Smt..SuryaKala Gopakumar by L/hr C.P. Gopakumar, Kottayam V. The ITO, Thiruvalla

ITA 306/COCH/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8651 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 11-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 26-05-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift
• Section: 68; 69

Judgement Text

ITA NO.306/COCH/2015 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI B P JAIN, AM & GEORGE GEORGE.K, JM ITA NO.306/COCH/2015 (ASST YEAR : 2010-11) SMT. SURYAKALA GOPAKUMAR BY L/HR. C.P. GOPAKUMAR, CHANGNACHERRY, KOTTAYAM--686 103. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, THIRUVALLA. ( ASSESSEE APPELLANT) VS (REVENUE -RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AEYPG 9924R ASSESSEE BY SHRI R. SREENIVASAN, CA REVENUE BY SHRI K P GOPAKUMAR, SR DR DATE OF HEARING 11/05/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 13/05/2016 ORDER PER B.P. JAIN, AM: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARISES FROM THE OR DER OF THE LD. CIT(A), KOTTAYAM DATED 06/03/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. OFFICERS BELOW WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.67,38,500/- CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AS NOT PROPERLY EXPLAI NED. 2. OFFICERS BELOW SHOULD HAVE APPRECIATED THE FAC T THAT THE APPELLANTS LEGAL HEIR AND HUSBAND C.P. GOPAKUMAR HAS CONFIRMED THE S OURCE FOR CREDIT ITA NO.306/COCH/2015 2 APPEARING IN THE BANK AS ARISING OUT OF SALE PROCEE DS OF PROPERTY, SO MUCH SO ALL THE INGREDIENTS PRESCRIBED U/S. 68 REMAIN SATIS FIED. 3. MERELY BECAUSE THE BUYER OF THE PROPERTY HAS DE NIED HAVING PAID ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF RS.49.80 LAKHS, IT IS NOT PROP ER ON THE PART OF THE OFFICERS BELOW, TO DIS-BELIEVE THE STATEMENT OF THE LEGAL HE IR OF THE APPELLANT. 4. HAVING PROVED THE SOURCE OF THE CREDIT, GENUIN ENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND THE CAPACITY OF THE LEGAL HEIR OF THE APPELLANT, IT WAS NOT PROPER ON THE PART OF THE OFFICERS BELOW TO HAVE REJECTED SUCH EXPLANATIO N WHICH ARE WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF SECTION 68. 5. OFFICERS BELOW SHOULD HAVE ALSO APPRECIATED TH E FACT THAT THE DECEASED APPELLANT WAS NOT HAVING ANY SOURCE OF INCOME NOR A NY MATERIAL WITH THE DEPARTMENT TO HOLD THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.67,38,500/ - REMAIN UNEXPLAINED. 6. FOR THE ABOVE REASONS AND OTHER REASONS AS M AY BE ADDUCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, YOUR APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.67,38,500/- MAY BE DELETED. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW: IN THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASS ESSEE SMT. SURYAKALA EXPIRED ON 01/12/2012 AND THE DEATH CERTIFICATE IS FILED ON RECORD. SHRI C.P. GOPAKUMAR IS THE LEGAL HEIR OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION THE BANK ACCOUN TS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE SUBJECTED TO VERIFICATION AND IT WAS NOTICED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD MADE THE FOLLOWING CASH DEPOSITS IN HER SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT NO. A/C NO.03111000004761 WITH HDFC BANK, CHANGANACHERRY. SL. NO. DATE DEPOSIT AMOUNT (RS.) 1. 22/06/2009 CASH 18,00,000/- 2. 19/12/2009 CASH 25,00,000/- 3. 21/12/2009 CASH 46,00,000/- 4. 24/12/2009 CASH 2,50,000/- TOTAL 91,50,000/- ITA NO.306/COCH/2015 3 5. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE FO R THESE DEPOSITS AND TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE IF ANY REGARDING THE SAID DEPOSITS IN THE HDFC BANK, CHANGANACHERRY VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 08/03/ 2013. 6. THE ASSESSEE FILED A REPLY ON 12/03/2013 AND EXP LAINED THAT THE SOURCE OF CREDIT IS FROM SALE OF PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF HER HUSBAND SRI C.P. GOPAKUMAR. THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS ON 21/12/2009. THE SA LE DEED AND PURCHASE DEED OF THE PROPERTY WERE PRODUCED AND THESE WERE V ERIFIED. 7. ON VERIFICATION OF THE SALE DEED AND THE FORM 1 (B) RULE 3(1)A ATTACHED ALONG WITH THE SALE DEED, IT IS SEEN THAT THE PROPE RTY EXCLUSIVELY BELONGED TO SRI C.P. GOPAKUMAR AND THAT THE TOTAL VALUE OF PROPERTY AS PER SALE DEED IS RS.21,20,000/- ONLY. 8. AS PER ASSESSEES EXPLANATION DATED 12/03/2013, IN ADDITION TO THE SAID SUM OF RS.21,20,000 A SUM OF RS.49,80,000/- WAS REC EIVED AS ADDITIONAL AMOUNT ON SALE OF THE SAID PROPERTY. THUS THE ACTUAL VALU E OF THE PROPERTY ON SALE COMES TO RS.71,00,000/- AS PER ASSESSEES OWN EXPLA NATION AND THE SOURCE OF CASH CREDITS ARE EXPLAINED AS UNDER: SL. NO. AMOUNT DATE OF CREDIT REMARKS 1. 18,00,000 22/06/2009 ADVANCE RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF SALE OF PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF HER HUSBAND SRI GOPAKUMAR 2. 25,00,000 19/12/2009 A. RE-DEPOSIT OF RS.18,0 0,000 WITHDRAWN FROM BANK BY CASH ON VARIOUS DATES PRIOR TO 19/12/2009. B. RS.7,00,000/- FROM SALE PROCEEDS OF LAND. 3. 46,00,000 21/12/2009 C. PROCEEDS FROM SALE OF LAND REFERRED ABOVE. 4. 2,50,000 24/12/2009 D. RE-DEPOSIT OUT OF RS .25,00,000/- RECEIVED FROM SALE OF LAND REFERRED TO ABOVE. 9. SUBSEQUENTLY SHRI MANU THOMAS, KALLUKULAM WHO IS THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY WAS SUMMONED AND HE WAS ASKED WHETHER HE H AD PAID THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF RS.49,80,000/- FOR THE TRANSAC TION OF PROPERTY. HE HAS TOTALLY DENIED THE PAYMENT. ITA NO.306/COCH/2015 4 10. IN AN ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE DEP OSITS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE MONEY HAS COME FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS OF T HE PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF HER HUSBAND SRI C.P. GOPAKUMAR, BUT HE HAS NOT C ONFIRMED IT SO FAR. 11. WHILE PRESENTING THE SOURCE AS SALE PROCEEDS AM OUNTING TO RS.71,00,000/-, THE ASSESSEE SIMULTANEOUSLY OFFERED THE CAPITAL GAI N ON THE SAME FOR ASSESSMENT, BUT AS LONG AS SHE IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, THE QUESTION OF CAPITAL GAIN DOES NOT ARISE IN HER HANDS. 12. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE DEPOSIT OF RS.18,00,000/- ON 22/06/2009 CAME FROM THE ADVANCE RECEIVED FOR SALE BUT NOT EVIDENCE IS PRODUCED IN THIS RESPECT ALSO. 13. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ENTIRE SUM OF RS.9 1,50,000/- CONSTITUTING THE BANK DEPOSITS REMAIN UNEXPLAINED AND IT IS SUBJECTE D TO ASSESSMENT AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S. 69 OF THE I.T. ACT. TH IS IS NOTWITHSTANDING ANY ACTION THAT MAY BE TAKEN IN THE CASE OF SRI C.P. GO PAKUMAR. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER BUT HE GAVE A CREDIT OF RS.21,20,000/- BEING THE AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED AND RENTAL INCOME OF RS.2,91,500/- TOTALING TO RS.24,11,500/- AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.67,38,500/-. 5. IT WAS ARGUED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE THAT OUT OF RS.91,50,000/- CREDITED, RS.71,00,000/- BELONGED ON ACCOUNT OF SAL E PROCEEDS INCLUDING PREMIUM RECEIVED FROM THE SALE OF HER HUSBAND SHRI C.P. GOPAKUMARS PROPERTY. EVEN THOUGH THE SALE PROCEEDS MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED IS RS.21,20,000/-, BALANCE OF RS.49,80,000/- WAS RECEI VED AS ADDITIONAL AMOUNT ON THE SALE OF THE SAID PROPERTY AND THE SOURCES OF TH E SAID DEPOSIT OF RS. 91,50,000/- HAVE ALREADY BEEN EXPLAINED WHICH ARE R EPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER HEREINABOVE. ITA NO.306/COCH/2015 5 6. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND W AS AN NRI FOR OVER 30 YEARS AND WAS NOT HAVING NON RESIDENT ORDINARY ACCOUNT IN ANY BANK IN INDIA BUT, HE WAS HAVING ONLY NON RESIDENT EXTERNAL ACCOUNT IN I NDIA. AS PER RBI/FEMA RULES, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO GIVE CREDIT FOR INDIAN RUPEES IN SUCH AN ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND RECEIVED THE SA LE PROCEEDS FOR CONVENIENT PURPOSES AND DEPOSITED THE SAME IN HIS WIFES ACCOU NT AND THERE WAS NO OTHER INTENTION. HE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE INDIAN LAWS AND RULES AND HE DID NOT EVEN HAVE A PAN WHICH WAS APPLIED FOR FILING THE INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE FIRST TIME FOR DECLARING CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF PROPERTY IN I NDIA. ACCORDINGLY, TAXING THE SAME AMOUNT TWICE IS HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE, HARSH AN D BAD IN LAW. HE ALSO EXPLAINED THAT HIS WIFE WAS UNDERGOING TREATMENT FO R CANCER. THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERAT ION AT RS.71,00,000/- FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAPITAL GAIN TAX , WHICH IS A MATTER OF FACT AND IS NOT IN DISPUTE AND TAXES HAVE BEEN PAID, ON THE CAPITAL GAINS DECLARED ON THE SALES CO NSIDERATION OF RS. 71,00,000/-. 7. AS REGARDS THE DENIAL BY THE PURCHASER, THE A SSESSEE WAS NEVER GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE PURCHASER. IN SUC H CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT WHATEVER SALE CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND, HAS BEEN DECLA RED AS SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHARGING CAPITAL GAIN TAX IN HIS RETURN AND THERE IS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OF WHATSOEVER KIND. ACCORDIN GLY, THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE REQUIRED TO BE REVERSED. ITA NO.306/COCH/2015 6 8. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE O RDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERU SED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE EXPLANATION WHICH IN ITSELF IS EVIDENT FROM THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AVAILABLE AT PGS. 1, 2 &3 OF HIS ORDER WHICH FOR THE SAKE OF CON VENIENCE ARE BEING REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW. 1. ORDER OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY (O) TREATING T HE BANK CREDITS AS INCOME FROM UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS U/S. 69 AND TAXED ACCO RDINGLY IS AGAINST FACTS AND BAD IN LAW. 2. AMOUNT CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT (HDFC BANK A /C NO. 03111000004761) NEVER BELONGED TO THE APPELLANT AT THE TIME OF CRED IT. APPELLANT CONVINCINGLY EXPLAINED AND SUBSTANTIATED THAT OUT OF RS.91,50,00 0/- CREDITED RS.71,00,000/- BELONGED TO SALES PROCEEDS INCLUDING PREMIUM RECEIV ED FROM HUSBANDS PROPERTY (C.P. GOPAKUMAR). HENCE ASSESSING OFFICER S CONTENTION THAT BANK CREDITS ARE UNEXPLAINED AND SUBJECTED TO ASSESSMENT AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS U/S. 69 OF IT ACT IS BASELESS. 3. APPELLANTS HUSBAND C.P. GOPAKUMAR IS A NRI FOR OVER 30 YEARS AND HE NEVER HAD A NON RESIDENT ORDINARY (NRI) ACCOUNT IN ANY BANKS IN INDIA. HE IS MAINTAINING ONLY NRE (NON RESIDENT EXTERNAL ACCOUNT ) IN INDIA. AS PER R.B.I./FEMA RULES IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO GIVE CREDIT FOR INDIAN RUPEE IN NRE ACCOUNT. SINCE THE SALES PROCEEDS WERE RECEIVED IN INDIAN RUPEES FOR CONVENIENT SAKE HE HAS DEPOSITED IN HIS WIFES (APP ELLANT) BANK ACCOUNT AND HE HAD NO OTHER INTENTION. 4. SINCE C.P. GOPAKUMAR, HUSBAND OF APPELLANT, IS AN NRI OVER 30 YEARS AND HE WAS NOT AWARE OF INDIAN LAWS AND RULES. HE HARD LY COMES TO INDIA ONE OR TWO TIMES IN A YEAR. HE DID NOT EVEN HAVE A PAN. NOW THAT HE HAS APPLIED FOR PAN AND WILL BE FILING IT RETURN WITH RESPECT TO CA PITAL GAINS FOR THE PROPERTY SOLD IN INDIA. HENCE, TAXING SAME AMOUNT TWICE IS HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE, HARSH AND BAD IN LAW. 5. THE STATEMENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT (C LAUSE 10 OF THE ORDER) C.P. GOPAKUMAR HAS NEVER CONFIRMED THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IS NOT TRUE. C.P. ITA NO.306/COCH/2015 7 GOPAKUMAR ALONG WITH THE AR HAD MET ASSESSING OFFIC ER ON 22 ND MARCH,2013 AND DISCUSSED THE CASE AND STATED THAT THE CREDIT O F RS.71,00,000/- APPEARING IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS FROM PROCEEDS OF SALE OF PR OPERTY MADE BY HIM ON 21.12.2009, VIDE DOCUMENT 2431/1/09, CHANGNACHERRY SUB REGISTRY. HE FURTHER STATED THAT HIS WIFE APPELLANT WAS UNDERGOING TREAT MENT FOR CANCER, AND THE ABOVE AMOUNT MAY BE TREATED AS GIFT TO HER FOR MEET ING TREATMENT EXPENSES. BUT ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO RECORD THESE STATEM ENTS IN THE ORDER. HENCE STATEMENT THAT C.P. GOPAKUMAR HAS NOT CONFIRMED THE CREDITS OF RS.71,00,000/- APPEARING IN THE BANK STATEMENT IS FROM SALE OF HIS PROPERTY IS TOTALLY FALSE AND BASELESS. 6. ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT TOTAL CREDIT APP EARING IN THE BANK STATEMENT IS RS.91,50,000/-. BUT ACTUALLY CREDITS IN THE BANK A CCOUNT IS ONLY RS.71,00,000/- I.E. PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF PROPERTY. BALANCE RS.20, 50,000/- IS REDEPOSIT OUT OF WITHDRAWALS FROM EARLIER CREDITS AND RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR. BUT ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF APPELLA NT AND TAKEN ENTIRE RS.91,50,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. IT IS VER Y CLEAR FROM THE BANK STATEMENT THAT APPELLANT HAS WITHDRAWN RS.19,20,000 /- BY CASH FROM BANK DURING THE PERIOD. CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM BANK FROM THE DATE OF FIRST DEPOSIT I.E. 24.12.2009 IS GIVEN BELOW. DATE CASH WITHDRAWALS(RS.) 24-07-2009 50,000/- 06-07-2009 25,000/- 07-07-2009 90,000/- 17-07-2009 2, 50,000/- 29-07-2009 20,000/- 31-07-2009 50,000/- 04-08-2009 1,00,000/- 08-08-2009 1,70,000/- 02-08-2009 15,000/- 28-08-2009 10,000/- 17-09-2009 10,000/- 18-09-2009 2,25,000/- 22-09-2009 1,00,000/- 03-10-2009 2,00,000/- 03-10-2009 2,00,000/- 13-01-2009 2,00,000/- 28-11-2009 25,000/- 03-12-2009 5,000/- 07-12-2009 20,000/- 23-02-2009 1,55,000/ - ITA NO.306/COCH/2015 8 TOTAL CASH WITHDRAWALS 19,20,000/ - HENCE, BANK CREDIT OF RS.91,50,000/- IS RECONCILED AS UNDER: PROCEEDS FROM SALE OF PROPERTY 71,00,000/- CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM BANK RE-DEPOSITED 19 ,20,000/- INCOME FROM RENTAL INCOME 13,00,000/- GROSS INCOME RETURNED IS RS.2,91,500/- TOTAL 91,50,000/- 7) THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNI TY TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE PURCHASER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MERELY ACCEPT ED HIS VERSION. THIS IS UNJUSTIFIABLE. 8) MORE POINTS WILL BE RAISED AT THE TIME OF HEARIN G. 9) THE APPELLANT THEREFORE PRAYS THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS BE KIND ENOUGH TO QUASH THE ORDER ISSUED BY ITO, WARD- 4, THIRUVALLA. 10. THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TH AT THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND HAD RECEIVED RS.21,20,000/- IN CHEQUE THROUGH BANKI NG CHANNEL WHICH IS THE AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED AND BALANCE OF RS .49,80,000/- WAS RECEIVED AS AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT BEING ON-MONEY IN CASH WHICH WAS DEPOSITED AS PER DETAILS REPRODUCED IN ASSESSMENT O RDER AT PAGE 3, REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE. 11. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES HUS BAND NEVER HAD A NON RESIDENT ACCOUNT IN ANY BANK IN INDIA BUT HE WAS MA INTAINING ONLY A NON RESIDENT EXTERNAL ACCOUNT IN INDIA WHERE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO GIVE CREDIT FOR INDIAN RUPEES AS PER RBI/FEMA RULES. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND HAD ITA NO.306/COCH/2015 9 DECLARED TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.71,00,000/- AND HAD PAID THE CAPITAL GAIN TAX IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THEREFORE, TAXING THE SAME AMOUNT IN THE HANDS OF THE WIFE OF SHRI C.P. GOPAKUMAR, THE ASSESSEE WILL TANTAMOUNT TO DOUBLE TAXATION WHICH IS HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE, HARSH AND B AD IN LAW AND NOT PERMITTED. NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY ANY OF TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE HAD NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME FROM WHICH C ASH COULD HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED BY HER IN HER BANK ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, MAKING THE ASSUMPTION THAT RS.67,38,500/- HAS BEEN DEPOSITED FROM THE UNEXPLAI NED SOURCES CANNOT BE ACCEPTED WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED PROPER AND REASONED EXPLANATION. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DEPOSIT OF RS.67,38,500 /- AS INCOME FROM UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS D IRECTED TO BE DELETED AND ACCORDINGLY, ALL THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AL LOWED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13-05-2016. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE GEORGE K.) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE : COCHIN DATED: 13TH MAY, 2016 GJ COPY TO: 1. SMT. SURYAKALA GOPAKUMAR BY L/HR. C.P. GOPAKUMAR , CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM-686 103. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, THIRUVALLA. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS), KOTTAYA M 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOTTAYAM. ITA NO.306/COCH/2015 10 5. THE DR/ITAT, COCHIN BENCH. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, COCHIN ITA NO.306/COCH/2015 11 1.DATE OF DICTATION : 11/05/2015 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER OTHER MEMBER: 12/05/201 6 3.DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR . PS/PS: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER : 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. PS/PS : 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO BENCH CLERK: 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO HEAD CLERK: 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO ASSISTANT REGISTR AR 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER: