M/s.Cochin Frozen Foods P.Ltd, Alappuzha V. The ACIT, Ernakulam

ITA 380/COCH/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7691 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 17-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A DHANARAJ
• Assessee Lawyers: K P PAULSON
• Keywords: Business income; Retrospective amendment; Reasonable cause; Revised return
• Section: 80HHC; 147; 148; 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 380 /COCH/201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2000 - 01 M/S. COCHIN FROZEN FOODS P. LTD., IV/475, AROOKUTTY FERRY ROAD, AROOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA-683 534. [PAN: AAACC 8506G] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(3), ERNAKULAM. (ASSESSEE - APPELLANT) (REVENUE - RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI K.P. PAULSON, CA REVENUE BY SHRI A. DHANARAJ , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 21 / 0 9 / 201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22 / 0 9 /201 6 O R D E R PER B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARISES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-V, KOCHI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE HONBLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) E RRED IN LAW AND FACTS BY FAILING TO NOTE THAT THE SUBSEQUENT DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT/HIGH COURT WHICH CHANGES THE POSITION, THE INTERPRETATIO N, OR THE UNDERSTANDING OF LAW, CONSTITUTES A SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR CONDONING D ELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WHERE IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT ON THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE I.T.A. NO.380/COCH/2014 2 FILING OF AN APPEAL WOULD HAVE BEEN AN EMPTY FORMAL ITY HAVING REGARD TO THE POSITION OF LAW THEN PREVAILING AS DECIDED IN THE C ASE OF STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. VENKATARAMANA CHUDAVA & MURAMURA MERCHANT (1986) 159 ITR 59(AP) 2. THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE CIT(APPEALS) IS OPPOSED T O LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INSOF AR AS IT CONFIRMS THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC WITHOUT CONSID ERING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF TOPMQ AN EXPORTS VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2012) 342 ITR 49 (SC). 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE RETURN IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS BEEN FILED WITH ACIT, CIRCLE-I, ALLEPPEY RANGE ON 26/02/ 2013. THE FILING OF THE APPEAL AGAINST ORDER U/S. 147 OF THE ACT WAS DELAYED BY 7 YEARS APPROXIMATELY. THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 24/11/20 01 CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC WHICH WAS REOPENED U/S. 148 OF THE ACT AS MEN TIONED HEREINABOVE. THE RETURN WAS FILED PURSUANT TO NOTICE U/S. 148 WAS AL SO FILED CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC. IN VIEW OF THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 80 HHC WITH EFFECT FROM 01/04/1998, SO FAR AS THE PROFIT FROM TRANSFER OF D EPB CREDIT IS CONCERNED, IT HAS BEEN STATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSES SEE IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, IN VIEW OF THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 80HHC REWORKED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC AT RS. NIL, WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS37,76,020/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER THAT THE REVISED RETURN IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S . 148 OF THE ACT, WAS I.T.A. NO.380/COCH/2014 3 PROCESSED ACCEPTING THE RATIO OF THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURTS PRONOUNCEMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. A.M. MOOSA REPORTED 272 ITR 29. 4. IN THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE PARA 4 OF HIS ORDER OBSERVED AS UNDER: IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS REVISED THE RETURN AND PAID THE TAXES IN COMPLIANCES TO THE NOTICE U/S. 148. IT MEANS, S OMETHING WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF, BY FILING THE REV ISED RETURN, AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE REVISED RETURN O F THE ASSESSEE AND THE AMOUNT OF TAXES PAID, THE ISSUE GETS CLOSED AND CAN NOT REMAIN OPEN FOR FILING APPEAL AFTER 7 LONG YEARS. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE DELAY IN FILING THESE APPEA LS ARE NOT CONDONABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI K.P. PA ULSON, CA AT THE OUTSET INVITED MY ATTENTION TO THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN STATE D THAT IN THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS GRANTED DEDUCT ION U/S. 80HHC OF THE ACT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. SUBSEQUENTLY ON THE BASIS OF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENTS TO S ECTION 80HHC READ WITH SECTION 28 OF THE ACT VIA THE TAXATION LAWS (AMENDM ENT) ACT, 2005, NOTICE U/S. 148 WERE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-OPE NING OF THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEAR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC OF THE ACT. I.T.A. NO.380/COCH/2014 4 6. IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. A.M. MOOSA REPORTED IN 272 ITR 29, THE ASSESSEE HAD TO AGREE AND FORGO THE CLAIM FOR THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80 HHC OF THE ACT AND RE- WORKING OF THE CLAIM WAS GIVEN AS NIL. ACCORDINGL Y, AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME IN 2006, WHEN THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15/02/2006 W AS RECEIVED, THERE WAS A DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT O F KERALA IN CIT VS. A.M. MOOSA PRONOUNCED ON 02/08/2004 AND REPORTED IN (2005) 272 ITR 29 AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS ADV ISED BY THE LD. COUNSEL NOT TO FILE THE APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER REGARDING DISALLOWANCE U/S. 80HHC, AS FILING AN APPEAL AT THAT POINT OF TIME WOULD HAVE B EEN AN EMPTY FORMALITY. 7. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF IND IA PRONOUNCED JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS VS. CIT, 342 ITR 49 WHER EIN IT WAS HELD THAT DEPB LICENSE HAS A COST, I.E., THE FACE VALUE OF THE LIC ENSE AND THE SAME IS SUBJECT TO TAX AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 28(IIIB) OF TH E ACT., WHILE THE PROFIT ELEMENT (DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SALES PRICE AND THE FACE VA LUE OF THE LICENSE), WOULD BE SUBJECT TO TAX AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 28(III D) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE COST BEING THE FACE VALUE OF THE DEPB LICENCE WOULD BE ALLOWED AS AN ADDITION IN DETERMINING THE PROFITS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC OF THE ACT. FOR AVAILING THE BENEFIT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COU RT, THE ASSESSEE WAS ADVISED BY THE LD. COUNSEL TO FILE THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME I.T.A. NO.380/COCH/2014 5 TAX(APPEALS) ALONG WITH THE PETITION FOR CONDONATIO N OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE PRESENT APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A). 8. IT WAS STATED BY THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR FILING THE APPEAL BELATEDLY BY 7 YEARS AND THEREFOR E, THE ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR CONDONATION OF THE DELAY. 9. THE LD. DR OPPOSED THE CONDONATION PETITION AND RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 10. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED T HE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF TAXTRADE VS. DCIT IN I.T.A. NO.2266/MUM/2010 AND 226/MUM/2010 DA TED 30/11/2012 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: 2.2 WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS AND CONSIDERED THE MATTER CAREFULLY. THE GUIDELINES FOR DEALING WITH THE CONDONATION APP LICATION ARE GIVEN IN THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT INCASE OF COLLECT OR,LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST.KATIJI (167 ITR 471). IN THAT CASE THE HONBLE COURT HAVE HELD THAT THE CONDONATION APPLICATION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED LIBERA LLY TO ADVANCE THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT ALSO HELD THAT WHEN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS ARE PITTED AGA INST EACH OTHER, THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE SHOULD PREVAIL. THE CONDONATIO N APPLICATION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN A RATIONALE COMMON-SENSE AND PRAGMATI C MANNER. IT WAS ALSO HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT THAT THERE COULD NOT BE ANY PRESUMPTION OF DELIBERATE DELAY OR NEGLIGENCE BY THE ASSESSEE IN F ILING OF THE APPEAL BECAUSE THE LITIGANT DOES NOT STAND TO BENEFIT BY RISKING T HE DELAY AND IN FACT HE RUNS A SERIOUS RISK. FURTHER IT IS ALSO A SETTLED LEGAL P OSITION THAT ONCE THE DELAY IS FOUND TO BE BASED ON REASONABLE CAUSE, THE LENGTH O F DELAY IS IMMATERIAL IN CONSIDERING THE CONDONATION. WE HAVE TO CONSIDER T HE APPLICATION OF THE I.T.A. NO.380/COCH/2014 6 ASSESSEE IN THE BACK-DROP OF ABOVE LEGAL POSITION. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IT HAD BEEN ADVISED BY THE CHARTER ED ACCOUNTANTS AGAINST FILING THE APPEAL. AS AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME, THER E WERE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, SUCH ADVICE GIVEN BY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED TOTALLY WITHOUT ANY BASIS. THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS (SUPRA), WHICH I S IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IS DATED 11.8.2009. THE CASE OF THE ASSES SEE IS THAT WHEN IT CAME TO KNOW ABOUT SUCH A DECISION IT HAD APPROACHED THE CO UNSEL WHO ADVISED TO FILE THE APPEAL AND THEREAFTER THE APPEAL WAS FILED. IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED THAT THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH WAS OVER-RULED SUBSEQ UENTLY BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AND UPHELD THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE SP ECIAL BENCH. THIS SHOWS THAT THE ISSUE IS HIGHLY DEBATABLE. CONSIDERING TH E FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERIT. 4.1 IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE TURNOVER EXCEEDS RS.10.00 CRORES AND THE TWO CONDITIONS MENTIONED ABOVE ARE NOT SATISFIED. AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC, AS THEY HAVE TREATED THE ENTIRE RECEIPT AS DEPB PROFIT. THE ISSUE HAS BEEN A HIGHLY DEBATABLE ISSU E. THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS (318 ITR 87 ( AT) (BOM.) HAD HELD THAT FACE VALUE OF DEPB HAD TO BE CONSIDERED AS BUSINESS INCOME U/S. 28(IIIB) AND ONLY EXCESS OF SALE PRICE OVER THE FACE VALUE HAS T O BE CONSIDERED AS BUSINESS PROFIT U/S. 28(IIID) AND PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80HH C HAVE TO BE APPLIED ACCORDINGLY. THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH WAS REVERSED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF KALPATARU COLOU RS & CHEMICALS (328 ITR 451) BUT RECENTLY THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS (SUPRA) HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HONBLE SUPRE ME COURT IN THE SAME CASE IN (342 ITR 49), JUDGMENT. WE THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSI NG OFFICER FOR RE-COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN C ASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS (SUPRA), AFTER ALLOWING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO T HE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10.1 THE LD. COUNSEL HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DEC ISION OF THE ITAT, KOLKATA BENCH IN THE CASE OF MAGNUM EXPORT VS. ACIT IN I.T.A . NO.1111/KOL/2012 DATED 28/08/2013 WHERE IN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER:- I.T.A. NO.380/COCH/2014 7 IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE FAIRLY STATED THAT ONCE HONBLE HIGH COURTS OF GUJARAT AND BOMBAY HAVE QUAS HED THE AMENDMENT AND WHICH IS AFFIRMED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT, THE ASSESSEE BEING MEMBER OF THE ASSOCIATION WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT IT IS PURSUING THE ALTERNATIVE REMEDY AND HENCE, THIS BEING A REASONABLE CAUSE DEL AY SHOULD BE CONDONED AND THE APPEAL BE HEARD ON MERITS. WE FIND FROM TH E ORDER OF CIT(A) THAT THIS ISSUE ON MERITS REGARDING BENEFIT U/S. 80HHC OF THE ACT IS SUBJECT MATTER OF CHALLENGE..IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FEEL THAT TH E DELAY BE CONDONED AND APPEAL BE ADMITTED. HENCE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL. 10.2 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF PAHILAJRAJ JAIKISHIN VS . JCIT IN I.T.A. NO. 1398/MUM/2012 DATED 28/08/2013 WHERE IT HAS BEEN HE LD AS UNDER: WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS AND CONSIDERED MATTER CAREFULLY. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. WE, THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, CONDONE THE DELAY AND A DMIT THE APPEAL FOR ADJUDICATING THE DISPUTE. 10.3 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON T HE DECISION OF THE ITAT, KOLKATA BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. MURLIDHAR RATANLA L VS. ACIT IN I.T.A. NO. 2099 AND 2100/KOL/2009 DATED 31/07/2013 WHEREIN IT HAS B EEN HELD AS UNDER:- 8, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT IT IS ONLY JUST AND PROPER TO CONDONE THE DELAY CAUSED IN FILI NG THE APPEALS. ACCORDINGLY, THE DELAY IN FILING THESE APPEALS, BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL IS CONDONED AND THE APPEALS ARE ADMITTED ON THE ROLLS OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR HEARING AND DISPOSAL SINCE THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION IN TH E CASE OF M/S. A.V. THOMAS LEATHER & ALLIED PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. SUPRA, A ND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION, WE CONDONE DELAY AND ADMIT THESE APPEALS. ON MERITS, BOTH THE FILES ARE REMITTED TO ASSESSING OFFICER FOR I.T.A. NO.380/COCH/2014 8 RECOMPUTATION OF QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC OF THE ACT IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS VS. CIT,342 ITR 49. 10.4 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. BANNER IN TERNATIONAL VS. ACIT IN I.T.A. NO.1829-1831/AHD./2010 DATED 13/01/2012 WHER EIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER:- CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E BEFORE US AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE CONSI DERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENTS HAVE MERITS. THE MERE FACT TH AT THE ASSESSEE CO- OPERATED WITH THE REVENUE BASED ON THE CIRCULAR ISS UED BY THE CBDT SHOULD NOT PUT THE ASSESSEE ON IN A WEAKER FOOTING. THE S UBSEQUENT DECISION BY THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS ENLIGHTENED THE A SSESSEE TO KNOCK THE DOORS BEFOE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR JUSTICE. IN THES E CIRCUMSTANCES, THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE DELAY OF CONDONATION FOR AL L THE ASSESSMENT YEARS SEEMS TO BE REASONABLE AND JUSTIFIABLE. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS B EFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BY THE ASSESSEE.. 11. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTS OF THE CASE, I FIND THERE IS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A ) BY 7 YEARS AND I CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A ) AND REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS VS. CIT, 342 ITR 49 AND MAKE RECOMPUTATION OF DEDU CTION U/S. 80HHC OF THE ACT IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APE X COURT IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN I.T.A. NO.380/COCH/2014 9 EXPORTS (SUPRA), AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNIT Y OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 -09-2016 SD/- (B.P. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: KOCHI DATED: 22 ND SEPTEMBER, 2016 GJ COPY TO: 1. M/S. COCHIN FROZEN FOODS P. LTD., IV/475, AROOKU TTY FERRY ROAD, AROOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA-683 534. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1(3), ERNAKULAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-V, KOCHI . 4. THE 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., COC HIN