M/s.Kadakkal Education Trust, Trivandrum V. CIT, Trivandrum

ITA 348/COCH/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7198 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 05-08-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Reasonable cause
• Section: 12A; 12AA; 12

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.75 & 348/COCH/2013 ITA 221/COCH/2014 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) AND SHRI CHANDRA PO OJARI (AM) I.T.A NO. 75/COCH/2013 - A.Y. 2007-08 I.T.A NO. 348/COCH/2013 - NIL I.T.A NO. 221/COCH/2014 - NIL M/S KADAKKAL EDUCATIONAL TRUST VS THE ITO, WD.1 KADAKKAL VILLAGE KOLLAM / CIT, TRIVANDRUM KADAKKAL, KOLLAM PAN : AAATK9085F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MS. DIVYA RAVINDRAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M ANIL KUMAR, CIT / SMT. LATHA V KUMAR, JR DR DATE OF HEARING : 07-08-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12-09-2014 O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF VARIOUS AUTHORITIES. ITA NO.348/COCH/201 3 AND ITA NO.221/COCH/2014 RELATE TO REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT AS CHARITABLE INSTITUTION. ITA NO.75/COCH/2013 IS AGAINST THE RE GULAR ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) . THEREFORE, WE HEARD ALL THE APPEALS TOGETHER AND DISPOSE OF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2 ITA NO.75 & 348/COCH/2013 ITA 221/COCH/2014 2. SMT. DIVYA RAVINDRAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS RUNNING EDUCATIONAL INST ITUTIONS. THE ASSESSEE TRUST APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT ON 30-05-2007 BEFORE THE CIT, TRIVANDRUM. THE SAID APPLICATION WAS REJECTED BY AN ORDER DATED 26- 09-2007 WHICH IS UNDER CHALLENGE BEFORE THIS TRIBUN AL IN ITA NO.221/COCH/2014. IMMEDIATELY AFTER RECEIPT OF THE ORDER OF REJECTION DATED 26-09-2007, THE ASSESSEE WAS WRONGLY ADVISED TO FILE ANOTHER APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA ON 30-07-2007 . WHEN THE SAID APPLICATION WAS PROCESSED BY THE AUTHORITIES, THE A SSESSEE WAS ALSO ADVISED TO FILE APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL U/S 10(23C ) BEFORE THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TRIVANDRUM. EVENTUALLY THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION U/S 10(23C) FOR APPROVAL ON 15-05-20 08. SINCE THE APPLICATION WAS FILED FOR APPROVAL U/S 10(23C), THE APPLICATION FILED FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA FOR THE SECOND TIME ON 30-07- 2007 WAS REDUNDANT AND THE SAME WAS DISMISSED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONE R WITH THE REMARKS APPLICATION WITHDRAWN. THE LD.COUNSEL FURTHER SU BMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ADVISED TO MAKE ANOTHER APPLICATION FO R REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT, ACCORDINGLY, THE THIRD APPLICATION WAS MADE FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA ON 31-03-2010. THIS APPLICAT ION WAS ALSO REJECTED ON 30-09-2010. ON 01-12-2010, THE ASSESSEE FILED A NOTHER APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA COMPLYING WITH ALL THE REQUIR EMENTS AS DEMANDED BY 3 ITA NO.75 & 348/COCH/2013 ITA 221/COCH/2014 THE COMMISSIONER. FINALLY THE COMMISSIONER, BY AN ORDER DATED 20-01- 2011 GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT WITH EFFECT FROM FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11. 3. ACCORDING TO THE LD.COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE HAD AL SO FILED A WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE KERALA HIGH COURT FOR EARLIER D ISPOSAL OF THE APPLICATION FILED FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA ON 30-11-2007. THE HIGH COURT IN W.P.(C) 28008 OF 09 BY JUDGMENT DATED 20-08-2011 DISMISSED THE PETITION STATING THAT NO APPLICATION IS PENDING BEFORE THE COMMISSIO NER FOR DISPOSAL. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE TRUST FILED APPLICATION BEF ORE THE HIGH COURT TO REVIEW ITS JUDGMENT IN REVIEW PETITION NO.180 OF 20 11 IN WHICH THE HIGH COURT PERMITTED THE ASSESSEE EITHER TO FILE A FRESH APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OR TO SEEK APPROPRIATE REMEDY TO RESTORE THE APPLICATION, IF PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW. IN COMP LIANCE TO THE ORDERS OF THE HIGH COURT THE COMMISSIONER REPOSTED HEARING IN RES PECT OF THE APPLICATION FILED ON 30-05-2007 WHICH WAS ORIGINALL Y DISMISSED ON 26-09- 2007. HOWEVER, THE COMMISSIONER REJECTED THE APPLI CATION ONCE AGAIN BY AN ORDER DATED 24-10-2011 ON THE GROUND THAT THE RE GISTRATION U/S 12AA WAS ALREADY GRANTED ON THE BASIS OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 31-03-2010. THEREFORE, THE EARLIER APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION BECOMES 4 ITA NO.75 & 348/COCH/2013 ITA 221/COCH/2014 NULL AND VOID. AGAINST THIS ORDER OF THE COMMISSIO NER DATED 24-10-2011 THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN I TA NO.348/COCH/2013. 4. THE LD.COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EE ALSO FILED WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE HIGH COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.12755 OF 2012 CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER DATED 24-10-2011. THE HI GH COURT REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS N O PROVISION IN THE INCOME-TAX ACT TO RESTORE AN APPLICATION WHICH WAS ALREADY REJECTED. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE L D.SINGLE JUDGE BEFORE THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT REJECTING THE WRIT PETITION IN W.P.(C) 12755 OF 2012. THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE KERALA HI GH COURT BY JUDGMENT DATED 08-01-2014 IN W.A. NO.873 OF 2013 FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO GROUND TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.SINGLE JUD GE. HOWEVER, THE DIVISION BENCH FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT IF ANY APPEAL IS FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE SAME SHALL BE CONSIDERED AND DISPOSED OF UNTRAMMELE D BY ANY FINDINGS OR OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE WRIT PROCEEDINGS. THIS JU DGMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH WAS FURTHER CLARIFIED BY ANOTHER JUDGMENT IN I.A. 99 OF 2014 DATED 04-02-2014 CLARIFYING THAT THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPE AL SHALL NOT PRECLUDE THE PETITIONER / ASSESSEE IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL FIL ED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 12AA OF THE ACT BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 5 ITA NO.75 & 348/COCH/2013 ITA 221/COCH/2014 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF REJECTION DATED 26-09- 2007. THE ASSESSEE, ACCORDING TO THE LD.COUNSEL, W AS PROSECUTING WRONG REMEDIES BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER BY FILING SUCCESSI VE APPLICATIONS AND WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. ACCORDING TO THE LD.COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER DATED 26-09-2007. DUE TO WRONG ADVICE AND PROSECUTING WRONG REMEDY BEFORE THE WRONG FORUM THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED FROM FILING APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, THERE WAS A DELAY OF 2,353 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THI S TRIBUNAL. THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL MAY B E CONDONED AND THE ISSUE OF REGISTRATION MAY BE REMANDED BACK TO THE F ILE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR RECONSIDERATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBSEQUENT MATERIAL THAT WAS FILED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER WHO GRANTED REGISTRATION FR OM THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11 BY AN ORDER DATED 31-03-2010. THE LD.COUNS EL PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CIT VS SAN MAC MOTOR FINANCE LTD (2010) 322 ITR 309 (MAD) WHEREIN DELAY OF 1826 DAYS WAS CONDONED. 6. WE HEARD SMT. LATHA V KUMAR, THE LD.DR ALSO. TH E LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE FIRST APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A A WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 30-07-2007. THE CIT, TRIVANDRUM REJECTED THE SA ME BY AN ORDER DATED 6 ITA NO.75 & 348/COCH/2013 ITA 221/COCH/2014 26-07-2007 SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH D ETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE COMMISSIONER TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF ITS ACTIVI TY. THE ASSESSEE FILED ANOTHER APPLICATION ON 30-11-2007. THE SAME WAS DI SMISSED AS WITHDRAWN SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS PROSECUTING ANOTHE R APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL U/S 10(23C) BEFORE THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE FILED THIRD APPLICATION ON 31-03-2010 WHIC H WAS ALSO REJECTED ON 30-09-2010 SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE RELEVA NT MATERIAL / DOCUMENT TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS OF ITS ACTIVITIES. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE FILED FOURTH APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA ON 01-12-2010. ON THE FOURTH APPLICATION, THE COMMISSIONER GRANTED REGIST RATION ON 29-01-2011 WITH EFFECT FROM FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.221/COCH/2014 IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDERS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT AND THE HIGH COURT REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO RESTORE THE APPLICATION. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED AT THIS STAGE. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACT S AS NARRATED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. IN FACT, THE LD.DR ENDORSED THE FACTS AS NARRATED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE. THE ASSESEE WAS 7 ITA NO.75 & 348/COCH/2013 ITA 221/COCH/2014 ADVISED TO FILE SUCCESSIVE APPLICATIONS FOR REGISTR ATION INSTEAD OF CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER DATED 26- 09-2007 BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN A MANNER KNOWN TO LAW. THE ASSESSEE AL SO FILED WRIT PETITIONS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT AND REVIEW APPLICATION. THE HIGH COURT PERMITTED THE ASSESSEE EITHER TO FILE A FRESH APPLICATION OR TO FILE AN APPLICATION TO RESTORE THE EARLIER APPLICATION WHICH WAS DISMISSED PROVIDED THE SAME IS PERMITTED UNDER LAW. THE COMMISSIONER POSTED THE P ETITION FOR HEARING AS PER THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT. THE COMMISSIONER R EJECTED THE PRAYER FOR RESTORATION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS NO PROVISIO N FOR RESTORATION IN THE INCOME-TAX ACT. IT IS A FACT THAT THERE IS NO PROV ISION IN THE INCOME-TAX ACT TO RESTORE AN APPLICATION ALREADY DISMISSED FOR REG ISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. IF AT ALL THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE OR DER OF THE COMMISSIONER IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO CHALLENGE THE SAME BEFORE TH E APPELLATE FORUM. WITHOUT CHALLENGING THAT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE CHALLE NGED THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER BEFORE THE HIGH COURT BY WAY OF WRIT P ETITION. THE HIGH COURT REJECTED THE WRIT PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR RESTORATION OF THE APPLICATION WHICH WAS DISMISSED EARLIER. ON THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE HIGH COURT PERM ITTED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE FRESH APPLICATION OR TO FILE APPLICATION FOR RESTOR ATION. THE ASSESSEE FILED FRESH APPLICATION AND SIMULTANEOUSLY FILED ANOTHER APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL U/S 10(23C) OF THE ACT. ULTIMATELY, THE SECOND APP LICATION WAS ALSO 8 ITA NO.75 & 348/COCH/2013 ITA 221/COCH/2014 DISMISSED AND THIRD APPLICATION ALSO ENDED WITH THE SAME FATE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE WAS SUCCESSFUL IN GETTING THE REGISTRA TION U/S 12AA ON THE FOURTH APPLICATION WHICH WAS FILED ON 01-12-2010. THE COMMISSIONER GRANTED REGISTRATION ON 29-01-2011 WITH EFFECT FROM 2010-11. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTUAL POSITION IT IS OBVI OUS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LEAVING THE MATTER AND WAS IN FACT VIGILANT ENOUGH IN PROSECUTING THE PROCEEDINGS FOR APPROVAL U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. OF COURSE, THE ASSESSEE WAS KNOCKING WRONG DOORS BY PROSECUTING THE PROCEED INGS BONA FIDELY. THE QUESTION ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHEN THE A SSESSEE WAS PROSECUTING THE PROCEEDINGS BONA FIDELY BEFORE THE WRONG FORUMS WHETHER THE DELAY OF 2353 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL COULD B E CONDONED OR NOT? THIS TRIBUNAL FINDS THAT THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE CIT VS K.S.P. SHANMUGAVEL NADAR & OTHERS (1985) 153 ITR 596 (MAD) HAD AN OCCASION TO CONSIDER AN IDENTICAL ISSUE. THE MADRAS HIGH CO URT FOUND THAT PROSECUTING A WRONG REMEDY BEFORE THE WRONG FORUM I S REASONABLE CAUSE IN NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT. THE MADRAS HIGH COURT FOUND THAT BON FIDE PROSECUTION OF OTHER REME DIES BECAUSE OF WHICH THE DELAY HAS OCCURRED HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT . ACCORDINGLY, THE MADRAS HIGH COURT CONDONED A DELAY OF MORE THAN 20 YEARS IN FILING THE APPEAL. 9 ITA NO.75 & 348/COCH/2013 ITA 221/COCH/2014 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PROSECUTING OTHER REMEDIES BONA FI DELY BEFORE OTHER FORUMS AND ULTIMATELY GOT SUCCEEDED IN GETTING THE REGISTRATION BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER FROM THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11, THERE FORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE TIME. ACCORDINGLY, THE DELAY OF 2353 DAYS IS CONDONED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN 221/COCH/2014 IS ADMITTED. 10. NOW COMING TO THE MERIT OF THE CASE, THE COMMIS SIONER REJECTED THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE FAILURE OF THE A SSESSEE TO PRODUCE CERTAIN MATERIAL WHICH WAS CALLED FOR BY LETTER DAT ED 10-07-2007. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASESSEE APPAREN TLY COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF THE COMMISSIONER AND REGISTRATION WA S ALSO GRANTED FROM FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11. THEREFORE, GIVING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ALL THE DETAILS THAT MAY BE REQ UIRED BY THE COMMISSIONER MAY NOT PREJUDICE THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT GIVING ONE MORE O PPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE NECESSARY DETAILS / MATERIALS B EFORE THE COMMISSIONER WOULD DEFINITELY PROMOTE THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE. ACCORDINGLY, WITHOUT EXPRESSING ANY OPINION ON THE MERIT OF THE APPLICATION FILED FOR 10 ITA NO.75 & 348/COCH/2013 ITA 221/COCH/2014 REGISTRATION U/S 12AA THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE COM MISSIONER DATED 26- 09-2007 IS SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUE OF REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT IS REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER. THE COMMISSIONER SHALL RECONSIDER THE ISSUE ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL T HAT MAY BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE INDEPENDENT LY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW WITHOUT BEING INFLUENCED BY ANY OF THE OBSERVAT IONS MADE BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THIS ORDER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, APPE AL IN ITA NO.334/COCH/2013 BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS. 11. NOW COMING TO APPEAL IN ITA NO.74/COCH/2013, TH IS IS A REGULAR APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF C IT(A) DATED 05-12-2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. SINCE THE ISSUE O F REGISTRATION IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE DECISION THAT MAY BE TA KEN BY THE COMMISSIONER ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESS EE FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA WOULD HAVE AN IMPACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 007-08. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 HAS TO BE RECONSIDE RED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER THAT MAY BE PASSE D BY THE COMMISSIONER EITHER GRANTING OR REJECTING THE REGISTRATION U/S 1 2AA OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 11 ITA NO.75 & 348/COCH/2013 ITA 221/COCH/2014 2007-08 IN ITA NO.75/COCH/2013 IS SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE RAISED IN THE APPEAL IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RECONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER THAT MAY BE PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR REGISTRA TION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WI TH LAW AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT IF IT IS FOUND TO HAVE COLLECTED ANY CAPITATION FEES FOR ADMISSION OF STUDENTS I.E. COLLECTION OF ANY MONEY OVER AND ABOVE THE PRESCRIB ED FEE FIXED BY THE COMMITTEE NOMINATED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT FOR ADM ISSION OF STUDENTS THEN THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA AND ALSO NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11, 12 AND 10(23C) OF TH E ACT. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS IN ITA NO.75/COCH/2013 A ND ITA NO.221/COCH/2014 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOS E AND APPEAL IN ITA NO.384/COCH/2013 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 12 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN, DT : 12 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 PK/- 12 ITA NO.75 & 348/COCH/2013 ITA 221/COCH/2014 COPY TO: 1. M/S KADAKKAL EDUCATIONAL TRUST, KADAKKAL VILLAGE , KADAKKAL, KOLLAM 2. THE ITO, WD.1-, KOLAM 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TRIVANDRUM 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A), KOWDIAR, TRIV ANDRUM 5. THE DR (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH