M/s Metha Spices Co., Cochin V. DCIT, Cochin

ITA 366/COCH/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 52268 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 18-06-2009
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S VIJAYAPRABHA
• Assessee Lawyers: P K SASIDHARAN CAAR
• Keywords: Business income; Business expenditure; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 37(1); 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLAT E TRIBUNAL COCHIN BEN CH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI N.VIJAYAKUMARAN, JM AND SANJAY AR ORA, AM I.T.A. 366/COCH/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 MEHTA SPICES CO., SURYA SADAN, 8/1465, GUJARATHI ROAD, KOCHI-2. [PAN:AADFM 6277A] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, MATTANCHERRY. (ASSESSEE-APPELLANT) (REVENUE-RESPO NDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI P.K.SASIDHARAN, CA-AR REVENUE BY MS. S. VIJAYAPRABHA, JR. DR DATE OF HEARING 08/08/2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21/10/2011 O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-II, KOCHI (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 2.6.2009, AND THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) UNDER REFERENCE IS 2005-06. 2. THE APPEAL RAISED THREE ISSUES, PER THREE SPECIF IC GROUNDS, WITH GROUND NO. 1 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE, WARRANTING NO ADJUDICATION , WHILE GROUND NO. 5 IS ONLY A PRAYER FOR LEAVE TO ADD ANY FURTHER GROUND AT THE TIME OF HEARING. WHILE THE TWO GROUNDS (GROUND NO. 2 & 4) RELATE TO A SPECIFIC DISALLOWANC E EACH IN THE COMPUTATION OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS INCOME FOR THE YEAR, GROUND NO. 3 IS IN RESPECT OF HOLDING THE PROFIT ON VAIDA AS SPECULATION INCOME. I.T.A. NO.366 /COCH/2009 (ASSTT. YEAR: 2005-06) 2 3. IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO RECOUNT THE BACKGROUND F ACTS OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSEE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, IS A DEALER IN SPICES AND HILL PR ODUCE. IT RETURNED AN INCOME OF ` 55,735/- FOR THE YEAR, INCLUDING CAPITAL GAIN AT ` 10.39 LAKHS. THIS WAS ON THE SALE OF THE ASSETS, BEING PRINCIPALLY LAND AND BUILDING, OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CAR RIED ON ANY BUSINESS DURING THE YEAR AND, ACCORDINGLY, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY DEDUCTION FOR THE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE, CLAIMED PER ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT (P&L) FOR THE YEAR AT ` 13,89,298/-. SO, HOWEVER, HE ALSO DWELT ON THE PRINCIPAL CLAIMS, BEING:- BAD DEBTS ` 9,33,261/- (GROSS, SEE PARA 9/ASSTT. ORDER) INTEREST ON UNSECURED LOANS ` 1,82,475/- THE PROFIT ON PEPPER VAIDA ( ` 52,004/-), BEING ONE OF THE INCOMES REPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS TREATED AS SPECULATION INCOME, THE BU SINESS HAVING BEEN DONE WITHOUT ACTUAL AND PHYSICAL DELIVERY OF GOODS. THE DISALLOW ANCE, I.E., FOR BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF, COMPRISED THE FOLLOWING TWO BALANCES. M/S. M.K. ISMAIL & CO. ` 4,09,504/- M/S. JUBILEE SPICES, ADIMALI ` 2,70,267/- T OTAL ` 6,79,771/- ANOTHER BALANCE WRITTEN OFF (I.E., ` 2,53,490/-), OUTSTANDING IN THE NAME OF M/S. KRISHN A & CO., KOCHI HAVING BEEN ALSO DISALLOWED, THE ASSESSE E APPEALED AGAINST BOTH, I.E., THE FINDING OF THE NON-CARRYING OF ANY BUSINESS DURING THE YEAR AS WELL AS AGAINST THE SPECIFIC DISALLOWANCES, BEING SUCCESSFUL AND PARTLY SUCCESSF UL RESPECTIVELY. THE FINDING OF VAIDA TRADING AS BEING A SPECULATIVE BUSINESS WAS ALSO CO NFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID CONFIRMATION/S IS IN SECOND APPEAL, WHILE THE REVENUE, AS IT APPEARS, IS NOT IN APPEAL. 4. COMING TO THE FIRST DISALLOWANCE, THE BASIS OF T HE DISALLOWANCE BY THE AO WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE THREE DEB TS HAD BECOME BAD IN THE SENSE THAT THEY I.T.A. NO.366 /COCH/2009 (ASSTT. YEAR: 2005-06) 3 WERE DEFINITELY IRRECOVERABLE. THE LD. CIT(A), HOWE VER, OPINED THAT SUCH CONSIDERATIONS WERE NO LONGER RELEVANT, I.E., IN VIEW OF THE AMEND ED S. 36(1)(VII), AND THAT THE MERE WRITE OFF OF THE DEBTS AS IRRECOVERABLE BY THE ASSESSEE I N ITS ACCOUNTS FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR WAS SUFFICIENT FOR THE PURPOSE. HOWEVER, M/S. M.K. ISM AIL & CO. AND M/S. JUBILEE SPICES, ADIMALI WERE THE ASSESSEES SUPPLIERS AND NOT CUSTO MERS. THE BALANCES DUE FROM THEM WERE IN FACT ADVANCES EXTENDED THERE-TO FOR THE PUR CHASE OF GOODS, AND WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY UNABLE TO RECOVER, LEADING TO THE WRITE OFF. THE ESSENTIAL CONDITION OF S.36(2)(I), I.E., THE AMOUNT UNDER REFERENCE MUS T HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AN EARLIER YEAR, THUS, STOOD NOT SATISFIED. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF THE SAME BEING ALLOWABLE U/S. 3 7(1) STOOD ALSO REJECTED BY HIM WITH REFERENCE TO THE DECISION BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SHARAVANA SPINNING MILLS P. LTD (2007) 293 ITR 201 (SC), I.E., THAT A CLAIM DEDUCT IBLE U/S. 30 TO 36, COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR ALLOWANCE U/S. 37(1). AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL. 5. BEFORE US, IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE LD. AR THAT T HE ASSESSEE WAS ACQUIRING GOODS FROM THE SAID PARTIES ON CONSIGNMENT BASIS. HOWEVE R, IN TERMS OF THE ARRANGEMENT, IT HAD TO PAY AN ADVANCE WITHIN A STIPULATED TIME. A SUBS EQUENT DECLINE IN THE PRICES LED TO NON RECOVERY OF THE COST OF GOODS, EVEN AS THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO RECOVER THE SUMS ALREADY PAID AND OUTSTANDING IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE CONSIGNOR-PRINCIPAL. IT WAS, IN FACT, SUCH LOSSES THAT LED TO A SUBSTANTIAL DECLINE IN, A ND THE EVENTUAL EXIT FROM, THE SAID BUSINESS BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME ARE CLEARLY MAIN TAINABLE U/S. 37(1). THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, WOULD SUBMIT THAT IT IS APPARENT TH AT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IS NOT U/S. 36(1)(VII). WITH REGARD TO THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FO R DEDUCTION U/S. 37(1), IT HAS NOT CARRIED ANY BUSINESS FOR THE YEAR, SAVE, ADMITTEDLY, A SOLI TARY TRANSACTION. HOW COULD, THEREFORE, THE SAID LOSS BE SAID TO BE FOR THE RELEVANT PREVIO US YEAR ? 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. WITHOUT DOUBT, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM QUA THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE OF ` 679771/- DOES NOT ALL U/S. 36(1)(VII). THAT WOULD NOT, HOWEVER, STOP IT FROM CLAIMING IT U/S. 37(1), WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) STATES, I.E., WITH REFERENCE TO THE DECISION BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF I.T.A. NO.366 /COCH/2009 (ASSTT. YEAR: 2005-06) 4 CIT VS SHARAVANA SPINNING MILLS P. LTD. (SUPRA). WITHOUT DOUBT, IT IS TRITE LAW THAT IT IS ONLY THE EXPENDITURE WHICH IS NOT OF THE NATURE DES CRIBED IN SS. 30 TO 36 AND, FURTHER, NOT A CAPITAL OR PERSONAL EXPENDITURE, THAT COULD BE CLAI MED U/S. 37(1). FURTHER, HE HIMSELF STATES OF IT BEING NOT A DEBT WHICH COULD BE CLAIME D U/S. 36(1)(VII), IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT IT MAY INDEED BE IRRECOVERABLE. HOW COULD THEN HE POSSIBLY PRECLUDE THE CONSIDERATION OF THE CLAIM U/S. 37(1) ? THE STIPULATION OF S. 36(2)(I), THOUGH STATED AS A CONDITION, IS ESSENTIALLY A DEFINING ATTRIBUTE OF T HE DEBT, WHICH, ON BECOMING BAD, COULD BE CLAIMED IN THE YEAR OF ITS WRITE OFF IN HIS ACCO UNTS AS IRRECOVERABLE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT PAID IS TOWARD COST OF GOODS SUPPLI ED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE PRINCIPAL- SUPPLIER, WITH THE ASSESSEE BEING ADMITTEDLY ENTITLED TO ONLY A COMMISSION THEREON. OF COURSE, THE AMOUNT PAID EAR LIER PLUS ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWARDS STORAGE AND/OR SALE OF GOODS, WOULD STAND T O BE RECOVERED AGAINST THEIR SALE PROCEEDS. IT IS, THEREFORE, NOT A DEBT IN THE NO RMAL, COMMERCIAL SENSE OF THE WORD, BUT AN ADVANCE. THE AMOUNT BECOMES IRRECOVERABLE ONLY O N ACCOUNT OF, AS CLAIMED, A SUBSEQUENT DECLINE IN THE MARKET VALUE OF THE GOODS SUPPLIED, WITH THE SUPPLIER OSTENSIBLY FAILING TO REIMBURSE OR BEAR THE DUES, RESULTING IN A LOSS TO THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IT HAS WRITTEN OFF IN ITS ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR. THE SAME ASSUMES THE NATURE OF A LOSS ARISING IN THE COURSE OF AND INCIDENTAL TO TRADE. HOWEVER, THE MOOT QUESTION IS: WHEN DID THE LOSS TAKE PLACE ? IT IS ONLY THE BAD DEBT FALLING U/S. 36(1)(VII) I N RELATION TO WHICH THE REVENUE IS PRECLUDED FROM MAKING ANY ENQUIRY OR VERIFICATIO N INTO THE TIMING ASPECT, I.E., THE TIME WHEN IT BECAME BAD, WHEREAT ONLY IT BECOMES CLAIMAB LE, DEEMING IT TO BE THE YEAR OF ITS WRITE OFF IN ITS ACCOUNTS. IT (I.E., THE TIMING) BE ING ESSENTIALLY A MATTER OF JUDGEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AS A BUSINESSMAN, WHICH ONLY SHOULD PREVAI L, THE SAME STOOD ACCEPTED BY THE STATUTORY AMENDMENT TO THAT EFFECT, AS WELL AS TO A VOID UNNECESSARY LITIGATION ON A MATTER OF TIMING, I.E., YEAR IN WHICH THE CLAIM ARISES FOR DEDUCTION. THE POSITION FOR ALL THE OTHER CLAIMS FOR BUSINESS DEDUCTIONS, INCLUDING BUSINESS LOSS, HOWEVER, REMAINS UNCHANGED, SO THAT THESE ARE DEDUCTIBLE ONLY IN COMPUTING THE INC OME OF THE YEAR IN WHICH THESE ARE INCURRED, AND FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS TO LEAD EV IDENCE. IN FACT, THIS FOLLOWS FROM THE DEFINITION PROVISION, AS IT IS ONLY THE INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR THAT IS BEING SUBJECT TO TAX. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EVEN PROVED THE FACT OF LOSS; THE I.T.A. NO.366 /COCH/2009 (ASSTT. YEAR: 2005-06) 5 FACTS STATED EARLIER BEING NOT BORNE OUT BY THE REC ORD BUT ONLY AVERRED BEFORE US BY THE LD. AR, MUCH LESS THAT IT ARISES DURING THE CURRENT YEA R. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THE SAME BY WAY OF BAD DEBTS ALONG WITH A TRADE DEBT (I.E., ON THE SALE OF GOODS), AND ONLY ON AN ENQUIRY BY THE REVENUE IT CAME TO SURFACE THAT THE AMOUNT/S UNDER REFERENCE WAS IN FACT RECOVERABLE FROM ITS SUPPLIER/S AND NOT A CUSTOMER. THE AMOUNT CLAIMED FROM M/S. M.K.ISMAIL & CO. OUTSTANDS AT THE SAME FIGURE, BY O WN ADMISSION, SINCE 31.3.2001, WHILE IT IS NOT SO FOR THE OTHER PARTY. NO DETAILS AS TO THE NATURE OF THE CLAIM OR QUA THE DISPUTE THAT LED TO THE LOSS, AS WELL AS THE EFFORT S, IF ANY, MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARD RECOVERY, STAND ADDUCED. THE ASSESSEE, AGAIN, BY OW N ADMISSION, IS A MEMBER OF THE INDIAN PEPPER & SPICE TRADING ASSOCIATION, KOCHI. S URELY, IT WOULD IN THE NORMAL COURSE APPROACH, AMONG OTHERS, THE SAID ORGANISATION, AND WHICH, I.E., EFFORTS MADE TOWARD RECOVERY, WOULD ALSO THROW LIGHT ON THE TIMING ASPE CT, WHICH IS EQUALLY IMPORTANT. IT IS IN THIS CONTEXT THAT THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO THAT TH E ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE AMOUNT/S HAD BECOME IRRECOVER ABLE DURING THE YEAR, WHICH FORMS THE BASIS OF THE DENIAL OF ITS CLAIM, BECOMES RELEVANT. THE SAME, WE OBSERVE, HAS NOT BEEN REBUTTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ANY MANNER BEFORE ANY A UTHORITY. IN FACT, AS IT APPEARS TO US, THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE PROCESS OF WINDING UP ITS BU SINESS AND, THEREFORE, WROTE OFF ALL THE PAST CLAIMS IN ITS ACCOUNTS FOR THE CURRENT YEAR. THIS FACT CANNOT BE DENIED; THE ASSESSEE HAVING SOLD ALMOST ALL OF ITS ASSETS, INCLUDING OFF ICE AND GODOWN, DURING THE CURRENT YEAR. THOUGH THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REVERSED THE FINDING OF T HE AO OF THE ASSESSEE BEING NOT IN BUSINESS, RENDERED BY CASTIGATING ITS SOLITARY TRAN SACTION IN MARCH, 2005 AS A MAKE BELIEVE, HE HAS NOT ENQUIRED INTO WHEN THE ASSETS W ERE SOLD. HOW COULD THE DELIVERY BE TAKEN AFTER THE PREMISES STAND ALREADY SOLD ? NO PROOF OF DELIVERY HAS BEEN ADDUCED AT ANY STAGE, AND WHICH; THE GOODS UNDER REFERENCE BEI NG MOVEABLE PROPERTY, ONLY WOULD COMPLETE THE TRANSACTION OF SALE (TRANSFER). FURTHE R, THE GOODS PURCHASED, WHICH STAND SOLD INEXPLICABLY BACK TO THE SELLER AFTER A FEW DAY S. EVEN SO, THESE WOULD ONLY BE STORED IN THE GODOWN FOR THE INTERIM PERIOD. AGAIN, A COMP ARISON OF THE MARKET RATE ON THE DATE OF PURCHASE (22.3.2005) AND SALE (28.3.2005); THE T RANSACTED/CONTRACTED PRICE HAVING WITNESSED AN INCREASE OF 9+ % IN A MATTER OF 5-6 DA YS, WOULD DEMONSTRATE THE GENUINENESS/TRUTH OF THE TRANSACTION, WHICH AGAIN H AS NOT BEEN ENQUIRED INTO BY THE LD. I.T.A. NO.366 /COCH/2009 (ASSTT. YEAR: 2005-06) 6 CIT(A), WHO DID NOT EVEN BRING THE REPORTED PROFIT ( ` 8955/-) TO TAX. THE REVENUE BEING NOT IN APPEAL, OUR FOREGOING OBSERVATIONS ARE NOT I N ANY WAY MEANT TO DISTURB THE FINDING BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, I.E., OF THE ASSE SSEE HAVING UNDERTAKEN BUSINESS DURING THE YEAR, BUT ONLY TO EMPHASIZE THE FACTUAL AND CIRCUMS TANTIAL BACKGROUND OF THE IMPUGNED CLAIM OF BUSINESS LOSS FOR ` 6.80 LAKHS AS HAVING BEEN OSTENSIBLY SUFFERED DURIN G THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. WITHOUT DOUBT, THE CLAIM/S IS TOTALLY UNPROVED AND UNSUBSTANTIATED. WE, THEREFORE, ENDORSE THE FINDING OF THE AO, VACATING THAT OF THE LD. CIT(A), THOUGH, HOWEVER, IN RESULT, HIS ORDER WOULD STAND UPHELD, AND THE ASSESSEE FAILS ON ITS GROUND # 4. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 7. THE SECOND ISSUE (GD. # 2) IS QUA THE DISALLOWANCE OF BROKERAGE CLAIMED TO THE EXTENT OF ` 7500/-. THE SAME FORMS PART OF THE BROKERAGE EXPEND ITURE OF ` 52,500/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE PER ITS P&L ACCOUNT. THE AO FOUND THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE INCURRED BROKERAGE TO THE EXTENT OF 45,000/- AGAINST SALE OF PROPERTY, AND ALLOWED THE SAME IN THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS ARISING THEREON. THE BALANCE ` 7500/- WAS DISALLOWED FOR WANT OF SUBSTANTIATION. THE SAME STOOD CONFIRMED F OR THE SAME REASON. NO DETAILS IN ITS RESPECT STOOD FURNISHED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELO W, AND NEITHER WAS THIS ISSUE, THOUGH RAISED PER F/36, AGITATED BEFORE US. UNDER THE CIR CUMSTANCES, WE SEE NO REASON WHATSOEVER FOR ANY INTERFERENCE WITH THEIR ORDERS. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 8. THE THIRD ISSUE (AGITATED PER GD. # 4) IS OF TRE ATING THE VAIDA PROFIT AS A SPECULATIVE INCOME. WE, FIRSTLY, FAIL TO SEE AS TO HOW THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED. ON MERITS, WE FIND IT TO HAVE NO CASE AT ALL. THE AO HAS, WE MAY CLARIFY, NOT ASSESSED THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BUT ONLY IS FROM A SPECULATIVE BUSINESS; THERE BEING ADMITTEDLY NO DELIVERY OF THE GOODS UNDER REFERENCE . HE HAS, AS WE OBSERVE, RATHER OMITTED TO BRING THE RETURNED INTEREST (ON FDS.) OF ` 1,04,996/- UNDER CHAPTER IV-F TO TAX. IN ANY CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ISSUED A SPECIFIC F INDING OF THE SAME CONSTITUTING AS INCOME OF SPECULATIVE BUSINESS. THE FACT OF THE ABS ENCE OF DELIVERY IS NOT DENIED; RATHER, ADMITTED, I.E., UPON CLARIFICATION DURING HEARING F ROM THE LD. AR, AS ALSO BORNE OUT BY THE RECORD (PB PGS. 18 TO 20 ). EXPLANATION 2 TO S. 28 CLEARLY PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE I.T.A. NO.366 /COCH/2009 (ASSTT. YEAR: 2005-06) 7 SPECULATIVE TRANSACTIONS ARE OF A NATURE AS TO CONS TITUTE A BUSINESS, THE SAME, TERMED AS SPECULATIVE BUSINESS, SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE DISTINC T AND SEPARATE FROM ANY OTHER BUSINESS. THE PROFIT ( ` 52,004/-) ARISING THEREON, ACCORDINGLY, IS TO BE TR EATED AS FROM A SEPARATE SOURCE (BUSINESS), THOUGH ASSESSABLE UNDER CHAPTER IV-D. AS AFORE-STATED, WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE AS TO HOW THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND, ACCORDINGLY, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS GROUND. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D. . SD/- SD/- (N.VIJAYAKUMARAN) (SANJAY ARORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: ERNAKULAM DATED: 21 ST OCTOBER, 2011 GJ COPY TO: 1. M/S. MEHTA SPICES CO., SURYA SADAN, 8/1465, GUJA RATHI ROAD, KOCHI-2. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, MATTANCHERRY. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-II, KOC HI. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOCHI. 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 6. GUARD FILE .