T.R.Sadananda Bhat, Ernakulam V. DCIT, Ernakulam

ITA 414/COCH/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2625 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-07-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-05-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUSAN GEORGE VARGHESE
• Assessee Lawyers: K R SUDHAKARAN PILLAI
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Search and seizure; Salary income; Source of fund; Onus to prove; Retraction
• Section: 153A; 68; 69; 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JM AND B.R.BASKAR AN, AM I.T.A. NOS. 413 & 414/COCH/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 & 2007-08 SHRI T.R. SADANANDA BHAT, PROPRIETOR, UNITED CARGO CARRIERS, FLAT NO. 107, PANAMPILLY APARTMENTS, KOCHI-36. [PAN: ADMPB 6774F] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM (ASSESSEE-APPELLANT) (REVENUE-R ESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI K.R. SUDHAKARAN PILLAI, ADV. REVENUE BY SMT. SUSAN GEORGE VARGHESE, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 08/05/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18/07/2013 O R D E R PER B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DI RECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-III, KOCHI AND THEY RELATE TO THE AS SESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2007-08. BOTH THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND HENCE THEY ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE STATED IN BRI EF. THE ASSESSEE IS A TRANSPORT CONTRACTOR CARRYING ON BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE M/S UNITED CARGO CARRIERS. HE IS ALSO ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DISTRIBUTION OF COLD DRINKS AND ALSO WORKS FOR M/S MALABAR BREWERIES, PEPSICO HOLDINGS LTD ETC., O N CONTRACT BASIS. CONSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS CARRIED OUT IN THE CA SE OF SHRI K.T. JOSEPH AND SHRI R. VIJAYAKUMAR ON 22-08-2007, THE ASSESSEES PREMISES WAS ALSO COVERED BY SEARCH. BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS FOUND AND SEIZED FROM HIS PR EMISES, PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A. NOS. 413 & 414/COCH/2011 2 3. WE SHALL FIRST TAKE UP THE APPEAL RELATING TO TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, WHEREIN FOLLOWING ISSUES ARE URGED: (A) ADDITION MADE U/S. 68 OF THE ACT : RS. 16,93,000/- (B) ENHANCEMENT OF ADDITION MADE U/S. 68 OF THE ACT BY THE LD. CIT(A) : RS. 6,90,000/- (C) ADDITION RELATING TO DEFICIENCY IN DRAWINGS: RS. 60,000/- DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS RELATIN G TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED THE LOANS RECEIVED B Y THE ASSESSEE AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE FOLLOWING CASH CREDI TS TO HIS SATISFACTION: 1. HEMALATHA NAMBIAR RS. 9,98,000/- 2. A.V. GOPALA KAMATH RS. 2,05,000/- 3. C.S. SOBHA RS. 1,00,0 00/- 4. BABU RAJ K.S. RS. 2,00,00 0/- 5. ANIL KUMAR RS. 1,90,0 00/- RS.1 6,93,000/- ========= HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE ABOVE SAID A MOUNT OF RS.16,93,000/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTH ER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED BEFORE ADI(INV.) IN THE STA TEMENT TAKEN FROM HIM ON 20-09- 2007 THAT HIS HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES ARE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 25,000/- PER MONTH. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN FUNDS ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 98,000/-. THE ASSESSEE OFFERED EXPLANATIONS WITH REGARD TO THIS ISSUE AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAID EXPLANATIONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE S HORTFALL IN DRAWINGS AT RS. 60,000/- AND ADDED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE TOWAR DS HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEA L BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY CONCURRED WITH THE VIEW TAKEN B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF CASH CREDIT OF RS. 16,93,000/- AND ALSO IN RESPECT OF ADDITION RELATED TO DEFICIT IN DOMESTIC EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 60,000/-. THE L D. CIT(A) FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PROPOSED AN ADDITION OF RS.6, 90,000/- U/S. 68 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF LOAN RECEIVED FROM SHRI V. MURALI VALLAT H. HOWEVER, WHILE COMPUTING THE I.T.A. NOS. 413 & 414/COCH/2011 3 TOTAL INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD OMITTED TO INCLUDE THE SAME. HENCE, THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADD THE AB OVE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 6,90,000/- ALSO TO THE TOTAL INCOME ASSESSED BY HIM. AGGRIEVE D BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US . 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CARE FULLY PERUSED THE RECORD. IT IS A WELL SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT THE PRIMARY BURDEN OF PROOF IN RESPECT OF CASH CREDITS IS PLACED UPON THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THE AS SESSEE HAS TO PROVE THREE MAIN INGREDIENTS VIZ., THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR, CRE DIT WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IN RESPECT OF EACH O F THE CREDITOR. ALL THE THREE INGREDIENTS STATED ABOVE HAS TO BE PROVED CUMULATIV ELY, MEANING THEREBY, EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO PROVE ANY ONE OF THE THREE POINTS STATED ABOVE, HE SHALL BE FAILING IN THIS MATTER AND HE CANNOT ESCAPE THE ADDITION U/S 6 8 OF THE ACT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE D ID NOT PROVE ALL THE THREE MAIN INGREDIENTS CUMULATIVELY. WE SHALL EXAMINE EACH CA SH CREDIT WITH THE PARAMETERS DISCUSSED ABOVE. 5. LOAN RECEIVED FROM SMT. HEMALATHA NAMBIAR RS.9,98,000/-. THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THIS CA SH CREDIT ARE EXTRACTED BELOW:- SMT. HEMALATHA NAMBIAR IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMONS ISSUED SHE APPEARED ON 16-12-2009. SHE IS A RETIRED CASHIER O F THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. SHE RETIRED FROM THE BANK IN 2001. SHE IS NOT ASS ESSED TO INCOME-TAX NOW. SHE HAS STATED THAT SHE HAD PAID AROUND RS.11.63 LAKHS AS LOAN TO SHRI T.R. SADANANDA BHAT BUT SHE IS NOT REMEMBERING THE DATE S OF PAYMENTS. ACCORDING TO HER THE LOAN WAS PAID DURING THE PERIOD 2001TO 2005. SHE STATES THAT SHE HAD GIVEN THE AMOUNT BY CHEQUE OF UNION BANK OF INDIA, PONNURUNNI AND STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD. THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK FROM WHICH SHE PAID THE MO NEY IS CLAIMED TO BE ACCUMULATED FUNDS FROM THE RETIREMEN T BENEFITS OF HER HUSBAND AND HERSELF. BUT SHE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUN T . SHE HAS STATED THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED BACK RS. 5.48 LAKHS O N 28-11-08 AND THE BALANCE IS REMAINING TO BE PAID. SHE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS. ON ASKING HER TO PRODUCE A COPY OF THE ACCOUNT FROM W HERE THE AMOUNTS ARE WITHDRAWN SHE HAD TOLD THAT SHE WILL TRY TO GET IT . SO FAR NO COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT IS PRODUCED. I.T.A. NOS. 413 & 414/COCH/2011 4 THOUGH SMT. HEMLATHA NAMBIA HAD STATED THAT SH E HAD PAID THE AMOUNT, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT SHE HAD SUFFICIEN T SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR PAYMENT TO SHRI SADANANDA BHAT. SHE IS NOT REMEMBERING THE BANK ACCOUNT FROM WHER E SHE HAD WITHDRAWN THE MONEY. THE ONLY EVIDENCE SH E HAD PRODUCED IS REGARDING THE RECEIPT BACK OF RS.5.48 LAKHS ON 28. 11.08. THERE IS NO SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT SHE HAD SUFFICI ENT SOURCE OF MONEY TO MAKE THE PAYMENTS TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABOVE CIRCUM STANCES THE LOAN FROM SMT. HEMALATHA NAMBIAR CANNOT BE TREATED AS EXPLAINED A ND THE SAME IS ADDED TO INCOME AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT. IT IS SEEN THAT SMT. HEMALATHA NAMBIAR HAD APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HENCE HER IDENTITY IS PROVED. THOUGH SHE HAS CLAIM ED THAT SHE HAD ADVANCED MONEY OUT OF THE RETIREMENT PROCEEDS OF HERSELF AND OF HE R HUSBAND, YET NO DOCUMENT WAS FILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THIS CLAIM. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS MADE A SPECIFIC REMARK THAT THIS CREDITOR HAS FAILED TO FURNISH COPY OF BANK AC COUNTS. WE ALSO NOTICE THAT THIS CREDITOR HAS FAILED TO FURNISH COPIES EVIDENCING RE CEIPT OF RETIREMENT FUNDS ALSO. UNDER THESE SET OF FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR AND ALSO THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. HENCE, IN OUR VIEW, THE LD CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THI S ADDITION. 6. LOAN RECEIVED FROM SHRI A.V. GOPALA KAMATH RS.2,05,000/-. THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THIS CA SH CREDIT ARE EXTRACTED BELOW:- SHRI A.V. GOPALA KAMATH IS THE MAN OF 78 YEARS NOW, HAVING RENTAL INCOME OF RS. 5000 PER MONTH FROM A LET OUT BUILDING. HE HAD SOME AGRICULTURAL LAND AROUND 10 YEARS BACK. HE SOLD IT AND CONSTRUCTED A BUILDING FROM WHICH IS NOW GETTING A RENTAL INCOME OF RS. 5000 PER MONTH. HE HAS STATED THAT HE PAID RS.2,05,000 TO SHRI T.R. SADANANDA BHAT IN CASH . BUT HE IS NOT REMEMBERING THE DATE. THE SOURCE OF MONEY PAID IS CLAIMED TO BE AC CUMULATED RENT RECEIPTS KEPT IN HIS HOUSE. ACCORDING TO HIM, HE HAD NO BANK ACCOUNTS . HE HAD RECEIVED BACK RS. 2.05 LAKHS ON 02.05.08 BY CHEQUE . THE LOAN OF RS. 2.05 LAKHS IS CLAIMED TO BE PA ID IN CASH. THE CREDITOR IS HAVING ONLY RENTAL INCOME OF RS. 5000 PER MONTH. T HE STATEMENT THAT THE AMOUNT WAS GIVEN FROM RENT RECEIVED KEPT IN THE HOU SE IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE STATEMENT. HE HAD NO SUFFICIENT SOURCE TO PAY THE AMOUNT TO SHRI SADANANDA BHAT. THE PAYMENT BACK OF THE AMOUNT BY CHEQUE ON 02.05.08 IS ONLY AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE AN EVIDENCE FOR A CLAIM WHICH HAD NO EVIDENCE. THE ABOVE CREDIT OF RS. 2.05 LAKHS IS CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAIN ED AND ADDED TO THE INCOME RETURNED. I.T.A. NOS. 413 & 414/COCH/2011 5 IN THIS CASE, THE LOAN IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID IN CASH. THUS, THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IS NOT PROVED. FURTHER THE CREDITO R IS HAVING ONLY RENTAL INCOME OF RS.5,000/- PER MONTH. THOUGH HE CLAIMS THAT HE HAD ADVANCED A LOAN OF RS.2,05,000/- OUT OF HIS ACCUMULATED RENTAL INCOME, YET HE HAS FA ILED TO DEMONSTRATE AS TO HOW HE COULD ACCUMULATE SUCH A HUGE AMOUNT OUT OF HIS MEAG RE EARNING OF RS.5,000/- PER MONTH. FURTHER HE HAS CLAIMED THAT HE DOES NOT HAV E A BANK ACCOUNT. BUT IT IS ALSO CLAIMED THAT HE HAS RECEIVED BACK THE LOAN AMOUNT B Y WAY OF CHEQUE, WHICH CANNOT BE ENCASHED WITHOUT A BANK ACCOUNT. THUS, IN OUR VIEW , THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR IS ALSO NOT PROVED IN THIS CASE. HENCE, I N OUR VIEW, THE LD CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THIS ADDITION. 7. LOAN RECEIVED FROM SMT. C.S. SOBHA RS.1,00, 000/-. THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THIS CASH CREDI T ARE EXTRACTED BELOW:- SMT. SOBHA C.S . IS AN ACCOUNTANT AND SALES GIRL WORKING AT M/S. G EERI PAI JEWELLERY A PARTNERSHIP FIRM OF MR. T.R. SADANANDA BHAT AND HIS MOTHER SMT. KANAKA BAI. SHE WAS EARLIER WORKING AS AN ACCOUNTA NT WITH M/S. UNITED CARGO CARRIERS. SHE IS NOT ASSESSED TO INCOME-TAX. SHE HAS CONFIRMED THAT SHE HAD PAID RS. 2 LAKHS ON 26-03-05 BY CHEQUE DRAWN ON UBI , PONNURUNNI. SHE HAS STATED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS PAID FROM HER BANK ACCOU NT WHERE THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM POST OFFICE CTD ACCOUNT WAS DEPOSITED . SHE HAD PRODUCED A COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH UBI, PONNURUNNI. IT IS NOT ICED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1 LAKH IN CASH IS CREDITED TO THE BANK ON 26-03-05. SMT. SOBHA HAS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF RS. 1 LAKH CREDITED O N 26-03-05 AS RECEIPT OF MONEY ON MATURITY OF CTDS. SHE HAS STATED THAT IF ANY EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE SHE WILL BRING BEFORE 17-12-09. BUT SO FAR NO SUCH EVI DENCE IS PRODUCED. FROM THE ABOVE FACTS IT IS NOTICED THAT SMT. SOBHA HAD NO SO URCE FOR DEPOSITING CASH OF RS. 1 LAKH ON 26-03-05 OUT OF WHICH SHE HAD GIVEN THE C HEQUE TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, RS. 1 LAKH PAID TO THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED A S UNEXPLAINED. THE SAME IS ADDED TO THE INCOME RETURNED. IN THIS CASE, THE CREDITOR HAS ADVANCED A SUM OF RS .2.00 LAKHS, OUT OF WHICH SHE COULD PROVE THE SOURCES ONLY TO THE TUNE OF RS.1.00 LAKH, I.E., THE MATURITY PROCEEDS OF POST OFFICE CUMULATIVE TIME DEPOSIT ACCOUNT. WITH REGAR D TO THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.1.00 LAKH, THE CREDITOR HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE SOURCES THERE OF. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOTICED THAT THIS CREDITOR IS WORKING IN A FIR M BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE. BUT THE CREDITOR HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT SHE COULD SAVE MONEY OUT OF I.T.A. NOS. 413 & 414/COCH/2011 6 HER SALARY INCOME. HENCE, IN OUR VIEW, THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR HAS NOT BEEN PROVED IN THIS CASE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1.00 L AKH. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THIS ADDI TION ALSO. 8. LOAN RECEIVED FROM SHRI BABU RAJ K. S. RS.2, 00,000/-. THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THIS CASH CREDI T ARE EXTRACTED BELOW:- SHRI BABURAJ K.S . IS A SALESMAN WORKING AT JAI HIND ALUMINIUM TRADERS ON A MONTHLY SALARY OF RS. 7000 . HE HAS CONFIRMED THAT HE HAD GIVEN LOAN OF RS.2. 25 LAKHS TO SHRI T.R. SADANANDA BHAT ON 26-03-05. THI S AMOUNT WAS GIVEN BY CHEQUE DRAWN ON HIS BANK ACCOUNT NO. 9642 WITH UNIO N BANK OF INDIA, PONNURUNNI. ACCORDING TO HIM HE HAS PAID THIS AMOU NT FROM SAVINGS FROM HIS SALARY AND INCOME FROM SALE OF PAPPAD. HE HAD RECE IVED BACK THE AMOUNT ON 24.12.08 BY CHEQUE. BUT ON EXAMINING HIS BANK ACCO UNT IT IS NOTICED THAT WHILE PAYING RS. 2.25 LAKHS HIS BANK ACCOUNT HAD ONLY A B ALANCE OF RS. 28,000 ON THAT DATE. IMMEDIATELY AFTER WITHDRAWAL OF THE AMOUNT, RS. 2 LAKHS HAS BEEN CREDITED IN CASH TO COVER UP THE OVER WITHDRAWN MONEY. THE CLAIM OF THE SHRI BABURAJ THAT RS. 2 LAKHS WAS CREDITED TO HIS ACCOUNT FROM S AVINGS FROM HIS SALARY AND SALE OF PAPPAD IS NOT PROBABLE IN THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCE S. HENCE THIS CLAIM IS NOT ACCEPTED. THE CREDIT IN THIS CASE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 2 LAKHS IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED TO THE INCOME RETURNED. IN THIS CASE, THE CREDITOR IS WORKING AS A SALES MA N IN A CONCERN ON A MONTHLY SALARY OF RS.7,000/-. HE HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED AS TO HOW HE C OULD ACCUMULATE A SUM OF RS.2.25 LAKHS OUT OF THIS MEAGRE SALARY. EVEN THOUGH HE CLA IMS THAT HE HAS INCOME FROM SALE OF PAPADS, YET NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS ADDUCED TO SUBSTANTIATE THIS CLAIM. HENCE IN OUR VIEW, THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THIS CREDITOR HA S NOT BEEN PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, IN OUR VIEW, THE LD CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THIS ADDITION ALSO. 9. LOAN RECEIVED FROM SHRI ANIL KUMAR RS.1,90 ,000/-. THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THIS CASH CREDI T ARE EXTRACTED BELOW:- SHRI ANIL KUMAR- WAS A TAXI DRIVER. NOW HE IS WORKING AS A DRIVER WITH THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. HE HAS CONFIRMED THAT HE HAD PAID AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,90,000 ON 26-03-05 IN CASH TO SHRI T.R. SADANA NDA BHAT. ACCORDING TO HIM THIS AMOUNT WAS WITHDRAWN FROM HIS ACCOUNT WITH UNI ON BANK OF INDIA WHERE HE HAD DEPOSITED RS. 1 LAKH ON SALE OF CAR AND THE BAL ANCE AMOUNT DEPOSITED WAS THE AMOUNT GIVEN BY HIS FATHER. HE HAD RECEIVED BA CK THE MONEY ON 27-12-08. HE HAD NO EVIDENCE FOR THE RECEIPT OF MONEY FROM HI S FATHER AND RECEIPT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF THE CAR. IT IS NOTICED FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT THAT AS ON 1 ST MARCH I.T.A. NOS. 413 & 414/COCH/2011 7 2005 HE HAD ONLY A BALANCE OF RS. 3 AND 80 PAISA WI TH THE BANK. RS. 40000 WAS DEPOSITED ON MARCH 1 ST AND RS. 1 LAKH AND RS. 51,000 WERE DEPOSITED ON 26 -03- 05. THE ABOVE DEPOSITS ARE CASH DEPOSITS ONLY. THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY HIM FOR THE CREDIT OF THESE AMOUNTS TO THE BANK ACCOUNT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. HENCE THIS CREDIT IS AL SO TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED TO THE INCOME RETURNED. IN THIS CASE ALSO, THE CREDITOR HAS FAILED TO SUBST ANTIATE HIS CLAIM OF SOURCES OF FUNDS VIZ, SALE PROCEEDS OF OLD CAR AND RECEIPT OF MONEY FROM HIS FATHER. FURTHER IT IS SEEN THAT TWO SUMS AGGREGATING TO RS.1,51,000/- WERE FOUND DE POSITED INTO HIS BANK ACCOUNT ON THE DATE OF ISSUING CHEQUE TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, IN OUR VIEW, THIS CREDITOR HAS ALSO FAILED TO PROVE HIS CREDIT WORTHINESS. HENCE, IN O UR VIEW, THE LD CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THIS ADDITION. 10. THE ASSESSEE IS OBJECTING TO THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY LD CIT(A) TO MAKE ADDITION OF CASH CREDIT OF RS.6,90,000/- RECEIVED FROM SRI V. M URALI VALLATH. THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THIS CREDIT ARE EXTRACTED BELOW:- ON REQUESTING THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE FOR RECEIPT OF THE ABOVE LOANS, THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE AB OVE PERSONS EXCEPT SRI V MURALI VALLATH. HE HAS STATED THAT CONFIRMATION FR OM HIS CANNOT BE PRODUCED WITHIN A SHORT PERIOD AS SRI V MURALI VALLATH IS NO W IN USA AND HIS PRESENT ADDRESS IS NOT AVAILABLE. AS CONFIRMATION FROM SRI V. MURALI VALLATH WAS NOT PRODUCED THE SAME IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT. HOWEVER, WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER FAILED TO ADD THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.6,90,000/-. HOWEVER, THE A SSESSEE RAISED A GROUND BEFORE LD CIT(A) CHALLENGING THE ABOVE SAID OBSERVATIONS OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD CIT(A), WHILE CONFIRMING THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER, DIRECTED HIM TO ADD THE LOAN AMOUNT OF RS.6,90,000/- RECEIVED FROM V MURALI VALLATH TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE US, THE ASSES SEE IS CHALLENGING THE ABOVE SAID DIRECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 11. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE SHORTAGE OF TIME FOR NOT OBTAINING CONFIRMATION LETTER AND OTHER DETAILS FRO M THE ABOVE SAID CREDITOR. HOWEVER, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUC E CONFIRMATION LETTER AND ALSO ANY I.T.A. NOS. 413 & 414/COCH/2011 8 DOCUMENT TO PROVE THE LOAN AMOUNT OF RS.6,90,000/- CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM SHRI V. MURALI VALLATH EVEN BEFORE US. FURTHE R, WE ALSO NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRONEOUSLY OMITTED TO ADD THE ABOVE SAID A MOUNT OF RS.6,90,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, AFTER HOLDING THE SAME AS U NEXPLAINED CREDIT. HENCE, THE LD CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADD TH E SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER CONFIRMING THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS CASH CREDIT. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE DECISION OF LD CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF THIS CASH CREDIT. 12. THE NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF R S.60,000/- RELATING TO INSUFFICIENT DRAWINGS TOWARDS DOMESTIC EXPENSES. IT IS SEEN THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN TWO STATEMENTS ON TWO DIFFERENT OCCASIONS. IN THE FIRS T STATEMENT TAKEN ON 22.8.2007, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HIS MONTHLY DOMESTIC EXPENSES WAS RS.10,000/- PER MONTH. HOWEVER, IN THE STATEMENT TAKEN ON 20.9.2007, THE M ONTHLY DOMESTIC EXPENSES WAS STATED AT RS.25,000/- BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING T O LD A.R, THE SECOND STATEMENT WAS GIVEN UNDER STRESS AND DURESS AND HENCE IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY VALUE. HOWEVER, THE LD CIT(A) REJECTED THE SAID CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT T HE RETRACTION IS BELATED ONE. THE ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN A SUM OF RS.98,000/- ONLY TO WARDS HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADDED A SUM OF R S.60,000/- ONLY AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS HIS SOURCES. HENCE, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS REASO NABLE IN MAKING ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF RS.60,000/- ONLY AND ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THIS ADDITION. 13. BEFORE US, THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS GOT FOLLOWING SOURCES TO MEET HIS DOMESTIC EXPENSES:- DRAWINGS FROM BUSINESS 98,000 HIS MOTHERS PENSION 93,000 CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS ACCOUNT IN BOOKS 51,000 ----------- 2,42,000 ====== WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONSIDERED ALL THE SOURCES STATED ABOVE AND ESTIMATED THE SHORTFALL IN DRAWINGS TO THE TUNE OF RS.60,000/- AND ADDED THE SAME TO I.T.A. NOS. 413 & 414/COCH/2011 9 THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, I.E., THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED THE ANNUAL DOMESTIC EXPENSES AT RS.3.00 LAKHS AS PER THE SECON D STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE SAID STATEMENT DATED 20-09-2007 WAS GIVEN UNDER STRESS AND UNDER DURESS, YET WE NOTICE THAT HE HAS FAILED TO RETRACT THE SAME WITHIN THE SHORTEST POSSIBLE TIME. HE HAS TAKEN THIS STAND OF STRESS AND UNDER DURESS ONLY BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) DURING JANUARY 2011. HENCE, I N OUR VIEW, THE LD CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE RETRACTION FROM THE SECO ND STATEMENT AFTER THE PASSAGE OF LONG TIME. FURTHER, WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS GIVEN CREDIT TO ALL THE AVAILABLE SOURCES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, WE DO NOT FI ND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE DECISION OF LD CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.60,000/- PERTAINING TO SHORTFALL IN DOMESTIC DRAWINGS. 14. WE SHALL NOW TAKE UP THE APPEAL FILED FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, WHEREIN FOLLOWING ISSUES ARE CONTESTED:- (A) UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN LAND PURCHASE : RS. 29,69,000/- (B) CASH CREDIT : RS. 16,65,000/- (C) REDUCTION IN AGRICULTURAL INCOME : RS. 1,09,625/- (D) DEFICIENCY IN DRAWINGS : RS. 50,000/- 15. THE ISSUE RELATES TO THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE IN PURCHASE OF LAND. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME ARE STATED IN BRIEF. TH E ASSESSEE PURCHASED 5.64 ACRES OF LAND ON 16-09-2006 FROM M/S MRS. & MR MURALIDHARAN NAIR; MRS. & MR. D. RAJENDRAN NAIR AND SHRI D. SOMANATHAN NAIR FOR A DECLARED VAL UE OF RS. 11,28,000/-. THE AVERAGE COST OF PURCHASE WORKED OUT TO RS.2,000/- PER CENT. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, THE SEARCH OFFICIALS FOUND A PHOTOCOPY OF AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF THE ABOVE LAND WHEREIN THE SELLING RATE WAS SHOWN AT RS . 7250/- PER CENT, THOUGH THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT WAS NOT MENTIONED THEREIN. AT THE RATE OF RS.7,250/-, THE SALE CONSIDERATION WOULD WORK OUT TO RS. 40,89,000/-. H OWEVER, THE PHOTO COPY OF THE AGREEMENT, REFERRED ABOVE, DID NOT CONTAIN SIGNATUR E OF THE ASSESSEE, BEING THE PURCHASER AND ALSO THAT OF ONE OF THE SELLERS, VIZ. , SHRI D. SOMANATHAN NAIR. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE P HOTOCOPY OF THE AGREEMENT WAS I.T.A. NOS. 413 & 414/COCH/2011 10 CREATED BY SOME LAND BROKERS TO PROJECT A HIGHER RA TE. HE REITERATED THAT HE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY ONLY AT THE RATE OF RS. 2000/- PER CEN T. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SUMMONS TO THE SIGNATORIES, VIZ., MRS. & MR MURALID HARAN NAIR AND MRS. & MR D. RAJENDRAN NAIR. ALL OF THEM CONFIRMED THAT THEY DI D NOT SELL THE LAND AT THE RATE OF RS.7250/- PER CENT. BUT WITH REGARD TO THE AGREEME NT, THEY STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT AGREE TO THAT RATE AND HENCE THEY SOLD THE PROPERTY AT THE RATE OF RS.2000/- PER CENT. 16. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK THE VIEW THAT GENERALLY THERE IS UNDER VALUATION OF PROPERTY WHILE EXECUTING THE DOCUMENT IN ORDER NOT TO ESCAPE HIGHER RATE OF STAMP DUTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER HELD THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE AGREEMENT ARE PRESUMED TO BE TRUE, SINCE THE AGREEMENT WAS SE IZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK THE VALUE OF CONSIDERATION AT RS.40,89,000/- AND ASSESSED THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.29,69,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THIS ADDITION BY PLACING RELIANCE ON SEC. 132(4A) AND 292C OF THE ACT. 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS ON THIS ISS UE AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS. ADMITTEDLY, WHAT WAS SEIZED FR OM THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY A PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO AN ADMI TTED FACT THAT THE SALE AGREEMENT WAS NOT SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE, BEING THE PURCHASER AND ALSO BY ONE OF THE SELLERS. THUS, THE SAID SALE AGREEMENT IS AN INCOMPLETE AGREEMENT AND IT CANNOT BE ENFORCED IN LAW. HENCE, IN OUR VIEW, THE TAX AUTHORITIES ARE NOT JUS TIFIED IN PLACING RELIANCE ON AN UNENFORCEABLE DOCUMENT. THOUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 132(4A) AND SEC. 292C DO CREATE CERTAIN PRESUMPTIONS, THEY ARE REBUTTABLE ON E. WE ALSO NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT RESTRICT HIMSELF WITH THE PRESUMPTIONS ALONE, BUT HAS EXAMINED THE SIGNATORIES TO THE AGREEMENT TO FIND O UT ITS VERACITY. ALL THE SIGNATORIES HAVE UNIFORMLY STATED THAT THE SALE AGREEMENT WAS N OT FINALISED AT THE RATE OF RS.7250/- PER CENT, THAT WAS SHOWN IN THE SAID AGREEMENT. FUR THER, THEY HAVE CONFIRMED THE SALE VALUE AS SHOWN IN THE CONVEYANCE DEED. THUS, THE A SSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE VERACITY OF THE AGREEMENT. HAVING EXAMINED THE MATTER THOROUGHLY, IN OUR VIEW, THE I.T.A. NOS. 413 & 414/COCH/2011 11 ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE I MPUGNED ADDITION, DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A VALID AGREEMENT. FOR THE SAME REASONS, IN OUR VIEW, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THIS ADDITION. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 29,69,000/-, REFERRED SUPRA. 18. THE NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO THE FOLLOWING CASH CR EDITS ADDED U/S. 68 OF THE ACT: (A) SMT. HEMALATHA NAMBIAR : RS. 1,65,000/- (B) SHRI T.L. JOSE : RS. 5,00,000/- (C) SHRI A.A. MOIDHEEN : RS. 10,00,000/- 19. THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED A LOAN OF RS. 9,98,00 0/- FROM SMT. HEMALATHA NAMBIAR DURING THE YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ALSO. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ADDED THE SAME U/S. 68 OF THE ACT IN TH AT YEAR. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SAID ADDITION IN PARAGRAPH 5 (SUPRA), WHILE DEALING WITH THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND WE HAVE HELD THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR AND ALSO THE G ENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION. IN THE INSTANT YEAR ALSO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS POINTED OUT THAT THIS CREDITOR HAS FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY PROOF REGARDING HER SOURCES AN D HAS ALSO FAILED TO FURNISH COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNT TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSA CTION. SINCE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL IN THIS YEAR ALSO, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THIS ADDITION. 20. THE NEXT AMOUNT ADDED U/S. 68 RELATES TO THE LO AN RECEIVED FROM SHRI T.L. JOSE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS POINTED OUT THAT SHRI T.L . JOSE IS A MANAGING PARTNER OF A CONCERN NAMED CHEM-TECH INDUSTRIES. HE IS ALSO ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF M/S. SEAL TECH POLYMERS LTD. HE HAS STATED THAT HE HAS LENT A SUM OF RS. 5.00 LAKHS TO THE ASSESSEE ON 02-08-2006, OUT OF FUNDS RECEIVED FROM HIS FATHER. HOWEVER, HE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER T O SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM OF RECEIPT OF MONEY FROM HIS FATHER. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ADDED THE LOAN AMOUNT OF RS.5.00 LAKHS RECEIVED FROM SHRI JOSE AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) I.T.A. NOS. 413 & 414/COCH/2011 12 ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAID ADDITION. BEFORE US ALSO, NO MATERIAL WAS PLACED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF THE RECEIPT OF MONEY FROM HIS FATHER. THUS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE CREDITOR HAS FAILED TO PROVE HIS CREDITWORTHINESS AND HENCE, IN OUR VIEW, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THIS ADDITION. 21. THE AO ALSO ADDED THE SUM OF RS. 10.00 LAKHS OU T OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM SHRI A.A. MOIDHEEN. THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED A SU M OF RS.25.00 LAKHS FROM THIS CREDITOR. WHEN ASKED TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THIS CREDIT, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED HIS BANK ACCOUNT. IN THE SAID BANK ACCOU NT, SHRI MOIDEEN HAD DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS.13,43,000/- ON 28-03-2007 AND CLAIMED THE SAME TO BE THE SALE PROCEEDS OF LAND BELONGING TO HIM. HOWEVER, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SAID CREDITOR CONFIRMED THAT THE SALE VALUE SHOWN IN THE CONVEYAN CE DEED WAS ONLY RS.3.50 LAKHS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK THE VIEW TH AT THE CREDITOR COULD PROVE THE DEPOSIT ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 3.5 LAKHS ONLY. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR WITH REGARD T O THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.10.00 LAKHS STANDS UNEXPLAINED. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO ASSE SSED A SUM OF RS.10.00 LAKHS, OUT OF THE LOAN AMOUNT OF RS.25.00 LAKHS, AS UNEXPLAINE D CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRME D THIS ADDITION. BEFORE US ALSO, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE TH E SOURCES FOR RS.10.00 LAKHS OUT OF THE DEPOSIT OF RS. 13,43,000/- MADE ON 28-03-2007 I N THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE CREDITOR. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY OTHER OPTION BUT TO CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 22. THE NEXT ADDITION RELATES TO THE REDUCTION O F AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE BY RS.1,09,625/- AND ASSESSING THE SAME AS REGULAR INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD CREDITED AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF RS.1, 19,625/- FROM NOVEMBER, 2006 TO MARCH, 2007 AS INCOME FROM SALE OF COCONUTS OBTAINE D FROM 5.64 ACRES PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WHILE EXAMINING THE SELLERS OF THE ABOVE SAID LAND, THEY HAD STATED THAT THEY USED TO GET RS.10,000/- ONCE IN THREE MONTHS ON SALE OF COCONUTS. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO TO OK THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE OBTAINED AROUND 2000 COCONUTS FROM THE LAND AN D THUS ESTIMATED THE INCOME FROM I.T.A. NOS. 413 & 414/COCH/2011 13 SALE OF COCONUTS AT RS.10,000/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF RS.1,09,625/- AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAME. 23. BEFORE US ALSO, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY MATERIAL TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM OF RECEIPT OF RS.1,19,625/- ON SALE OF COCONUTS. T HE LD A.R ORALLY CONTENDED THAT THE IMPUGNED LAND IS AN EXTENSIVE COCONUT GARDEN, BUT H E COULD PRODUCE ANY DETAILS REGARDING THE REALISATION OF PRODUCE, SALE DETAILS ETC. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE DECISI ON OF LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 24. THE NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.5 0,000/- PERTAINING TO INSUFFICIENT DRAWINGS. AN IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY US IN PARAGRAPH 13 (SUPRA), WHILE CONSIDERING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. WE NOTICE THAT THE FACTS PREVAILING ON THIS ISSUE IS I DENTICAL IN NATURE. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THIS A DDITION. 25. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IS DISMISSED AND THE APPEAL RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY ON 18-07-20 13. SD/- SD/- (N.R.S.GANESAN) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: KOCHI DATED: 18TH JULY, 2013 GJ COPY TO: 1. SHRI T.R. SADANANDA BHAT, PROPRIETOR, UNITED CAR GO CARRIERS, FLAT NO. 107, PANAMPILLY APARTMENTS, KOCHI-36. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL C IRCLE-2, KOCHI. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-III, KOC HI. I.T.A. NOS. 413 & 414/COCH/2011 14 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL, KOCHI. 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ) I.T.A.T, COCHIN