M/s Karakulam Service Co-op Bank Ltd, Trivandrum V. The ITO, Trivandrum

ITA 40/COCH/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1339 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-05-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 12-03-2020
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 20-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRITUNJAYA SHARMA
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 80P; 20

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFOR E S/ SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI , AM & GEORGE GEORGE K., J M ITA NO S . 57/COCH/2020 & 40/COCH/ 2020 & S.P. NOS. 30 & 27/COCH/20 20 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2014 - 15 & 2015 - 16 M/S. KARAKULAM SERVICE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KP - 1, 382, KARAKULAM, NEDUMNAGAD TALUK, TRIVANDRUM - 695 564 . [ PAN: AAAAT 7698C] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WA RD - 2(3), TRIVANDRUM. (ASSESSEE - APPELLANT) (REVENUE - RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI T.M. SREEDHARAN, SR. ADV. REVENUE BY SHRI MRITUNJAYA SHARMA, SR. DR D ATE OF HEARING 12 /0 3 /2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19 / 0 5 /20 20 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE CIT(A ), KOTTAYAM FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2014 - 15 AND 2015 - 16. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED STAY PETITIONS IN S.P. NOS.30 & 27/ C OCH/2018. 1.1 SINCE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS AND STAY PETITIONS ARE COMMON IN NATURE, THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSE D OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. I.T.A. NO S . 57&40/ COC H/ 2020 & S.P. NOS.30&27/COCH/2020 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEALS IN ITA NO.57/COCH/2020 : 1. IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF CIT (A) IN ITA N0.314 /TV M/ CIT(A)/TVM/2 018 - 19 DATED 16.12.2019 DISMISSING THE APPEAL FOR T HE A.Y. 2014 - 15 IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE FOUND THAT THE ISSUE AS REGARDS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(D) IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT BY A SERIES OF DECISIONS RELATING TO TH E ASSESSMENTS FOR YEARS PRIOR TO A.Y. 2014 - 15, NOT ONLY BY ORDERS OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BUT BY OTHER RELEVANT ORDERS OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH AND OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT IN APPELLANT'S OWN CASE. AS SUCH DENIAL OF EXEMP TION IS ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE. 3. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80P(2), 80P(2)(D), 80P(2)(A)(I) ARE COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT AS PER SERIE S OF JUDGMENTS AND ORDER NOT ONLY IN THE APPELLANTS CASE BUT IN SIMILAR CASE AS WELL AND AS SUCH THE CONTRARY VIEW TAKEN BY CIT (A) AS PER THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL AND LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. 4. IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR ISSUES ARE PENDING BEFORE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THE HIGH COURT AND THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN SEVERAL APPEALS AND PROCEEDINGS TAKEN UP BY CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND BANKS LIKE THAT OF THE PETITIONER AND SHOULD BE COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN THIS PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THE CONTRAR Y VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PETITIONER'S CASE CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED. 5. IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (A) IS NOT BIASED WHATSOEVER, TO COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THE CIT (A) ALSO FAILED TO REFER TO ITAT ORDER IN ITA NO. 49/COCH/2019 DATED 12.03.2019 IN THE APPELLANTS OWN CASE FOR THE AY 2015 - 15. THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED IN F A VOUR OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE DEDUCTION OF CLAIMS MADE. 6. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO FAILED IN REFERRING TO PARA 4.3 OF THE ORDER THAT THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR IN THIS APPEAL ARE BASED ON CERTAIN FACTS OUTSIDE THE TRIBUNALS ORDER. THE FINDINGS ARE CONTRARY AND UNSUSTAINABLE CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 7. THE APPELLANT HUMBLY PRAYS THAT THE GROU NDS BEFORE TH E CIT(A) MAY BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE APPEAL. I.T.A. NO S . 57&40/ COC H/ 2020 & S.P. NOS.30&27/COCH/2020 3 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS NARRATED IN ITA NO.57/COCH/2020 ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2014 - 15 ON 19.03.2015 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. NIL. THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT WAS COMPLETED ON 27.12.2016 DISALLOWING THE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 8OP OF THE ACT ON THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND ALSO DISALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(D) ON THE INTEREST INCOME RECEIVED FROM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRI CT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE SAME WAS DISPOSED BY ORDER DATED 31.10.2017 BY ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT BUT UPHOLDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT. ON FURTHER APPEAL, THE ITAT IN ITA 596/COCH/2017 ORDER DATED 29.01.2018 SET ASIDE THE ISSUE OF ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY WHETHER THIRUVA NANTHAPURAM DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD IS A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY AND IF SO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN APPEAL EFFECT TO THE SAME BY ORDER DATED 14.11.2018 AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P (2)(D) OF THE ACT . 4. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE LEARNED AR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY TRIBUNAL IN THE ORDER DATED 29.01.2018. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED IN THIS APPEAL AND THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED AR IN THIS APPEAL ARE BASED ON CERTAIN FACTS OUTSIDE THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 29.01.2018 AND THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED IN THE APPEAL AGAINST THE I.T.A. NO S . 57&40/ COC H/ 2020 & S.P. NOS.30&27/COCH/2020 4 ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO THE SAID APPELLATE ORDER. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HELD THA T THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. AR. AS THE APPEAL EFFECT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER DATED 14.11.2018 WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER FOR AY 2014 - 15, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THERE WA S NO MERIT IN THE GROUNDS RAISED AGAINST THE SAME AND HENCE, THE SAME WERE DISMISSED. 5. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. AR RELIED ON THE GROUNDS RAISED. 6. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS IN SUPPORT OF THE CONT ENTION THAT RELIEF NOT CLAIMED IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE GRANTED BY RECTIFICATION IF THERE WERE NO MATERIALS ON RECORD TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM. 1) ANCHOR PRESSINGS (P) LTD. VS. CIT (100 ITR 347) (ALL.) 2) ANCHOR PRESSINGS (P) LTD. VS. CIT (161 ITR 159) (SC) 3) SHARDA PRASAD VS. CIT (100 ITR 373) (ALL.) 4) CHOKSI METAL REFINERY VS. CIT (107 ITR 63) (GUJ.) 5) CIT VS. K.N. OIL INDUSTRIES (142 ITR 13) (MP) 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS VERY CRYPTIC THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2) AND 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE I.T. ACT, IF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT GRANTED DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(D) OF THE I.T. ACT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR, THIS ALTERN ATIVE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE EXAMINED BY THE CIT(A) BY PASSING A I.T.A. NO S . 57&40/ COC H/ 2020 & S.P. NOS.30&27/COCH/2020 5 SPEAKING ORDER. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HA D RAISED TH ESE I SSUE S BEFORE THE CIT(A) VIDE GROUND NOS. B) AND C) WHICH READ AS FOLLOWS: B) THE ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG IN ITS FINDING S THAT THE INTEREST INCOME RECEIVED FROM TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT CO - OPERATIVE BANK IS ASSESSABLE AS INCOME UNDER OTHER SOURCES. THE ABOVE FINDING IS CONTRARY TO THE STATUTORY PROVISION CONTAINED IN SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) AND HENCE, LIABLE TO BE SET A SIDE C) IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT UNDER SECTION 80P(1), WHEREIN IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE BEING A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY, THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME INCLUDES ANY IN COME REFERRED TO IN SUB - SECTION (2), THE Y SHALL BE DEDUCTED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND SUBJE CT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SAID SECTION, THE SUMS SPECIFIED IN SUB - SECTION(2) SHALL BE DEDUCTED FROM THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SO MUCH SO, ANY INCOME REFERRED TO IN SUB - SECTION(2) SHALL BE DEDUCTED FROM THE GROSS TO TAL INCOME IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 7.1 AS SEEN FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN VERY CRYPTIC FINDINGS AND NOT ADDRESSED THE ABOVE GROUNDS. HENCE, WE REMIT THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR FRESH CONSI DERATION BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDE R . ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THUS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.57/COCH/2020 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO. 40/COCH/ 20 20: AY 2015 - 16 8. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE DISMISSAL OF APPEAL ITA NO.630/ TV M/CIT(A) TVM /M/2018 - 19 DATED 16.12.2019 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2015 - 16 IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND UNSUSTAINABL E. 2. THE CIT (A) FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN ITA NO.142/CIT(A)/TVM DATED 27.11.2018, I.T.A. NO S . 57&40/ COC H/ 2020 & S.P. NOS.30&27/COCH/2020 6 PASSED ON 18.12.2018 SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.5,58,61,604/ - NOTWITHST ANDING THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT (A) AS PER ABOVE ORDER DATED 27.11.2018. THE ORDER GIVING EFFECT WAS PASSED ON 18.12.2018 AND THE SAME SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE ERRONEOUS IN AS MUCH AS THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF RS.5,58,61,604/ - WAS WRONGLY DENIED. 3. IN THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ADJUDICATED THE DENIAL OF DEDUCTION OF RS.5 , 58 , 61 , 604/ - WHICH WAS WRONGLY DENIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER DATED 18.12.2019. 4. THE CIT(A) WHILE PA SSING THE ORDER IN ITA NO. 630/TVM/CIT(A)/TVM/2018 - 19 ERRONEOUSLY F OUND THAT THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED AR ARE BASED ON CERTAIN FACTS OUTSIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 27.11.2018 AND THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED IN THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO THE SAID APPELLATE ORDER. THE ABOVE FINDING IS CLEARLY ERRON EOUS AND AGAINST THE INTEREST OF THE APPELLANT. 5. THE FURTHER FINDING IS THAT THE APPEAL EFFECT ORDER GIVEN BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER DATED 18.12.2018 IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN THE APPELLATE ORDER FOR 2015 - 16. THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE GROUNDS RAISED AND THE SAME IS ALSO ERRONEOUS. THE CIT (A) SHOULD HAVE ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE HIM WHICH IS THE RESULT OF THE FAILURE TO CARRY OUT THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT (A ) AND HENCE, ADJUDICATED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. THE FAILURE TO D O SO HAS RESULTED IN MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE SO FAR AS THE APPELLANT IS CONCERNED. 6. IT IS ALSO RESPECTFULLY POINTED OUT THAT THIS HON'BLE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IN ITA NO. 142/CIT (A)/TVM/2017 - 18 DATED 27.11.2018 NOW RELIED ON IN THE APPELLATE ORDER AND DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AS SUCH, THE DISPUTE AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF RS.5,58,61,604/ - STOOD DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY VIRTUE OF ORDER IN ITA NOS .48 & 49/C/2019 DATED 12.3.2019 FOR THE VERY SAME ASST YEAR OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. 9. THE FACTS OF THE CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015 - 16 ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P ( 2)(D) ON THE INTEREST INCOME RECEIVED FR OM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD IN THE APPEAL EFFECT ORDER. VIDE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 27.11.2018, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS OF THE ITAT IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2014 - I.T.A. NO S . 57&40/ COC H/ 2020 & S.P. NOS.30&27/COCH/2020 7 15 IN ITA NO. 596/COCH/201 7 ORDER DATED 29.01.2018 IN RESPECT OF ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT AND DETERMINE THE DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE FOR AY 2015 - 16. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA D GIVEN APPEAL EFFECT FOR AY 2014 - 15 AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 14.11.2018 AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT ON THE INTEREST INCOME RECEIVED FROM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. FOLLOWING THE SAID FINDING IN THE AY 2014 - 15, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ALLOW DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT FOR THE AY 2015 - 16 ALSO IN THE ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO CIT(A) ORDER. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL EFFECT ORDER GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR AY 2015 - 16 IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DE CISION GIVEN BY CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 27.11.2018. 10. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) REJECTED THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY CIT(A) IN THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 27.11.2018. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED TH AT THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR IN THIS APPEAL ARE BASED ON CERTAIN FACTS OUTSIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 27.11.2018 AND THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED IN THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO THE SAID APPELLATE ORDER. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HELD TH AT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. AR. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT AS THE APPEAL EFFECT ORDER GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER DATED 18.12.2018 WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN THE APPELLATE ORDER FOR AY 2015 - 16, THERE WAS NO MERIT IN THE GROUNDS RAISED AGAINST THE SAME AND HENCE, THE SAME WERE DISMISSED. I.T.A. NO S . 57&40/ COC H/ 2020 & S.P. NOS.30&27/COCH/2020 8 11. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. AR RELIED ON THE GROUNDS RAISED. 12. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 13. WE HAV E HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS VERY CRYPTIC THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2) AND 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE I.T. ACT, IF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT GRANTED DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(D) OF THE I.T. ACT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR, THIS ALTERNATIVE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE EXAMINED BY THE CIT(A) BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HA D RAISED THESE ISSUES BEFORE THE CIT(A) VIDE GROUN D NOS. B) , C) AND D) WHICH READ AS FOLLOWS: B) THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT(A) AND MADE AN ASSESSMENT FOR THE INTEREST INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.5,58,61,604/ - IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.12.2018. THE ABOVE ADDITION I S ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE. C) IT IS FURTHER RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO DISCRETION IN THE MATTER OF COMPLYING WITH THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT(A) AND SHOULD HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.5,58,61,604 / - AS DIRECTED AND RE - COMPUTED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. NIL. IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE. D) IN THIS CONNECTION, IT I S ALSO RESPECTFULLY POINTED OUT THAT IN THE OWN CASE OF THE APPELLANT, THE DEPARTMEN T HAD FILED APPEAL IN THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT BUT THE APEX COURT DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND, THEREFORE, THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT SURVIVES IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. I.T.A. NO S . 57&40/ COC H/ 2020 & S.P. NOS.30&27/COCH/2020 9 13.1 AS SEEN FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN VERY CRYPTIC FINDINGS AND NOT ADDRESSED THE ABOVE GROUNDS. HENCE, WE REMIT THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THUS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 40 /COCH/2020 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. S.P. NOS. 30 & 27/ C OCH/ 2020: AYS: 2014 - 15 & 2015 - 16 14 . SINCE WE HAVE REMITTED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS.57 & 40/COCH/2020 TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION, THE STAY PETITIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BECOME INFRUTUOUS AND ARE DISMISSED AS SAME. 15 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AN D THE STAY PETITIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH MAY, 2020 . SD/ - SD/ - (GEORGE GEORGE K.) (CHANDRA POOJARI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: KOCHI DATED: 19 TH MAY , 2020 GJ COPY TO: 1 . M/S. KARAKULAM SE RVICE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KP - 1, 382, KARAKULAM, NEDUMNAGAD TALUK, TRIVANDRUM - 695 564. 2 . THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3), TRIVANDRUM. 3 . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS), TRIVANDRUM . I.T.A. NO S . 57&40/ COC H/ 2020 & S.P. NOS.30&27/COCH/2020 10 4. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, TRIVANDRUM. 5 . D. R. , I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 5 . GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGIS TRAR) I.T.A.T., COCHIN