Mannarkkad Taluk Govt. Employees Co-op Credit Society Ltd, Palakkad V. The ITO, Palakkad

ITA 350/COCH/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4661 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 20-10-2020
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 28-09-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SAJJIVE
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Application of stay; Competent authority
• Section: 80P; 201; 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM & SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM ITA NO S . 349 & 350 / COCH / 2020 (ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 201 6 - 17 & 2017 - 18 ) SA NO S . 188 & 189 / COCH / 2020 (ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2016 - 17 & 2017 - 18 ) MANNARKAD TALUK GOVT. EMPLOYEES CO - OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. MANNARKAD PALAKKAD 6 78 582 VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4 AYAKKAR BHAVAN ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD PALAKKAD 678001 PAN AA EAM2671A APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI SIVADAS CHETTOOR , CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI B. SAJJIVE , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 20 . 10 .2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20 . 10 .2020 O R D E R PER BENCH : THESE APPEALS AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSE E IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), DATED 15 .0 9 .2020. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PREFERRED STAY APPLICATIONS SEEKING TO STAY THE RECOVERY OF OUTSTANDING TAX ARREARS. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE 201 6 - 1 7 & 2017 - 18 . 2. THE SOLITARY ISSUE RAISED IS WHETHER THE CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER IN DENYING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2) OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOLLOW: THE ASSESSEE IS A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY R EGISTERED UNDER THE KERALA CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1969. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2016 - 17 & 2017 - 18 , RETURNS WERE FILED AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE I.T. ITA NOS. 349&350 / COCH / 2020 SA NOS. 188&189 / COCH / 2020 MANNARKAD TALUK GOVT. EMPLOYEES CO - OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. 2 ACT. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS, WHEREIN THE ASS ESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE I.T. ACT. THE REASONING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISALLOW THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE I.T. ACT WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ESSENTIALLY DOING THE BUSINESS OF BANKING, AND TH EREFORE, IN VIEW OF INSERTION OF SECTION 80P(4) OF THE I.T. ACT WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2007, THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE I.T. ACT. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTI ON U/S 80P(2) OF THE I.T. ACT, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE CIT(A) PLACING RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE FULL BENCH OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE MAVILAYI SERVICE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD. V. CIT [(2019) 414 ITR 67 (KER.) (FB) (HC)] HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE ELABORATE FINDINGS AND HAS COME TO A FACTUAL FINDING THAT AGRICULTURAL CREDIT PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY MINUSCULE AND ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TERMED AS PRIMARY AGR ICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY. ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE I.T. ACT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED BY THE CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2014 - 201 5 AND 2015 - 2016. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS : - 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEA R NED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX ( AP PEAL S ) , T HRI S SUR IN SO FAR AS I T I S PREJUDIC I AL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE APPELLANT I S O PPO SED TO L AW , F ACT S AN D C I RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE . 2. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT IS CLEARLY ELIGIBLE FOR DEDU CTI ON U / S 80P ( 2 )( A )( I ) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 AND THE OBSERVATION OR FINDING TO TH E CONTRARY BY THE L OWE R AUTHORITIES ARE ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE. IT IS FURTHER SUB MITT ED THAT ON A HARMONIO U S AND COMBINED READING OF ALL THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF LAW IN THIS CONNECTION ALO N G WITH THE SCHEME OF THE ACT, THE APPELLANT IS CLEARLY ELIG I BL E FOR THE DEDUCTION. A DETAILED NOTE IN SUPPORT OF THIS GROUND SHALL BE FILED ON OR B EFORE THE HEARING OF TH I S APPEAL . 3. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE DENIAL OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P(4 ) OF THE ACT BY THE L O W E R AUTHORITIES IS ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW ON A ITA NOS. 349&350 / COCH / 2020 SA NOS. 188&189 / COCH / 2020 MANNARKAD TALUK GOVT. EMPLOYEES CO - OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. 3 H ARMO NIO US , AND COMBINED READ IN G OF ALL THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF LAW IN THIS CONNECTION. A D ETAILED NOTE IN SUPPO RT O F THIS GROUND SHALL BE FILED ON OR BEFORE THE HEARING OF THIS A PP EAL . 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD PASSED THE ORDER BASED ON THE D ECISIONS OF CHIRAKKA L A N D PERINTHALMANNA CASE ALONE AND FAILED TO CONSIDER THE OTH ER IMPORTANT GROUNDS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT. THE CIT(A) IS DUTY BOUND TO DECIDE ALL THE I S SUES/GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL . THEREFORE THE SAID ORDER VIOLATES THE NATURAL JU ST I CE PRINCI PLES BESIDES BE I NG ILLEGAL . 5. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE APPELLANT I S CL EARLY ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION OF THE WHOLE PROFIT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ACTIVITIES OF GIVING C RE DIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS UNDER SECTION 80P. THE DENIAL OF THE SAID DEDUCTIO N BY THE CIT(A) IS ILLEGAL, UNWARRANTED AND UNREASONABLE .. 6. THE ORDER SUFFERS FROM SERIOUS LEGAL INFIRMITIES IN SO FAR A S T HE LEARNED OFFICER FAILED TO DEAL WITH MANY I MPORTANT OBJECTIONS RAISED AGAINST THE D ENI AL OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P(4) OF THE ACT . THE PREDISPOSITION AND THE LACK OF APPLICATION OF MIND ARE PLAIN AND GLARING. THERE IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN THIS CASE. 7. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) ACTE D I LLEGALLY WHILE IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT T HAT THE SOCIETY FALLS UNDER THE DEFINITION OF CO - OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY U/S 5 (CCII) OF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT 19 49 . 8. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IF THE DEPARTMENT IS TREATING THE AP PEL LANT AS A COOPERATIVE BANK TH E N ALL THE OTHER DEDUCTIONS AND RELIEFS PRO VIDED TO T HE SAID BANKS SHOULD ALSO BE MADE A VAILABLE TO THE APPELLANT INCLUDING THE DEDUCTION U/S 36(1) ( VIIA) . 9. THE APPELLANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR COMPLETE EXEMPTION FROM T AX ON APPLICATION OF THE DOCTR IN E O F MUTUA L ITY . 10. THE STATUS OF THE APPELLANT AS AOP AS FIXED BY THE AO IS NOT C ORR ECT WITH THE RESULT THAT THE ORDER PASSED IN THE STATUS OF AOP IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED . 11. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CHALLENGING TH E FULL BENCH DECISION OF THE HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN MAVILAYIL CASE ITA N O: 97/20 16 HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND THE MATTER IS PENDING. 12. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE CHIRAKKAL CASE IS APPLICABLE TO THE AP PELLANT IN VIEW OF THE BINDING DECISION OF THE HON SUPREME COURT IN VADILAL CHE MIC ALS ITD VS STATE OF AP WH ERE IT IS STATED THAT NO TAX AUTHORITIES CAN REJECT A BINDING CER TIFICATE. IT IS SUBMITTED WITH UTMOST RESPECT TO THE HON COURT THAT THE DECISION TO THE CO NTRARY IN MAVILAYIL CASE IS TO BE RECONSIDERED AS ONE RENDERED PER INCURIUM. ITA NOS. 349&350 / COCH / 2020 SA NOS. 188&189 / COCH / 2020 MANNARKAD TALUK GOVT. EMPLOYEES CO - OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. 4 13. THE APPELLANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION OF RS 50,000/ - U/S 80P (2)( C) OF THE ACT IN CASE ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE FOUND REJECTED. 14. FOR THESE AMONGST OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY PERMITTED TO BE RAISED AND EVIDENCES ADDUCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING IT IS PRAYED THAT THE JUSTICE BE DO NE TO THE APPELLANT BY QUASHING OR MODIFYING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT . 5.1 THE LEARNED AR RELIED ON THE GROUNDS RAISED. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER HAND, STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIE S. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHIRAKKAL SERVICE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD. V. CIT [(2016) 384 ITR 490 (KER.)] HAD HELD THAT WHEN A CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN ISSUE D TO AN ASSESSEE BY THE REGISTRAR OF CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES CHARACTERIZING IT AS PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY, NECESSARILY, THE DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2) OF THE I.T. ACT HAS TO BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE FULL BENCH OF THE HONBLE KERALA HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF THE MAVILAYI SERVICE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD. V. CIT (SUPRA) HAD REVERSED THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHIRAKKAL SERVICE CO - OPERATIVE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD. V. CIT (SUPRA) . THE LARGER BENCH OF THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE MAVILAYI SERVICE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD. V. CIT (SUPRA) HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY INTO THE FACTUAL SITUATION AS TO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY TO DETERMINE THE ELIGIBILI TY OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE I.T. ACT. IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT BOUND BY THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF KERALA CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY CLASSIFYING THE ASSESSEE - SOCIETY AS A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR IS SEPARATE AND ELIGIBILITY SHALL BE VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE FINDING OF THE LARGER BENCH OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT READS AS FOLLOWS: - ITA NOS. 349&350 / COCH / 2020 SA NOS. 188&189 / COCH / 2020 MANNARKAD TALUK GOVT. EMPLOYEES CO - OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. 5 33. IN VIEW OF THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN CITIZEN CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY [397 ITR 1] IT CANNOT BE CONTENDED THAT, WHILE CONSIDERING THE CLAIM MADE BY AN ASSESSEE SOCIETY FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE IT ACT, AFTER THE INTRODUCTION OF SUB - SEC TION (4) THEREOF, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO EXTEND THE BENEFITS AVAILABLE, MERELY LOOKING AT THE CLASS OF THE SOCIETY AS PER THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION ISSUED UNDER THE CENTRAL OR STATE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT AND THE RULES MADE THEREUNDER. ON S UCH A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE IT ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO CONDUCT AN ENQUIRY INTO THE FACTUAL SITUATION AS TO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY AND ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION WHETHER BENEFITS CAN BE EXTENDED OR NOT IN THE LIG HT OF THE PROVISIONS UNDER SUB - SECTION (4) OF SECTION 80P. 33. IN CHIRAKKAL [384 ITR 490] THE DIVISION BENCH HELD THAT THE APPELLANT SOCIETIES HAVING BEEN CLASSIFIED AS PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETIES BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER THE KCS ACT, IT HAS NECESSARILY TO BE HELD THAT THE PRINCIPAL OBJECT OF SUCH SOCIETIES IS TO UNDERTAKE AGRICULTURAL CREDIT ACTIVITIES AND TO PROVIDE LOANS AND ADVANCES FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, THE RATE OF INTEREST ON SUCH LOANS AND ADVANCES TO BE AT THE RATE TO BE FIXE D BY THE REGISTRAR OF CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES UNDER THE KCS ACT AND HAVING ITS AREA OF OPERATION CONFINED TO A VILLAGE, PANCHAYAT OR A MUNICIPALITY AND AS SUCH, THEY ARE ENTITLED FOR THE BENEFIT OF SUB - SECTION (4) OF SECTION 80P OF THE IT ACT TO EASE THEMSE LVES OUT FROM THE COVERAGE OF SECTION 80P AND THAT, THE AUTHORITIES UNDER THE IT ACT CANNOT PROBE INTO ANY ISSUES OR SUCH MATTERS RELATING TO SUCH SOCIETIES AND THAT, PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETIES REGISTERED AS SUCH UNDER THE KCS ACT AND CLASSIFIED SO, UNDER THE ACT, INCLUDING THE APPELLANTS ARE ENTITLED TO SUCH EXEMPTION. 34. IN CHIRAKKAL [384 ITR 490] THE DIVISION BENCH EXPRESSED A DIVERGENT OPINION, WITHOUT NOTICING THE LAW LAID DOWN IN ANTONY PATTUKULANGARA [2012 (3) KHC 726] AND PERINTHALMANNA [363 ITR 268]. MOREOVER, THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE DIVISION BENCH IN CHIRAKKAL [384 ITR 490] IS NOT GOOD LAW, SINCE, IN VIEW OF THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN CITIZEN CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY [397 ITR 1], ON A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT, BY REASON OF SUB - SECTION (4) THEREOF, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO CONDUCT AN ENQUIRY INTO THE FACTUAL SITUATION AS TO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY AND ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION WHETHER BENEFITS CAN BE EXTENDED OR NOT IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS UNDER SUB - SECTION (4) OF SECTION 80P OF THE IT ACT. IN VIEW OF THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN CITIZEN CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY [397 ITR 1] THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE DIVISION BENCH ERINTHALMANNA [363 ITR 268] HAS TO BE AFFIRMED AND WE DO SO. ITA NOS. 349&350 / COCH / 2020 SA NOS. 188&189 / COCH / 2020 MANNARKAD TALUK GOVT. EMPLOYEES CO - OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. 6 35. IN VIEW OF THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN ACE MULTI AXES SYSTEMS CASE (SUPRA), SINCE EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR IS A SEPARATE UNIT, THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE IS IN NO MANNER DEFEATED BY NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE IT ACT, BY REASON OF SUB - SECTION (4) THEREOF, IF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY CEASES TO BE THE SPECIFIED CLASS OF SOCIETIES FOR WHICH THE DEDUCTION IS PROVIDED, EVEN IF IT WAS ELIGIBLE IN THE INITIAL YEARS. 6.1 IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DENIED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE I.T. ACT FOR THE REASON THAT ASSESSEE WAS ESSENTIALLY DOING THE BUSINESS OF BANKING AND DISBURSEMENT OF AGRICULTURAL LOANS BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY MINUSCULE. THERE FORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER PERUSING THE NARRATION OF THE LOAN EXTRACTS FOR THE FINANCIAL PERIODS UNDER CONSIDERATION, CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL LOAN DISBURSEMENT, ONLY A MINUSCULE PORTION HAS BEEN ADVANCED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. THE NARRATION IN LOAN EXTRACTS / AUDIT REPORTS BY ITSELF MAY NOT CONCLUSIVE TO PROVE WHETHER LOAN IS A AGRICULTURAL LOAN OR A NON - AGRICULTURAL LO AN. THE GOLD LOANS MAY OR MAY NOT BE DISBURSED FOR THE PURPOSE OF AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. NECESSARILY, THE A.O. HAD TO EXAMINE THE DETAILS OF EACH LOAN DISBURSEMENT AND DETERMINE THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE LOANS WERE DISBURSED, I.E., WHETHER IT IS FOR AGRICU LTURAL PURPOSE OR NON - AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE. IN THIS CASE, SUCH A DETAILED EXAMINATION HAS NOT BEEN CONDUCTED BY THE A.OS. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DICTUM LAID DOWN BY THE FULL BENCH OF THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE MAVILAYI SERVICE CO - OPERAT IVE BANK LTD. V. CIT (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE SHOULD BE FRESH EXAMINATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS REGARDS THE NATURE OF EACH LOAN DISBURSEMENT AND PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT HAS BEEN DISBURSED, I.E., WHETHER IT FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE OR NOT. THE A.O. SHALL LIST OUT THE INSTANCES WHERE LOANS HAVE DISBURSED FOR NON - AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES AND ACCORDINGLY CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEES ACTIVITIES ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ACTIVITIES OF PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY FUNCTIONING UNDER THE KE RALA CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1969, BEFORE DENYING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2) OF ITA NOS. 349&350 / COCH / 2020 SA NOS. 188&189 / COCH / 2020 MANNARKAD TALUK GOVT. EMPLOYEES CO - OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. 7 THE I.T.ACT. FOR THE ABOVE SAID P URPOSE, THE ISSUE RAISED IN THESE APPEAL S IS RESTORED TO THE FILES OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL EXAMINE THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE - SOCIETY BY FOLLOWING THE DICTUM LAID DOWN BY THE FULL BENCH OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE MAVILAYI SERVICE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD. V. CIT (SUPRA) AND SHALL TAKE A DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEE DLESS TO STATE, THE ASSESSEE SHALL CO - OPERATE WITH THE A.O. AND SHALL FURNISH THE NECESSARY DETAILS CALLED FOR. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT SEEK UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 7. SINCE WE HAVE DISPOSED OF THE APPEALS, THE STAY APP LICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE STAY APPLICATIONS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 20 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020. SD/ - SD/ - ( GEORGE MATHAN ) ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER COCHIN , DATED: 20 TH OCTOBER, 2020 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) - THRISSUR 4. THE PR. CIT - THRISSUR 5. THE DR, ITAT, COCHIN 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, COCHIN N.P.