M/s.Keezhedath Traders, Tirur V. The ITO, Tirur

ITA 299/COCH/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8522 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 26-06-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A DHANARAJ
• Assessee Lawyers: C B M WARRIER
• Keywords: Peak credit; Additional evidence
• Section: 40A(3); 133A

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.298-300/COCH/2014 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI B P JAIN, AM & GEORGE GEORGE.K, JM ITA NOS.298-300/COCH/2014 (ASST YEARS :2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) M/S. KEEZHEDATH TRADERS, THAZHEPALAM, TIRUR THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, TIRUR. ( ASSESSEE APPELLANT) VS (REVENUE -RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AAGFK 7536B] ASSESSEE BY SHRI C.B.M. WARRIER, CA REVENUE BY SHRI A. DHANARAJ, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 09/06/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15/06/2016 ORDER PER B.P. JAIN, AM: THESE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARISE FRO M THE COMMON ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), KOZHIKODE DATED 25/04/2014 FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEARS 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08. 2. SINCE THE ISSUES IN ALL THE APPEALS ARE COMMON AND THEREFORE, ALL THE APPEALS ARE BEING TAKEN UP BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORD ER. 3. FIRST OF ALL WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND OUR ORDER HEREINBELOW SHALL BE IDE NTICALLY APPLICABLE IN ALL THE OTHER YEARS. ITA NOS.298-300/COCH/2014 2 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS 10 GROUNDS OF APPEAL BUT EXCEPT GROUND NOS. 5 & 8, THE OTHER GROUNDS ARE NOT PRESSE D AND ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 & 10 ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE GROUND NOS. 5 & 8 WHICH ARE R EPRODUCED HEREINBELOW:- 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.11,16,000/- MADE ON ACCO UNT OF ALLEGED INVESTMENT OF THE APPELLANT IN MANDYA SUGAR COMPANY . 8. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) WENT WRONG IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.23,41,822/- U/S. 40A(3). 5. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED MAINLY IN WHOLESALE BUSINESS OF SUGAR. THE RE WAS INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CASH PURCHASES OF SUGAR FROM M/S. MYSORE SUGAR COMPANY, MANDYA FOR RS.1,17,09,110/-, RS.3,39,16,64 5/- AND RS.10,59,13,895/- RESPECTIVELY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06, 2006 -07 AND 2007-08. A SURVEY U/S. 133A WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 10.01.2008 AND CERTAIN SLIPS, BILLS AND OTHER DOCUM ENTS WERE FOUND AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE IMPOUN DED. ON THE BASIS OF THE IMPOUNDED MATERIALS, THE ASSESSMENTS FOR ALL TH E THREE YEARS WERE COMPLETED BY MAKING CERTAIN ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES . ITA NOS.298-300/COCH/2014 3 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH WERE SENT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND REMAND REPORT DATED 21/01/2014 WAS TAKEN. THE ASSESSEE MADE THE SUBMISSIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE REMAND REPORT. AS R EGARDS THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40A(3) OF THE ACT, THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSID ERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. 7. AS REGARDS THE PEAK INVESTMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF PEAK INVESTMENT SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GIVE P LAUSIBLE EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO THE SAID CREDIT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE EXPLANATIONS, SUBMISSIONS, ETC. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) SENT THE SAME FOR REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WAS RECEIVE D. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED UNDER THE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER R ULE 6DD(K) OF THE ACT SINCE THE PAYMENTS FOR PURCHASES ARE MADE TO THE AG ENTS LIKE ARC AGENCIES, BANGALORE, POORNIMA AGENCIES, CHENNAI, MO NY TRANSPORTS, MYSORE ETC. WHO BID AT THE AUCTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSES SEE AND ALSO MAKE PAYMENTS ON THEIR BEHALF. THIS FACT HAS BEEN MENTIO NED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER BUT NO ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE T O MAKE ANY ENQUIRY IN ITA NOS.298-300/COCH/2014 4 THIS REGARD TO FIND OUT THE TRUTH. THE CONFIRMATIO NS FROM SUGAR MILLS, M/S. CHAMUNDESWARI SUGARS LTD. AND MYSORE SUGAR COMPANY LTD. WERE FILED ON 17.12.2014 AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE SUPPLIER COM PANIES HAVE CONFIRMED THAT SUGAR IS SOLD THROUGH THE AGENT M/S. ARC AGENC IES AND PAYMENTS ARE ALSO MADE THROUGH THE AGENT TO THE SUPPLIER COMPANI ES. THEY ALSO CONFIRMED THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN CASH TOWAR DS THE VALUE OF SUGAR SUPPLIED FOR MAKING URGENT PAYMENTS TO SUGAR CANE S UPPLIERS. THEY HAVE ALSO CERTIFIED THAT THE PAYMENTS ARE RECEIVED IN CASH ON LY BECAUSE OF THE DELAY AND TIME TAKEN FOR CLEARING THE CHEQUES. THE PAYME NTS ARE MADE IN CASH TO THE SUPPLIER COMPANIES FOR MAKING PAYMENTS TO THE F ARMERS WHO SUPPLY SUGAR CANES. THUS SUCH PAYMENTS ARE MADE IN CASH C ONSIDERING THE BUSINESS EXIGENCIES AND WHEN THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE THROUGH A GENTS FOR MEETING THE PAYMENTS FOR FARMERS SUPPLYING THE SUGAR CANES THOSE PAYMENTS ARE EXEMPTED FROM SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT AND AS PER RULE 6DD. 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON T HE DECISIONS OF VARIOUS COURTS OF LAW AS UNDER:- A) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS J. RAJMOHAN PILLA I HIGH COURT OF KERALA - )2004) 267 ITR 561 (KER.) B) TIRUPUR TRADING CO. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA 242 ITR 13 (CALCUTTA). C) THE JANAMBHUMI VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (1997) 225 ITR 517 (GAU.) ITA NOS.298-300/COCH/2014 5 D) ATTAR SINGH GURMUKH SINGH ETC. VS. INCOME TAX O FFICER SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (1991) 191 ITR 667 (SC). 10. HE ALSO ARGUED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2008-09, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT VIDE ORDER DAT ED 06/02/2010. THIS IS THE SURVEY YEAR AND NO DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40A(3) WAS MADE DURING THE YEAR AND COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ENCLOSED AT PB PAGES 30-32 AND ALSO NO DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40A(3 ) WAS MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS PLACED AT PB PGS. 33-36 FOR THE PURCHASE OF SUGAR THROUGH AGENTS BY CASH PAID TO SUGAR COMPANIES. HE ALSO ARG UED THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 AND 2008-09, EVEN THOUGH P AYMENTS WERE MADE SIMILARLY, NO DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40A(3) HAD BEEN MAD E BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT IN THE ASSESSMENTS. THE PAYMENTS WERE M ADE IN CASH DUE TO COMPULSION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE PAYMENTS AR E GENUINE PAYMENTS WHICH ARE CONFIRMED BY THE SUPPLIERS AND IT IS NOT 100% DISALLOWANCE BUT ONLY 20% DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS CONSIDERED 80% OF THE PAYMENTS AS GENUI NE AND 20% HAS BEEN DISALLOWED WHICH IS AN IMPRACTICAL SITUATION WHEN THE PAYMENTS ARE GENUINE. THEREFORE, FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, IT IS PROVED THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE AGAINST THE PURCHASES ARE GENUINE PURCHASES. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT NO PEAK CREDIT CAN BE CALCULATE D IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AND NO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PEAK INVESTMENT CAN B E MADE AND ITA NOS.298-300/COCH/2014 6 ACCORDINGLY, PRAYED TO DELETE THE ADDITION U/S. 40A (3) AND ON ACCOUNT OF PEAK INVESTMENT. 11. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERU SED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE FACTS AS STATED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM OF 5 PARTNERS DEALING MAINLY AS A SUPER W HOLESALER IN SUGAR. PURCHASES ARE MADE FROM SEVERAL SUGAR MILLS AND DIS TRIBUTED TO DISTRIBUTORS IN VARIOUS PARTS OF THE STATE OF KERALA. THE DEPARTMEN T CONDUCTED A SURVEY AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 10-01-2008. THE LEA RNED ASSESSING OFFICER WENT ON TO MAKE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40A(3) AND ADDIT IONS BASED ON PEAK CREDIT FOR THE ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED REMITTANCES MADE TO THE SUGAR MILLS. IT APPEARS THAT THE FIGURES REQUIRED FOR THIS WERE TAK EN OUT FROM ENQUIRIES MADE WITH THE SUGAR MILLS, BUT NEITHER THE RESULT OF THE SE ENQUIRIES, NOR THE DETAILS OF THE PEAK CREDIT WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALTHOUGH SEVERAL REQUESTS WERE MADE BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ONLY WHEN A REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER GRANTED A COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT TAKEN FROM SUGAR MILL AT MYSORE. BOTH THESE ADDITI ONS ARE DISPUTED IN THESE APPEALS. ITA NOS.298-300/COCH/2014 7 DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40A(3) ASST. YEAR 2005-06 : 23,41,822/- ASST. YEAR 2006-07 : 67,83,329/- ASST. YEAR 2007-08 : 2,11,82,779/- ADDITION ON PEAK CREDIT WITH MYSORE SUGAR CO. LTD. , MANDYA ASST. YEAR 2005-06 : 11,16,000/- ASST. YEAR 2006-07 : 8,60,370/-- ASST. YEAR 2007-08 : 34,400/- (NO T DISPUTED) THE PAYMENTS FOR PURCHASES ARE NOT MADE BY THE ASS ESSEE TO THE SUGAR MILLS DIRECTLY. ON THE OTHER HAND THEY ARE MADE TO AGENTS LIKE ARC AGENCIES, BANGALORE, POORNIMA AGENCIES, CHENNAI, MONY TRANSPO RTS, MYSORE ETC. WHO BID AT THE AUCTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND A LSO MAKE PAYMENTS ON THEIR BEHALF. ALTHOUGH THIS FACT WAS MENTIONED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HE MADE NO ATTEMPT TO MAKE ANY ENQUIRY IN THIS REGARD TO ASCERTAIN THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER. CONFIRMATIONS FROM SUGAR MILLS, M/S. CH AMUNDESWARI SUGARS LTD. AND MYSORE SUGAR COMPANY LTD. ARE FILED ON 17.12.20 14 AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE SUPPLIER COMPANIES HAVE CONFIRMED THA T SUGAR IS SOLD TO THEM THROUGH THE AGENT M/S. ARC AGENCIES AND PAYMENTS AR E ALSO MADE THROUGH THEM TO THE SUPPLIER COMPANIES. THEY ALSO CONFIRME D THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN CASH TOWARDS THE VALUE OF SUGAR SUPPLI ED FOR MAKING URGENT PAYMENTS TO SUGAR CANE SUPPLIERS. THEY HAVE ALSO CE RTIFIED THAT THE PAYMENTS ARE RECEIVED IN CASH ONLY BECAUSE OF THE D ELAY AND TIME TAKEN FOR CLEARING THE CHEQUES. THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE IN CASH TO THE SUPPLIER ITA NOS.298-300/COCH/2014 8 COMPANIES FOR MAKING PAYMENTS TO THE FARMERS WHO SU PPLY SUGAR CANES. THE COPIES OF CONFIRMATIONS OF VARIOUS SUPPLIERS ARE RE PRODUCED HEREINBELOW FOR MORE CLARITY:- (1) THE MYSORE SUGAR COMPANY LIMITED (A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERT AKING) REGD. OFFICE & FACTORY: SUGAR TOWN, MANDY A 571 402 (KARNATAKA STATE) MC/SUGAR/2014/48 20-09-2014 TO WHOM SO EV ER IT MAY CONCERN WE HAVE SOLD SUGAR TO M/S. KEEZHEDATH TR ADERS, TIRUR DURING THE PERIOD 2004-2007 THROUGH COMMISSION AGENTS LIKE M/S. ARC A GENCIES, M/S. SUGAR LINKS, M/S. MEENAKSHI AGENCIES AND PAYMENTS ARE ALS O ARRANGED THROUGH THEM. EVEN THE VALUE OF SUGAR SUPPLIED ARE RECEIVED IN CASH FOR MEETING URGENT PAYMENT TO SUGAR CANE SUPPLIERS. THE PAYMENT BY CHEQUE WILL BE HAVING DELAY IN GETTING CASH. THE ABOVE ARRANGEMEN T IS MADE FOR PAYMENT FOR SUGAR CANE SUPPLIERS. WE ARE INCOME-TAX ASSESSEE AND OUR PAN NUMBER IS AA BCT 0474B. THANKING YOU (SD/- (ASST. MANAGER(COMML) ITA NOS.298-300/COCH/2014 9 (2) CHAMUNDESWARI REGISTERED OFFICE LIFE IN HARMONY SRI CHAMUNDESWARI SUGARS LIMITED NO.88/5, RICHMOND ROAD, BANGALORE-560 025 T+91 8025002500 F [phone] E [e-mail] WWW.CHAMUNDESWARI SUGARS.IN 08/10/2 014 TO WHOM SO EVER IT MAY CONCERN WE HAVE SOLD SUGAR TO M/S. KEEZHEDATH TR ADERS, TIRUR DURING THE PERIOD 2004-2007 THROUGH COMMISSION AGENTS LIKE M/S. ARC A GENCIES, AND PAYMENTS ARE ALSO ARRANGED FOR THE SUGAR PURCHASED BY THEM. M/S. KEEZHEDATH TRADERS HAVE PAID US IN CASH ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS FOR THE SUGAR SUPPLIED AT OUR FACTORY FOR MEETING URGENT PAYMENT TO SUGAR CANE SUPPLIERS. THE PAYMENT BY CHEQUE WOULD TAKE TIME FOR CLEARING IN BANKS AND GETTING CASH. THE ABOVE ARRANGEMENT IS MADE FOR PAYMENT FO R SUGAR CANE SUPPLIERS. WE ARE INCOME-TAX ASSESSEES AND OUR PAN NUMBER IS A ACCS 5004R THANKING YOU FOR SRI CHAMUNDESWARI SUGARS LT D. SD/- AUTHORISED SIGNATORY THE LD. DR HAS NOT CONTROVERTED THE SAID CONFIRMATI ONS. PAYMENTS ARE MADE IN CASH CONSIDERING THE BUSINESS EXIGENCIES AND WHEN THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE THROUGH AGENTS FOR MEETING TH E PAYMENTS FOR FARMERS SUPPLYING THE SUGAR CANE THOSE PAYMENTS ARE EXEMPTED FROM ITA NOS.298-300/COCH/2014 10 SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT AND AS PER RULE 6DD. TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS OF VARIOUS COURT S OF LAW AS UNDER:- A) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS J. RAJMOHAN PILLA I HIGH COURT OF KERALA - )2004) 267 ITR 561 (KER.) B) TIRUPUR TRADING CO. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA 242 ITR 13 (CALCUTTA). C) THE JANAMBHUMI VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (1997) 225 ITR 517 (GAU.) D) ATTAR SINGH GURMUKH SINGH ETC. VS. INCOME TAX O FFICER SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (1991) 191 ITR 667 (SC). IN RESPECT OF AY 2008-09 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY ORDER DATED 06.02.2010 THE SURVEY TOO K PLACE ON 10-01- 2008 AND THIS IS THE SURVEY ASSESSMENT YEAR. NO DI SALLOWANCE U/S. 40A(3) IS MADE DURING THE YEAR. COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ENCLOSED AT PAPER BOOK PG. NOS. 30-32. NO DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40A(3) I S MADE IN RESPECT OF THE AY 2002-03 (ASSESSMENT ORDER PLACED AT PAPER B OOK PG. NOS. 33-36) AND NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE IS MADE FOR THE PURCHASE O F SUGAR THROUGH AGENTS BY CASH PAID TO SUGAR COMPANIES. FOR AY 200 2-03 AND FOR THE AY 2008-09 EVEN THOUGH PAYMENTS WERE MADE SIMILARLY, N O DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40A(3) IS MADE. IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS PAYMEN T OF AMOUNT BY CHEQUE WILL ORDINARILY TAKE 4 TO 5 DAYS. THE SUGAR COMPANIES REQUIRE THE SALE VALUE IN CASH IMMEDIATELY FOR THE PAYMENT OF S UGAR CANE GROWERS. THIS FACT IS FOLLOWED IN ALL THE YEARS AND NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE IS MADE. ITA NOS.298-300/COCH/2014 11 AFTER THE SURVEY U/S. 133A ON 10.01.2008 THE ASSESS EE ADDRESSED THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TIRUR ON 11.02.2008 (PA PER BOOK PAGE NO. 21- 24) OFFERING THE INCOME FOR THE AY 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 FOR THE FINAL SETTLEMENT OF THE SURVEY MATTERS. AT THAT TIM E THERE WAS NO MENTION OF DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40A(3) FOR SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS AS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE DISALLOWANCE IS NOT MADE FOR THE AY 200 2-03 AND 2008-09 ONLY AFTER CONSIDERING THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES IN W HICH THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE. IT IS WORTHWHILE TO MENTION THAT AS ON DATE N O PAYMENT IS MADE IN CASH BECAUSE IMMEDIATE BANK TRANSFER FACILITIES ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSTANT CREDIT OF THE AMOUNT PAID THROUGH THE BANK. THE AS SESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE IN CASH DUE TO COMPULSIO N OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THEREFORE NO DISALLOWANCE U/S. 4 0A(3) IS CALLED FOR. 13. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE PRESENT CASE IS COVERED UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES U/S. 40A(3) AND RULE 6DD(K) AND THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR U/S. 40A(3) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE SO MADE IS DIRECTED T O BE DELETED AND THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS REVERSED. THEREFORE, GR OUND NO. 8 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 14. IN VIEW OF THE DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40A(3), NO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED PEAK INVESTMENT IN MANDYA SUGAR COMPANY CAN BE ITA NOS.298-300/COCH/2014 12 MADE AND THE SAME IS ALSO DIRECTED TO BE DELETED AN D ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS REVERSED. THEREFORE, GR OUND NO. 5 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THUS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN I.T .A. NO. 298/COCH/2014 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 15. NEXT WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE IN I.T.A. NO. 299/COCH/2014 WHERE THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE A RE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN THE ASSESSEES CASE IN I.T.A. NO. 298/COCH /2014. ACCORDINGLY, OUR ORDER IN I.T.A. NO. 298/COCH/2014 IS IDENTICALLY AP PLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE AND THEREFORE, GROUND NOS. 5 AND 8 ARE ALLOWED AND OTHER GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. THUS THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NO. 298/COCH/2014 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 16. NEXT WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE IN I.T.A. NO. 300/COCH/2014 WHERE THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT ARE ID ENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN THE ASSESSEES CASE IN I.T.A. NO. 298/COCH/2014 AND ACCORDINGLY, OUR ORDER IN I.T.A. NO. 298/COCH/2014 SHALL BE IDENTICA LLY APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE AND THEREFORE, GROUND NOS. 5 & 8 ARE A LLOWED AND OTHER GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. THUS THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NO.300/COCH/2014 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NOS.298-300/COCH/2014 13 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15-06-2016 SD/- SD/- (GEORGE GEORGE K.) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE : COCHIN DATED: 15TH JUNE , 2016 GJ COPY TO: 1. M/S. KEEZHEDATH TRADERS, THAZHEPALAM, TIRUR. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TIRUR. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS), KOZHIKO DE. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOZHIKODE. 5. THE DR/ITAT, COCHIN BENCH. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, COCHIN