATED F ROM LOCAL PEOPLE WHO ARE ALL NON-RESIDENTS AND SETTLED IN USA. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, IN ORDER TO HAVE A CLOSE INTERACTION WITH SUCH DEPOSITORS OR THEIR REL ATIVES IN USA, THE DIRECTORS OF I.T.A. NOS. 296/COCH/2009, 542/COCH/2009 & 241/COCH/2011 & 363/COCH/2009, 10/COCH/2010 & 291/COCH/2011 16 THE COMPANY CONDUCTED A BUSINESS TRIP TO USA AND IN CURRED AN EXPENDITURE OF RS.3,99,910/- TOWARDS AIRFARE, BOARDING AND LODGING EXPENSES THERE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIP HELPED TO CONTROL THE UNUS UAL TREND OF WITHDRAWAL OF FIXED DEPOSITS TO A LARGE EXTENT AND THE FIXED DEPOSIT OU TSTANDING IN A.Y. 31.3.2006 WAS RS.210.88 CRORES WHICH HAS COME DOWN TO RS.193. 83 AS ON 31.3.2007. THEREFORE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS TIMELY VISIT HAS AVERTED A SEVERE BUSINESS CRISIS. BEING SO, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE. 25. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT NOTHING HAS BEEN PRODU CED IN THE FORM OF ANY DOCUMENTS TO SHOW THAT THE TRIP WAS FOR THE PURPOS E OF BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS IS CONFINED TO KERALA AND THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE FOREIGN TRIP IN CONNECTION WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 26. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE ABO VE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. AS OBSERVED BY THE LO WER AUTHORITIES, THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS IS CONFINED TO KERALA. HOWEVER, THE LD. A R SUBMITTED THAT THE DIRECTORS WENT ABROAD TO MOBILIZE DEPOSITS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS. HOWEVER, WHAT ARE THE ACTIVITIES DONE BY THE ASSESS EES DIRECTORS WITH REGARD TO I.T.A. NOS. 296/COCH/2009, 542/COCH/2009 & 241/COCH/2011 & 363/COCH/2009, 10/COCH/2010 & 291/COCH/2011 17 THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT BROUGHT ON REC ORD. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE DETAILS OF THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESS EES DIRECTORS WITH REGARD TO THE BUSINESS AT ABROAD, WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO UPH OLD THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF TH E ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NO. 241/COCH/2011 IS DISMISSED. 27. THE THIRD GROUND IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON VEHICLES AT RS.1,06,554/-. 28. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED DEPRECIATION ON VEHICLES FOR PERSONAL USE. THE AS SESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS DOING BUSINESS THROUGH ITS VARI OUS BRANCHES AND DIFFERENT LAYERS OF EXECUTIVES RANGING FROM CEO TO BUSINESS AS SOCIATES ARE WORKING AND USING THE COMPANY VEHICLE AND AS PER PART OF PERFOR MANCE OF THE OFFICIAL DUTY, THE VEHICLES OWNED BY THE COMPANY ARE USED BY THE E MPLOYEES AND THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION IN DISALLOWING THE DEPRE CIATION ON AN ASSUMPTION THAT VEHICLES WERE USED FOR PERSONAL PURPOSE. 29. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT PERSONAL ELEMENTS CANNOT BE RULED OUT ON THE USE OF MOTOR CARS AND HAS DISALLOWED ONLY 1/4 TH OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. I.T.A. NOS. 296/COCH/2009, 542/COCH/2009 & 241/COCH/2011 & 363/COCH/2009, 10/COCH/2010 & 291/COCH/2011 18 30. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS A LIMITED COMPANY. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE DISALLO WED 1/4 TH OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES ON VEHICLES. THE ASSESSEE IS A LIMITED CO MPANY AND THE VEHICLES ARE USED BY THE COMPANY FOR FREQUENT VISITS TO ITS 78 B RANCHES IN KERALA FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE. BEING SO, DISALLOWANCE IS NOT WARRANTED T OWARDS DEPRECIATION ON VEHICLES FOR PERSONAL USE. MORE SO, THE RUNNING EX PENSE OF VEHICLE WAS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IT WAS HELD THAT THE E XPENSES WERE INCURRED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROU ND OF THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NO. 241/COCH/2011 IS ALLOWED. THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE IN I.T.A. NO. 241/COCH/2011 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 31. THE FIRST GROUND IN REVENUE APPEAL IN I.T.A.NO. 291/COCH/2011 IS WITH REGARD TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.1,06,000/- PAI D TOWARDS CONSULTATION CHARGES WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TDS. 32. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS DEBITED RS.1,06,000/- TOWARDS CONSULTATION CHARGES. WHEN THE ASSESSEE WA S ASKED TO CLARIFY WHETHER TAX WAS DEDUCTED FROM THIS PAYMENT, THE ASSESSEE SU BMITTED THAT THE EXPENSE WAS INCURRED FOR KEEPING STATUTORY RECORDS AND FILI NG ETC. FOR P.F. DEPARTMENT AND THIS HONORARIUM WAS PAID TO A RETIRED PERSON OF THE P.F. DEPARTMENT AND TDS WAS NOT APPLICABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE ARGUMENT OF I.T.A. NOS. 296/COCH/2009, 542/COCH/2009 & 241/COCH/2011 & 363/COCH/2009, 10/COCH/2010 & 291/COCH/2011 19 THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE PAYMENT IN QUESTION PARTAKES THE CHARACTER OF FEE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AND THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDE R LIABILITY TO DEDUCT TAX U/S. 194J OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND IN VIEW OF THE ASSES SEES NON-COMPLIANCE, THE EXPENSES CLAIMED WAS DISALLOWED U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF T HE ACT. 33. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSE E IS DOING BUSINESS THROUGH ITS 78 BRANCHES AND THE PAYMENTS TOWARDS RE PAIRS AND MAINTENANCE OF COMPUTERS COMES WITHIN THE SCOPE OF CONTRACT FEES E VEN IF THERE IS NO WRITTEN CONTRACT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DEDUCT T AX U/S. 194C, THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, FOR THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,06,000/- DEDUCTED TOWARDS CONSULTAT ION CHARGES, THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THIS PAYMENT WAS ACTUALLY NOT IN THE NAT URE OF CONSULTATION FEES AS APPEARING IN THE ACCOUNTS BUT THIS IS A PAYMENT FOR THE PART-TIME SERVICE OF A RETIRED PERSON FROM P.F. DEPARTMENT WHO HAS NO PROF ESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS AND THE PAYMENT WAS NOT MADE AGAINST ANY PROFESSIONAL S ERVICES. HENCE ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A), THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J WOULD NOT BE ATTRACTED AND THE NON DEDUCTION OF TAX UNDER THE SAID SECTION DOES NOT AT TRACT DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. AGAINST THIS, THE REVENUE I S IN APPEAL BEFORE US. I.T.A. NOS. 296/COCH/2009, 542/COCH/2009 & 241/COCH/2011 & 363/COCH/2009, 10/COCH/2010 & 291/COCH/2011 20 34. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE REASON FOR DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,06,000/- WAS THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE TO THE PERSON WHO HAS RETIRED FROM PF DEPARTMENT WHO H AS NO PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATION AND IT WAS NOT PAID FOR RENDERING PRO FESSIONAL SERVICES AND HENCE, PROVISIONS OF SEC. 194J WAS NOT ATTRACTED SO AS TO APPLY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT. IF THE PAYMENT HAS BEE N MADE TO THE PERSON IN EXCESS OF THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT FOR WHICH SEC. 194J IS APPL ICABLE, RELIEF CANNOT BE GIVEN ON THE REASON THAT THE PERSON WHO HAS RENDERED SERVICE S IS NOT A PROFESSIONAL PERSON. THERE IS NO NECESSITY OF PROFESSIONAL QUAL IFICATION FOR RENDERING SERVICES AND RECEIVING PAYMENT. HENCE, IN OUR OPINION, PROVI SIONS OF SEC. 194J IS DIRECTLY APPLICABLE AND THE ASSESSEE IS DUTY BOUND TO DEDUCT TAX. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX AND HENCE THE PAY MENT WOULD ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 194J AND NON DEDUCTION OF TAX UN DER THE SAID SECTION WOULD ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA). ACCOR DINGLY, WE REVERSE THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. THE REVENUE APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO. 291/COCH/2011 IS PARTLY ALLOWE D. I.T.A. NOS. 296/COCH/2009, 542/COCH/2009 & 241/COCH/2011 & 363/COCH/2009, 10/COCH/2010 & 291/COCH/2011 21 35. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEE APPEALS IN I.T.A. N O. 296/COCH/2009 AND 542/COCH/2009 ARE DISMISSED AND THE REVENUE APPEALS IN I.T.A. NOS. 363/COCH/2009 AND 10/COCH/2010 ARE DISMISSED. THE ASSESSEE APPEAL IN I.T. A. NO. 241/COCH/2011 AND THE REVENUE APPEAL IN 291/COCH/2011 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24-12-2014 SD/- SD/- (N.R.S.GANESAN) (CHANDRA POOJARI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACC OUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: KOCHI DATED: 24TH DECEMBER, 2014 GJ COPY TO: 1. MINI MUTHOOT NIDHI (KERALA) LTD., MUTHOOTTU BUIL DINGS, KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 641. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1, THIRUVALLA. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, THIRUVALLA. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-IV, KOCH I. 5. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-I, TIVAN DRUM. 6. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOTTAYAM. 7. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TRIVANDRUM. 8. D.R., I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 9. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) I.T.A.T., COC HIN I.T.A. NOS. 296/COCH/2009, 542/COCH/2009 & 241/COCH/2011 & 363/COCH/2009, 10/COCH/2010 & 291/COCH/2011 22