Smt. A.Indira( Representing Late R.Ganesh Kumar), Kalamasserry V. The ITO, Aluva

ITA 384/COCH/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86422 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 12-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K JOHN
• Assessee Lawyers: C B M WARRIER
• Keywords: Fair market value
• Section: 147; 148; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JM AND CHANDRA POOJ ARI, AM I.T.A. NO.384/COCH/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SMT. A. INDIRA, (REPRESENTING LATE R. GANESH KUMAR), ARUNESH, BISHOPS QUARTERS, NORTH KALAMASERY-683 104. [PAN:ADOPG 7194A] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ALUVA. (ASSESSEE-APPELLANT) (REVENUE-RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI C.B.M. WARRIER, CA REVENUE BY SHRI K.K. JOHN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 13/01/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 06/03/2015 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER DATED 27- 06-2013 PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-II, KOCHI FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS: (1) THE ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETED U/S. 147 AS PER THE NOTICE U/S. 148 DATED 31/03/2011. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT THE IN COME TAX OFFICER IS ENTITLED TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S. 148 ONLY WITH THE APPROVAL OF JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. THE NOTICE ISSUED IS WITHOUT THE ABOVE APPROVAL AND HENCE THE NOTICE IS INVALID AND HENCE THE ASSESSMENT IS ALSO INVALID. I.T.A. NO.384/COCH/2014 2 (2) THE ASSESSMENT AS PER THE ORDER DATED 22/03/201 3 IS THE ASSESSMENT OF CAPITAL GAINS ON THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY U/S. 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT AS PER PARA 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE POS SESSION AS PER THE AGREEMENT IS GIVEN ON THE 1 ST DAY OF MARCH, 2005 AND HENCE THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY IS RELATING TO THE A.Y. 2005-06. BUT THE ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETED FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07 AND HENCE THE ASSESSMENT MAY BE DE CLARED AS NULL AND VOID. 3. THE LD. AR HAS ALSO FILED A PETITION FOR ADMISSI ON OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS STATING THAT HE INADVERTENTLY OMITTED TO RAISE THES E GROUNDS ON AN EARLIER OCCASION AND HENCE, THESE GROUNDS MAY BE ADMITTED I N THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 4. THE LD. DR DID NOT RAISE ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION F OR ADMISSION OF THESE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS. ACCORDINGLY, THESE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS MAY BE ADMITTED AS THE SAME WERE NOT RAISED ON AN EARLIER OCCASION DUE TO INADVERTENT MISTAKE OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL. WE FIND THE REASON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL AS BONA FIDE AND HENCE, THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ARE ADM ITTED FOR ADJUDICATION. 5. HOWEVER, THE LD. AR HAS NOT PRESSED THE FIRST AD DITIONAL GROUND AT THE TIME OF HEARING. HENCE, THE FIRST ADDITIONAL GROUND IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 6. COMING TO THE SECOND ADDITIONAL GROUND, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY AS PER THE AGREEMENT WAS ON THE 1 ST DAY OF MARCH, 2005 AND HENCE THE TAXABILITY OF CAPITAL GAINS WOUL D ARISE ONLY IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND NOT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 . I.T.A. NO.384/COCH/2014 3 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 14-08-2006 HAS INFORMED THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06, HE HAS GIVEN THE POSSESSION OF THE IM PUGNED PROPERTY TO M/S. NIKUNJAM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURA M AS PER SEPARATE AGREEMENT EXECUTED WITH THE SAID COMPANY. THE LD. DR FURTHER DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE LETTER DATED 02/08/2006 FROM THE A BOVE BUILDER ADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT THEY HAVE TAKEN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY ON 11 TH MAY, 2005. THE LD. DR ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME ATTACHED TO THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2006-07 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN HE CONFIRMED THAT THE POSSESSI ON OF THE PROPERTY WAS HANDED OVER TO THE BUILDER IN MAY, 2005 VIDE AGREEM ENT DATED 1 ST MARCH, 2005. BEING SO, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MER IT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ECORD. AS PER AGREEMENT DATED 1 ST MARCH, 2005, THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY WAS HA NDED OVER THE BUILDER ON THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH, 2005. HOWEVER, LATER ON, IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE DECEASED ASSESSEE, SHRI R. GANESH KUMAR VIDE LETTER DATED 14/08/2006 HANDED OV ER THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY TO M/S. NIKUNJAM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. I N THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT VIDE LETTER DATED 02-08- 2006 ISSUED TO SHRI R. GANESH KUMAR BY M/S. NIKUNJAM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. THAT THEY HAVE TAKEN POSSESSION I.T.A. NO.384/COCH/2014 4 OF THE PROPERTY BEARING SY.NO.1863/A AND SITUATED I N VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRI CT IN MAY, 2005. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLARIFIED IN THE STATEMENT OF INCOME ATTACHED TO THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 THAT THE ACTU AL DATE OF HANDING OVER POSSESSION OF THE SAID PROPERTY WAS 11 TH MAY, 2005 WHICH FALLS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. ALL THESE FACTS SUPPORT THE CONTENTI ON OF THE LD. DR THAT THERE WAS NO HANDING OVER THE POSSESSION OF THE SAID PROP ERTY DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. BEING SO, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL THAT THERE WAS NO TRANSFER OF PROPERTY IN A .Y. 2006-07. IN OUR OPINION, THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY TOOK PLACE IN TERMS OF SEC TION 2(47)(V) ONLY IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND THE TAXABILITY OF CAPIT AL GAIN IS TO BE CONSIDERED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ONLY. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GR OUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 8.1 FURTHER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. AR RAI SED ONE MORE ARGUMENT THAT THERE WAS NO PROPER SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF T HE I.T. ACT. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT SHRI R.GANESH KUMAR EXPIRED ON 10/07 /2009 (WRONGLY MENTIONED AS 01/07/2009 IN PARA 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER) AN D THE NOTICE U/S. 148 WAS ISSUED ON 31/03/2011 IN THE NAME OF SHRI GANESH KUM AR WHO WAS NOT ALIVE ON THAT DATE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR, AS PER SECTION 159(2)(B) OF THE ACT, THE NOTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED TO THE LEGAL HEIR S WHICH WAS NOT DONE AND HENCE THE ASSESSMENT IS TO BE QUASHED. I.T.A. NO.384/COCH/2014 5 9. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE U/S. 148 ISSUED ON 31/03/2011, NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, SMT. A. INDIRA, WIFE OF THE DECEASED. HOWEVER, SHE FILED A LETTER DATED 30/03/2011 TO TREAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED U/S. 139 AS RETURN FILED IN R ESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, FOR THE NOTICE DATED 31/03/2011, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT FILE A LETTER DATED 30/03/2011, SINCE IT WAS SERVED ON HER ONLY ON 01/04/2011. 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, IN THIS CASE, NOTICE WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE DEC EASED PERSON, SHRI R. GANESH KUMAR ON 31-03-2011 AND WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE S WIFE ON 01/04/2011. HOWEVER, SHE FILED A LETTER DATED 30-03-2011 (FILED ON 04-04-2011) REQUESTING TO TREAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 19-09- 2007 AS THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE I.T . ACT. THE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 16-05-2011 AND IN RESPONSE TO THE NO TICE, SHRI K. JAYACHANDRAN, ADVOCATE APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED. THUS THE CO NTENTION OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL THAT THERE WAS NO PROPER SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 IS NOT PROPER. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS ANY OBJECTION REGARDING SERVICE OF NOT ICE, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SHOULD NOT HAVE FILED THE LETTER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 04/04/2011 (DATED 3 0-03-2011) REQUESTING THE I.T.A. NO.384/COCH/2014 6 ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF I NCOME FILED ON 19-09-2007 AS THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. THIS ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS WELL AWARE OF T HE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 148 IN RESPECT OF THE DECEASED ASSESS EE, SHRI R. GANESH KUMAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED THE ISSUE OF IMPROPER N OTICE U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER/CIT(A). ONCE THE ASSE SSEE HAS CO-OPERATED WITH THE DEPARTMENT, IT DOES NOT LIE IN HER MOUTH AND TURN A ROUND AND CONTEND THAT THERE WAS NO VALID SERVICE OF NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. AC CORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO REJECTED. 11. NOW COMING TO THE MAIN GROUND, THE LD. AR SUBMI TTED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01/04/1981 WAS CLAIMED AT RS.33,600/- PER CENT AS AGAINST RS.85,000/- PER CEN T AS CLAIMED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR, THE AS SESSEE HAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER A DOCUMENT RELATING TO THE PROPER TY TRANSACTION IN 1986 FOR THE TRANSFER OF A PROPERTY OF 9.775 CENTS FOR A CONSIDE RATION OF RS.4,60,000/-. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED B Y KERALA STATE GOVT. NURSES WELFARE FUND, A GOVT. SOCIETY, TRIVANDRUM AND IT WA S NEAR TO THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AVERAGE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY PER CENT WAS RS.47,060/- AND FOR ASCERTAIN ING THE VALUE AS ON 01/04/1981 BY REVERSE INDEXATION 100/140 *47,060 = RS.33,600/- PER CENT WAS ARRIVED AT. I.T.A. NO.384/COCH/2014 7 12. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ADOPTED RS.5,000/- PER CENT ON THE BASIS OF A CERTIFICATE OF LAND VALUE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR, TRIVANDRUM WHICH IS NOT WITH RESPECT TO ANY PARTICULAR PROPERT Y TRANSACTION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR, THE VALUE AND LOCALITY OF THIS PARTICULAR P ROPERTY WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND HENCE, THE VALUE OF RS.5000/- MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED AS A COMPARABLE TRANSACTION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR, T HE EXAMPLE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TRANSFER TO THE KERALA GOVT. ORGANIZAT ION AND THE VALUE AS PER THE DOCUMENT CAN BE ACCEPTED AS FACE VALUE. LD. AR SUB MITTED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER TRANSACTION THE MARKET VALUE AS ON 01/ 04/1981 OF RS.33,600/- PER CENT MAY BE ACCEPTED AND THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN S MAY BE COMPUTED. 13. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 14. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD PROPERTY OF 38.3 CENTS OF LAND AT VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO M/S. NIKUNJAM CONSTRUCTIONS P VT. LTD. FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.114,29,000/-. FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CA PITAL GAIN, THE ASSESSEE ADOPTED FAIR MARKET VALUE (FMV) U/S. 49 OF THE ACT AS ON 01/04/1981 AT RS.33,600/- PER CENT WHICH IS BASED ON THE REVERSED INDEXTION OF THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY MEASURING 9.775 CENTS AT RS. 47,060/- PER CENT AS ON 19/11/1986 ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT WHICH IS SITUATED NEARBY TO THE PROPERTY SOLD BY THE I.T.A. NO.384/COCH/2014 8 ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED T HE FMV OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01/04/1981 AT RS.5000/- PER CENT. IN OUR OPINION, THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR FIXING FMV AS ON 01-04-1981 ON THE BAS IS OF THE PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT ON 19/11/1986 BY APPLYING REVERSE D INDEXATION IS NOT CORRECT. AT THE SAME TIME, THE FMV ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.5000/- PER CENT BASED ON SUB-REGISTRARS VALUE I S ALSO NOT CORRECT. IN OUR OPINION, IT IS NOT PROPER TO REFER THE SUB-REGISTRA R VALUE TO DETERMINE THE FMV OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01-04-1981 AS HELD BY THIS TRIBU NAL IN THE CASE OF R. VIDYADHARAN VS. DCIT (2013) (141 ITD 7) WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ONLY DISPUTE IS WITH REGARD TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01-04-1981. WHEREVER THE LAND WA S ACQUIRED PRIOR TO 01- 04-1981 THE TAXPAYERS ARE GIVEN OPTION TO ADOPT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01-04-1981 AS THE BASIS FOR COMPUTING THE CAPITAL G AIN. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED IN THE YEAR 1978 BY THE TAXPAYERS. THEREFORE, THE TAXPAYERS OPTED TO ADOPT THE MARKET VALUE AS ON 01-04-1981. IT IS WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW THAT FAIR MARKET VALUE IS NOTHING BUT A PRICE THAT PROBABLY MAY BE AGREED BETWEEN A WILLING PURCHASER AND A WILLING SELLER. THE FAIR MARKET VALUE MAY FLUCTUATE DEPENDING UPON THE AREA OF THE LAND, LOCATION, ACCESSABILITY TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE FACIL ITIES, POTENTIALITY FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, ETC. THEREFORE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF EST IMATING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01-04-1981 WE HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDE RATION THE LOCALITY IN WHICH THE LAND IS SITUATED, THE ACCESSABILITY TO IN FRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES, COMPARATIVE SALE INSTANCES IN THE LOCALITY, POTENTI ALITY FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, DISTANCE BETWEEN THE LAND AND THE BUS STAND, RAILWA YS STATION, AIR PORT, ETC. THE GUIDELINE VALUE FIXED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR IS O NLY A GUIDELINE VALUE TO ASCERTAIN THE MARKET VALUE. THE GUIDELINE VALUE FIX ED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO GUIDE THE SUB REGISTRAR MAY BE A BASIS FOR FIXING T HE FORMAL MARKET VALUE FOR COLLECTION OF STAMP DUTIES. THEREFORE, THOUGH THE G UIDELINE VALUE FIXED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO GUIDE THE SUB REGISTRAR MAY BE ONE OF THE FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR ESTIMATING THE FAIR MARKET V ALUE, HOWEVER IT CANNOT BE THE SOLE BASIS FOR FIXING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01-04-1981. IN THE CASE BEFORE US THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01-04- I.T.A. NO.384/COCH/2014 9 1981 FIXED BY THE GOVERNMENT AS SOLE BASIS FOR TAKI NG THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. THE TAXPAYERS NOW CLAIM THAT IN THE CASE OF THE NEI GHBOUR SHRI C.R. RAVINDRAN NAIR, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01-04-1 981 WAS FIXED AT RS.2,300. IF THE LAND IS NEARER TO THE TAXPAYERS L AND AND IT WAS SIMILARLY LOCATED THEN THIS ALSO HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDE RATION WHILE FIXING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. UNFORTUNATELY, ALL THESE FACTS WERE N OT CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO RECONSIDER THE ISSUE I N THE LIGHT OF ALL FACTORS MENTIONED ABOVE AND THEREAFTER TAKE A DECISION. ACC ORDINGLY THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUE I S REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RECONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTORS REFERRED ABOVE AND THEREAF TER DETERMINE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01-04-1981 AFTER PROVIDING OPPOR TUNITY OF HEARING TO THE TAXPAYER. 15. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, WE ARE INCLIN ED TO REMIT THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH BY REFERRING THE MATTER OF VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY TO DVO AND DECI DE ACCORDINGLY. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06/03/2015. SD/- SD/- (N.R.S.GANESAN) (CHANDRA POOJARI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACC OUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: KOCHI DATED: 06/03/2015 GJ COPY TO: 1. SMT. A. INDIRA, (REPRESENTING LATE R. GANESH KUM AR), ARUNESH, BISHOPS QUARTERS, NORTH KALAMASERY-683 104. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ALUVA. I.T.A. NO.384/COCH/2014 10 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-II, KOCH I. 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., COCHIN