M/s.F.G.Investments P. Ltd, Kochi V. The ITO, Corporate ward-1(3), Kochi

ITA 36/COCH/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9711 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 17-09-2018
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 09-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A S BINDHU
• Assessee Lawyers: P M VEERAMANI
• Keywords: Business income; Speculation loss; Speculative transactions
• Section: 43B; 143(3); 43(5); 263; 28; 2

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM & GEORGE GEORGE K., JM I .T . A. NO. 36 / COCH/ 201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013 - 14 M/S. F. G . INVESTMENTS P. LTD. 28/292B, CALTEX PLACE, S.A. ROAD, KOCHI-682 036. [PAN: AASCF 4540K] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD-1(3), KOCHI. (ASSESSEE - APPELLANT) (REVENUE - RESPONDENT ) A SSESSEE BY SHRI P.M. VEERAMANI, CA REVENUE BY SMT. A.S. BINDHU, DR D ATE OF HEARING 17 / 09 /2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26 / 0 9 /2018 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE PR. CIT, KOCHI DATED 11/01/2018 PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE I.T. ACT AND PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT BY THE CIT, GIVING DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE APPLICABILITY OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 OF THE ACT SO AS TO CONSIDER THE DEEMED SPECULATION LOSS FROM TRADING OF SHARES AMOUNTING TO I.T.A. NO. 36/COCH/2018 2 RS.35,95,624/- AND DISALLOWING SET OFF OF DEEMED SPECULATION LOSS FROM TRADING OF SHARES OUT OF THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS.13,57,647/-. 3. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING , IT WAS CONVEYED THAT REVISION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 WAS INITIATED BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAD INITIATED ACTION ON THE PROPOSAL BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE INITIATION WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 263(1) OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR RELIED ON THE DECISION OF 1TAT MUMBAI BENCH IN 1TA 631/MUM/2014 DATED 7.11.2014 IN THE CASE OF ASHOK KUMAR SHIVPURI VS. CIT. HENCE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE REVISIONS PROCEEDINGS INITIATED WAS BAD IN LAW. 3.1 THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENTS FOR 2006-07 TO 2013-14- WERE ACCEPTED IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENTS AND THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN FACTS DURING THE CURRENT YEAR WARRANTING TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW AND WHERE A FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT PERMEATING THROUGH THE DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS HAS BEEN FOUND AS A FACT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AND PARTIES HAVE ALLOWED THAT POSITION TO BE SUSTAINED BY NOT CHALLENGING THE ORDER, IT WOULD NOT BE AT ALL APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW THE POSITION TO BE CHANGED IN A SUBSEQUENT YEAR, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL CHANGE JUSTIFYING THE REVENUE TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW OF THE MATTER. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, THE LD. AR RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE I.T.A. NO. 36/COCH/2018 3 OF RADHASAOMI SATSANG VS CIT (193 ITR 321). HENCE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE REVISION UNDER 263 WAS BAD IN LAW FOR THIS REASON AS WELL. 3.2 THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT BY FINANCE ACT (NO. 2), 2014 WITH EFFECT FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 MAKING THE PROVISIONS OF THE EXPLANATION NOT APPLICABLE TO A COMPANY WHOSE PRINCIPAL BUSINESS IS PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE INSERTION OF THE AMENDMENT IN THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 OF THE ACT BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2014, IS CURATIVE AND CLASSIFICATORY IN NATURE AND HENCE, APPLICABLE FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS ALSO. FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE LD. AR RELIED ON THE DECISION OF 1TAT, MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF FIDUCIARY SHARES & STOCK PRIVATE LTD VS ACIT (159 1TD 554) . THUS, ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR, THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE ASSESSMENT SINCE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAD TAKEN ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEWS AND HENCE, THE ACTION UNDER SECTION 263 WAS NOT WARRANTED. 3.3 THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT IT IS ALWAYS OPEN TO THE CIT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 TO MAKE A DETAILED ENQUIRY WITH REGARD TO ANY ISSUE THAT MAY SEEM DOUBTFUL, BUT WHILE PASSING THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263, HE HAS TO MAKE A CLEAR AND FIRM DECISION THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EITHER ERRONEOUS OR IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE BUT NEITHER HAS BEEN FOUND IN THE PRESENT CASE. FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE LD. AR RELIED ON THE DECISION OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. METRO I.T.A. NO. 36/COCH/2018 4 AND METRO ( 404 ITR 304). IN VIEW OF THE ARGUMENTS ABOVE, IT WAS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 MAY BE CANCELLED. 4. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES OF OTHER COMPANIES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT LOSS SHOWN IS SPECULATION LOSS CONSIDERING THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUCH LOSS CANNOT BE SET OFF AGAINST PROFIT FROM BUSINESS OTHER THAN SPECULATION BUSINESS. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OMITTED TO CONSIDER THE APPLICABILITY OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73. THEREFORE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DEEMED SPECULATION LOSS FROM TRADING OF SHARES AMOUNTING TO RS.35,95,624/- WAS WRONGLY ALLOWED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME OF RS.13,57,647/- FROM BUSINESS OTHER THAN SPECULATION BUSINESS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE OMISSION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED SET OFF OF DEEMED SPECULATION LOSS FROM TRADING OF SHARES AMOUNTING TO RS.35,95,624/- OUT OF THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS.13,57,647/-. THE CIT OPINED THAT IN VIEW OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 INTRODUCED BY FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2014 WHICH IS APPLICABLE FORM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE I.T.A. NO. 36/COCH/2018 5 GRANTED SET OFF OF DEEMED SPECULATION LOSS FROM TRADING OF SHARES OUT OF THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR IS THAT INSERTION OF THE AMENDMENT IN EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 OF THE ACT BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2014 IS CURATIVE AND CLASSIFICATORY IN NATURE. THEREFORE, THE LOSS INCURRED IN TRADING OF SHARES BY THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS DEEMED SPECULATION LOSS AND IT IS A NORMAL BUSINESS LOSS. HENCE, THE SAME COULD BE ADJUSTED WITH THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND FORCE IN THIS ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR AS THIS ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF FIDUCIARY SHARES & STOCKS PRIVATE LTD. VS. ACIT (159 ITD 554) AND IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: SECTION 73 STIPULATES THAT ANY LOSS COMPUTED IN RESPECT OF SPECULATION BUSINESS SHALL NOT BE SET-OFF EXCEPT AGAINST PROFITS AND GAINS OF SPECULATION BUSINESS. SECTION 43(5) CLARIFIES 'SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION' TO MEAN A TRANSACTION IN WHICH A CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OR SALE OF ANY COMMODITY INCLUDING STOCK AND SHARES IS PERIODICALLY OR ULTIMATELY SETTLED OTHERWISE THAN BY ACTUAL DELIVERY. EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 28 STIPULATES THAT WHERE SPECULATIVE TRANSACTIONS CARRIED ON BY AN ASSESSEE ARE OF SUCH A NATURE SO AS TO CONSTITUTE A BUSINESS, THE SPECULATION BUSINESS SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE DISTINCT AND SEPARATE FROM OTHER BUSINESS. SECTIONS 73, 43(5) AND EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 28 OF THE ACT ARE ON THE STATUTE SINCE 01-04-1962. PURSUANT TO THE WANCHOO COMMITTEE REPORT OF DECEMBER, 1971, EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 WAS INSERTED BY THE TAXATION LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1975 WITH EFFECT FROM 01-04-1977. THEREFORE, PRIOR TO 01-04-1977, IF ANY ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON ANY SPECULATIVE TRANSACTIONS, I.E. A CONTRACT ULTIMATELY SETTLED OTHERWISE THAN BY ACTUAL DELIVERY; WHICH ARE OF SUCH A NATURE TO CONSTITUTE A BUSINESS, THEN SUCH TRANSACTIONS ARE CONSIDERED AS SPECULATION BUSINESS. IF THE ASSESSEE INCURS A LOSS IN SUCH BUSINESS, THEN THE LOSS FROM SUCH SPECULATION BUSINESS CAN BE ADJUSTED ONLY AGAINST PROFITS OF ANOTHER SPECULATION BUSINESS AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 73 OF THE ACT. IN OTHER WORDS, TRANSACTIONS PRIOR TO 01-04-1977, WHICH WERE DELIVERY BASED, WERE NOT TREATED AS SPECULATIVE TRANSACTIONS AND HENCE THE LOSS ARISING FROM SUCH TRANSACTIONS WAS ALLOWED TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE I.T.A. NO. 36/COCH/2018 6 INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AFTER THE INSERTION OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 OF THE ACT, COMPANIES OTHER THAN INVESTMENT COMPANIES OR FINANCE COMPANIES CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES, THEN THE LOSS FROM SUCH BUSINESS WOULD BE TREATED AS SPECULATION BUSINESS LOSS. THEREFORE, BY VIRTUE OF THE INSERTION OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 OF THE ACT, IF COMPANIES WHOSE PRINCIPAL BUSINESS IS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES SUFFER LOSSES FROM SHARE TRADING, THEN SUCH LOSS FROM SHARE TRADING IS TO BE TREATED AS SPECULATIVE BUSINESS LOSS. THE INTENTION BEHIND THE INSERTION OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE CBDT, CIRCULAR NO. 204 DATED 24-07-1976 WAS TO CURB THE METHODS/DEVICES SOMETIMES RESORTED TO BY BUSINESS HOUSE CONTROLLING GROUPS OF COMPANIES TO MANIPULATE AND REDUCE THE TAXABLE INCOME OF COMPANIES UNDER THEIR CONTROL BY SHOWING LOSS ON PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES OF GROUP COMPANIES. IT APPEARS THAT THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE, FROM A PERUSAL OF THE WANCHOO COMMITTEE REPORT AND CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 204 DATED 24-07- 1976, WAS NOT TO TREAT PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES BY COMPANIES WHOSE MAIN BUSINESS IS TRADING IN SHARES AS SPECULATIVE BUSINESS AND THEREFORE THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 OF THE ACT SHOULD BE READ ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT WAS INSERTED. THE SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT MADE BY FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2014 IN THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 OF THE ACT APPEARS TO BE MADE IN ORDER TO CLARIFY THE REAL INTENTION BEHIND THE INSERTION THEREOF, BY REMOVING THE OBVIOUS HARDSHIP CAUSED TO VARIOUS ASSESSEES WHOSE MAIN BUSINESS IS TRADING IN SHARES. THE AMENDMENT HAS REMOVED THE ANOMALY AND BROUGHT THE AMBIT OF THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 OF THE ACT IN LINE WITH THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE BY PLACING THE COMPANIES WHOSE PRINCIPAL BUSINESS IS TRADING IN SHARES AS PART OF THE EXCEPTION TO EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 OF THE ACT, BECAUSE SUCH COMPANIES WERE NOT THE COMPANIES FOR WHOM THE EXPLANATION WAS INSERTED. THE INSERTION OF THE AMENDMENT IN THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 OF THE ACT BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT. 2014, IS CURATIVE AND CLASSIFICATORY IN NATURE. IF THE AMENDMENT IS APPLIED PROSPECTIVELY FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16, A PIQUANT SITUATION WOULD ARISE THAT AN ASSESSEE WHO HAS EARNED PROFIT FROM PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 WOULD BE TREATED AS NORMAL BUSINESS PROFIT AND NOT SPECULATION BUSINESS PROFIT IN VIEW OF THE EXCEPTION CARRIED OUT BY THE AMENDMENT IN EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 OF THE ACT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, SPECULATION BUSINESS LOSS INCURRED BY TRADING IN SHARES IN EARLIER YEARS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE SET- I.T.A. NO. 36/COCH/2018 7 OFF AGAINST SUCH PROFIT FROM PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES TO SUCH COMPANIES IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. FOR THIS REASON ALSO, THE AMENDMENT INSERTED TO EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 OF THE ACT BY FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2014 IS TO BE APPLIED RETROSPECTIVELY FROM THE DATE OF THE INSERTION TO EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 OF THE ACT. [PARA 5.6.3] THUS, THE AMENDMENT INSERTED IN EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 BY FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2014 WITH EFFECT FROM 01-04-2015 IS CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE AND WOULD THEREFORE OPERATE RETROSPECTIVELY FROM 01-04-1977 FROM WHICH DATE THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 WAS PLACED ON THE STATUTE SINCE THIS AMENDMENT TO SECTION 73 OF THE ACT'.... OR A COMPANY THE PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF WHICH IS THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN SHARES .....' BRINGS IN THE ASSESSEE WHOSE PRINCIPAL BUSINESS IS TRADING OF SHARES. THEREFORE, THE LOSS INCURRED IN SHARE TRADING BUSINESS BY SUCH COMPANIES, I.E. LIKE THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT BE TREATED AS SPECULATION BUSINESS LOSS BUT NORMAL BUSINESS LOSS, AND HENCE THE SAME LOSS CAN BE ADJUSTED AGAINST OTHER BUSINESS INCOME OR INCOME FROM ANY OTHER SOURCES OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM FOR SETTING OFF THE LOSS FROM 'SHARE TRADING BUSINESS' AGAINST 'OTHER BUSINESS INCOME' AND INCOME FROM ANY OTHER SOURCES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 5.1 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE AMENDMENT INSERTED TO EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 BY FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2014 IS TO BE APPLIED RETROSPECTIVELY FROM THE DATE OF INSERTION TO EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 OF THE ACT. IN COMING TO THIS VIEW, WE TAKE SUPPORT FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD. (319 ITR 306) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS WERE CONSIDERING THE AMENDMENT MADE BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2003 BY OMITTING THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 43B OF THE ACT W.E.F. 01/04/2004 AND BRINGING ABOUT UNIFORMITY IN THE FIRST PROVISO BY EQUATING TAX, DUTY CESS AND FEES WITH CONTRIBUTION TO WELFARE FUNDS VIZ. PROVIDENT FUND, ETC. THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE AFORESAID AMENDMENT IN SECTION 43B OF THE ACT BY FINANCE ACT, I.T.A. NO. 36/COCH/2018 8 2003 IS CURATIVE IN NATURE AND WOULD THEREFORE APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY W.E.F. 01/04/1988. 5.2 IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE PRINCIPLE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS TRADING IN SHARES. HENCE, DEEMED SPECULATIVE LOSS FROM TRADING IN SHARES IS TO BE SET OFF OF AGAINST THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 5.3 FURTHER, THE LD. AR MADE AN ARGUMENT THAT THE CIT INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 263 OF THE ACT BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THIS ARGUMENT IS NOT BASED ON ANY MATERIAL BORNE ON RECORD. ACCORDINGLY, THIS ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR IS REJECTED. 5.4 FURTHER, THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR IS THAT JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE REQUIRES CONSISTENCY IN THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS AND FOR THIS PURPOSE HE RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHASAOMI SATSANG VS. CIT (193 ITR 321). ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR RES JUDICATA DOES NOT APPLY TO INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. THOUGH, EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR BEING A UNIT, WHAT WAS DECIDED IN ONE YEAR MIGHT NOT APPLY IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR; WHERE A FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT PERMEATING THROUGH THE DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS HAS BEEN FOUND AS A FACT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AND PARTIES HAVE ALLOWED THAT POSITION TO BE SUSTAINED BY NOT CHALLENGING THE ORDER; IT WOULD NOT BE AT ALL APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW THE POSITION TO I.T.A. NO. 36/COCH/2018 9 BE CHANGED IN A SUBSEQUENT YEAR. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, NON- CONSIDERATION OF ONE ISSUE IN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR DOES NOT GIVE VESTED RIGHT TO THE ASSESSEE TO DERIVE BENEFIT FROM SUCH AN ERROR COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN OUR OPINION, PERPETUATING THE ERROR IS NOT HEROISM. THIS ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR IS REJECTED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 26 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE GEORGE K.) (CHANDRA POOJARI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: KOCHI DATED: 26 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 GJ COPY TO: 1. M/S. F.G. INVESTMENTS P. LTD. 28/292B, CALTEX PLACE, S.A. ROAD, KOCHI-682 036. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD-1(3), KOCHI. 3. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOCHI. 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) I.T.A.T., COCHIN