K.Rajendranathan Nair, Kollam V. ACIT, Kollam

ITA 338/COCH/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2609 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 07-02-2013
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R KRISHNAN
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Period of limitation; Retrospective amendment
• Section: 143(3); 80HHC; 234B; 147; 148; 154

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.344/COCH/2009 ITA NO.338/COCH/2011 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. 344/COCH/2009 - A.Y. 1998-99 I.T.A NO. 338/COCH/2011 - A.Y. 2001-02 PADMAJADEVI SANKARAN NAIR VS THE A.C.I.T., CIR.1 HARIKIRSHNAN NAIR KOLLAM GANESH R NAIR SREELATHA SIVAKUMAR LEGAL HEIRS OF - LATE K RAJENDRANATHAN NAIR PROP WESTERN INDIA CASHEW CO KOCHUPILAMMOODU KOLLAM PAN: AEKPP4095G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R KRISHNAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M ANIL KUMAR, C.I.T. SMT. S VIJAYAPRABHA DATE OF HEARING : 03-04-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12-04-2013 2 ITA NO.344/COCH/2009 ITA NO.338/COCH/2011 O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE TAXPAYER ARE DIRECTED AGAI NST TWO INDEPENDENT ORDERS OF C.I.T.(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 & 2001- 02. THEREFORE, WE HEARD BOTH THE APPEALS TOGETHER AND DISPOSE OF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. LET US FIRST TAKE THE APPEAL OF THE TAXPAYER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. 3. SHRI R KRISHNAN, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE T AXPAYER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) ON 12-01-2004. HOWEVER, THE A SSESSING OFFICER REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 O N 17-03-2008. REFERRING TO PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/ S 143(3), IT CANNOT BE REOPENED AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNLESS THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TA X HAS ESCAPED 3 ITA NO.344/COCH/2009 ITA NO.338/COCH/2011 ASSESSMENT FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR BY REASON OF FA ILURE ON THE PART OF THE TAXPAYER TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL THE MATERI AL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT. IN THIS CASE, ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPR ESENTATIVE, THE TAXPAYER HAD DISCLOSED THE ENTIRE FACTS AND IT IS NOT THE CA SE OF THE REVENUE THAT THERE WAS ANY NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE TAXPAYE R TO DISCLOSE ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE , THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE TAXATION LAWS (AM ENDMENT) ACT, 2005 IN WHICH PROVISO TO SECTION 80HHC WAS INTRODUCED WITH RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE TAXPAYER WAS EXPECTED TO FILE RETURN ON THE BASIS OF THE LAW WHICH WAS IN EXISTENCE ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR; THE TAXPAYER CANNOT BE EXPE CTED TO ANTICIPATE AN AMENDMENT WHICH WOULD BE BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE BY TAXATION LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2005 IN THE YEAR 2001. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, AS PER THE LAW AS IT STOOD ON 01 -04-2001 THE TAXPAYER FURNISHED THE ENTIRE DETAILS. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE TAXPAYER; HENCE, REOP ENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELE VANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. 4 ITA NO.344/COCH/2009 ITA NO.338/COCH/2011 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SMT. S VIJAYAPRABHA, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE TAXPAYER HAS NOT FURNISHED THE ENTIRE DETAILS. ACC ORDING TO THE LD.DR IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON DEPB LICENCE, TH E TAXPAYER HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NEGLIG ENCE ON THE PART OF THE TAXPAYER. MOREOVER, ON THE BASIS OF THE RETROSPECT IVE AMENDMENT BROUGHT IN SECTION 80HHC BY TAXATION LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2005, THE TAXPAYER IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC OF THE ACT. T HEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, THE ASSESSMENT WAS RIGHTLY REOPENED. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTED LY, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE QUESTION ARISES FOR CONSIDERA TION IS WHETHER THERE WAS NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE TAXPAYER IN FURNI SHING FULLY AND TRULY ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY ASSESSMENT. AS RIGHTL Y SUBMITTED BY THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE TAXPAYER, NO ONE COULD AN TICIPATE AN AMENDMENT WHICH WOULD BE BROUGHT INTO THE STATUTE BOOK AFTER LAPSE OF 5-6 YEARS 5 ITA NO.344/COCH/2009 ITA NO.338/COCH/2011 RETROSPECTIVELY. THEREFORE, THE TAXPAYER CANNOT BE BLAMED FOR NOT ANTICIPATING A LAW WHICH CAME SUBSEQUENTLY INTO EXI STENCE BY TAXATION LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2005 AT THE TIME OF FILING RE TURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. IT IS WELL SETTLED PRINCI PLES OF LAW THAT THE LAW APPLICABLE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IS THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THEREFORE, THE TAXPAYER IS NOT EX PECTED TO ANTICIPATE THE TAXATION LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2005 WHICH WAS BROUG HT INTO THE STATUTE BY RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION. 6. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD.DR IS THAT THE EXPENDIT URE INCURRED FOR SALE OF DEPB LICENCE WAS NOT FURNISHED BY THE TAXPAYER. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE TAXPAYER WAS CLAIMING DEDUCTION ON DEPB LICENCE . MOREOVER, THE DEDUCTION WAS NOT DENIED BECAUSE THE DETAILS OF COS T WAS NOT FURNISHED BUT BECAUSE THE TAXPAYER HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH PROVISO TO SECTION 80HHC WHICH WAS BROUGHT INTO THE STATUTE BOOK BY TAXATION LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2005. THEREFORE, IT MAY NOT BE CORRECT TO CON TEND THAT THE TAXPAYER HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE EXPENDITURE ON SALE OF DEPB L ICENCE. THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF TAXATION LAWS (AMENDMENT) 6 ITA NO.344/COCH/2009 ITA NO.338/COCH/2011 ACT, 2005. THEREFORE, THE TAXPAYER CANNOT BE BLAME D AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT REO PENING THE ASSESSMENT, AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR IS HIT BY PROVISO TO SECTION 147; THEREFORE, THE REOPENING IS INVALID. HENCE, CONSEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS NO LEG TO STAND. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUT HORITIES ARE SET ASIDE. 7. NOW COMING TO APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 , THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS RECTIFICATION MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 80HHC WHICH WAS INS ERTED BY TAXATION LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2005 WITH RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION. 8. WE HEARD THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE TAXPAYER AND THE LD.DR. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE TAXPAYER , THE ISSUE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC IS A DEBATABLE ONE. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE DISALLOWED IN PROCEEDINGS U/S 154 OF THE ACT. FURTHERMORE, REFER RING TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO TH E ORDER OF THE C.I.T.(A) 7 ITA NO.344/COCH/2009 ITA NO.338/COCH/2011 DATED 14-09-2004, THE COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAPER BOOK, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS CHARGED INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT A MISTAKE CREPT IN THE CALCULATION OF IN TEREST CHARGED U/S 220(2) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE INTEREST WAS CHARGED U/S 220(2) OF THE ACT. THE NOTICE DATED 23-01-2008 WAS ONLY FOR RECTIFICATION OF CHARGING OF INTEREST. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC WAS WRONGLY ALLOWED AND ACCORDINGLY WITHDRAWN. ACCORDI NG TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, WITHDRAWAL OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HH C BEYOND THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE ORIGINAL AS SESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 05-02-2001 IN WHICH THE DEDUCTION U/S 80H HC WAS ALLOWED. THEREFORE, AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO JURISDICTION TO RECTIF Y THE ORDER U/S 154 OF THE ACT. 9. ON THE CONTRARY, SMT. VIJAYAPRABHA, THE LD.DR SU BMITTED THAT THOUGH THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS MADE ON 05-02-2001, THE SAME WAS RECTIFIED 8 ITA NO.344/COCH/2009 ITA NO.338/COCH/2011 BY AN ORDER DATED 05-12-2005. THEREFORE, THE FOUR YEARS PERIOD HAS TO BE CALCULATED FROM THE LATEST ORDER PASSED U/S 154 I.E . 05-12-2005. THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH, WHETHER RECTIFICATION CA N BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT, THE LD.REPRESENTATI VE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CAN BE RECTIFIED ON THE BASIS OF R ETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT BROUGHT IN THE STATUTE BOOK. THE LD.DR HAS ALSO PL ACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF HIND WIRE INDUSTRIES LTD VS CIT (1995) 212 ITR 639 (SC) AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE MAD RAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SALEM CO-OPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS LTD VS CI T (1990) 230 ITR 139 (MAD). THE LD.DR HAS ALSO PLACED HER RELIANCE ON T HE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF WALDIES LTD VS C.I.T. (1997) 2 23 ITR 163 (SC). 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 11. THE FIRST ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS STA RTING POINT FOR LIMITATION FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 154 OF THE ACT. WE HAVE CAREFULLY 9 ITA NO.344/COCH/2009 ITA NO.338/COCH/2011 GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF WALDIES LTD (SUPRA). IN THE CASE BEFORE THE APEX COURT, THE TA XPAYER COMPANY WAS ASSESSED TO THE COMPANIES (PROFITS) SURTAX ACT, 196 4. IN THE INCOME-TAX ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER THOUG HT THAT THE TAXPAYER COMPANY WAS WIDELY HELD COMPANY. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE INCOME-TAX ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED. AN ORDER WAS PASSED HOLDI NG THAT THE TAXPAYER COMPANY WAS A CLOSELY HELD COMPANY AS A RESULT OF W HICH THE BURDEN OF INCOME-TAX ON THE COMPANY BECAME HEAVIER. CONSEQUE NTLY, THE INCOME- TAX OFFICER RECTIFIED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U NDER THE SURTAX ACT. ON APPEAL BY THE TAXPAYER, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY CANCELLED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE INCOME-TAX P ROCEEDINGS AFTER REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER G IVEN EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND RECOMPUTED THE TAX LIABILITY UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ORDER PASSED UND ER SURTAX ACT WAS ALSO RECTIFIED BY WITHDRAWING THE DEDUCTION OF ADDITIONA L AMOUNT OF TAX WHICH HAD BEEN HELD TO BE PAYABLE AS A CONSEQUENCE TO THE ORDER PASSED U/S 147 OF THE ACT. THE SECOND ORDER OF RECTIFICATION WAS PASSED ON 21-04-1971. THE CONTENTION OF THE TAXPAYER BEFORE THE APEX COUR T WAS THAT FOUR YEARS 10 ITA NO.344/COCH/2009 ITA NO.338/COCH/2011 PERIOD HAD ALREADY BEEN PASSED FROM THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE APEX COURT, AFTER CONSIDERING THE CONTENTION OF THE TAXPAYER FOUND THAT THE JURISDICTION OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER TO AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY HIM IS LIMITED TO FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER WAS PASSED. IN THE CASE BEFORE THE APEX COURT, THE ORIGINAL ORD ER WAS PASSED ON 16-09- 1968. THIS RECTIFIED ORDER GAVE RELIEF TO THE TAXP AYER BY DEDUCTING THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF INCOME-TAX LEVIED BY THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THIS RELIEF HAD TO BE T AKEN OUT WHEN THE ORDER U/S 147 WAS SET ASIDE BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY. THEREFORE, THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY WAS TRYING TO NULLIFY THE ORDE R OF RECTIFICATION WHICH WAS PASSED ON 16-09-1968. THE APEX COURT FURTHER F OUND THAT THE INCOME- TAX OFFICER BY THE SECOND ORDER OF RECTIFICATION WA S NOT TRYING TO RECTIFY THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF ASSESSMENT BUT SEEKING TO RECTIFY AN ERROR IN THE AMENDED ORDER PASSED ON 16-09-1968. ACCORDINGLY, THE APEX COURT FOUND THAT THE ORDER OF INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS WITHIN THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS. 12. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, IT IS NOBODYS CASE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SEEKING TO RECTIFY THE AMENDED ORDER PASSED ON 05-1 2-2005. THOUGH NOTICE 11 ITA NO.344/COCH/2009 ITA NO.338/COCH/2011 WAS ISSUED U/S 154 / 155 ON THE GROUND THAT THERE I S AN ERROR IN THE ORDER DATED 05-12-2005, IN EFFECT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECTIFIED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 05-02-2001. THE RELIEF GRANTED U/S 80HHC ATTAINED FINALITY IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 05-02-2001. THE RELI EF U/S 80HHC WAS NOT SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE ANY OF THE APPELLAT E AUTHORITY OR THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUEST ION OF RECTIFYING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 05-02-2001 AFTER EX PIRY OF FOUR YEARS. THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF WALDIES L TD (SUPRA) MAY NOT BE OF ANY ASSISTANCE TO THE REVENUE. 13. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMEN T OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN SALEM CO-OPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS LTD (SUPRA). IN THE CASE BEFORE THE MADRAS HIGH COURT, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 17-12- 1974 AND THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER CONTAINED CE RTAIN MISTAKES. THERE WAS SUBSEQUENT ORDER RECTIFYING THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R. THE REVISED ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS MADE ON 14-08-1978. IN THE RE VISED ASSESSMENT ORDER THERE WERE SOME MISTAKES WHICH HAD OCCURRED I N THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECTIFIED THE SAME BY AN 12 ITA NO.344/COCH/2009 ITA NO.338/COCH/2011 ORDER DATED 13-12-1979. IN THOSE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES, THE MADRAS HIGH COURT, AFTER PLACING RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF TH E APEX COURT IN HIND WIRE INDUSTRIES LTD (SUPRA) FOUND THAT THE ORDER OF RECTIFICATION PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMI TATION. 14. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, IT IS NOBODYS CASE THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 05-12-2005 . THE RECTIFICATION WAS MADE ONLY FOR COMPUTATION OF CORRECT INTEREST U/S 2 34A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. NO RECTIFICATION WAS EVER MADE WITH REGAR D TO DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN AT TEMPT TO RECTIFY THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 05-02-2001 ON THE B ASIS OF THE RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT BROUGHT IN SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE JUDGMENT OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN SALEM CO-O PERATIVE SPINNING MILLS LTD (SUPRA) AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COUR T IN THE CASE OF HIND WIRE INDUSTRIES LTD (SUPRA) MAY NOT BE APPLICABLE T O THE FACTS OF THE CASE. ON THE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN, THE TAXPAYER H AS MADE THE CLAIM ON THE BASIS OF THE LAW AS IT STOOD ON THE FIRST DAY OF AP RIL OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. THEREFORE, THE AMENDMENT MADE IN SECTION 80HHC BY T AXATION LAWS 13 ITA NO.344/COCH/2009 ITA NO.338/COCH/2011 (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2005 CANNOT BE A GROUND TO EXTEND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR RECTIFYING THE ORIGINAL ORDER. 15. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE UNABLE TO UPHOLD T HE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS SET ASIDE. 16. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE TAXPAYER STAND 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