The ITO, Tirur V. M/s.Ramapuram Service Co-op Bank Ltd, Malappuram

ITA 446/COCH/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6187 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A.S.BINDHU
• Keywords: Competent authority; Set aside
• Section: 80P; 201

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJAR I, AM & SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JM ITA NO. 446 /COCH/201 9 : ASST.YEAR 201 5 - 201 6 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 TIRUR . VS. M/S. RAMAPURAM SERVICE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KUNNAKKAVU P.O. PERINTHALMANNA MALAPPURAM 679 340. PAN : AACAT7644J . (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT.A.S.BINDHU, SR.DR RESPONDENT BY : ---- NONE ---- DATE OF HEARING : 06.08 .2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07 .08 .2019 O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, JM : THIS APPEAL AT THE INSTANCE OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DATED 15.03.2019 . THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 201 5 - 201 6 . 2. THE SOLITARY ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE I.T.ACT? 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS: THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE IS REGISTERED AS CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY UNDER THE KERALA STATE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1969. THE ASSESSMENT WAS C OMPLETED IN ASSESSEES CASE BY DENYING DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80P OF THE I.T.ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DENYING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE I.T.ACT, ITA NO. 446 /COCH /201 9. M/S. RAMAPURAM SCB LTD. 2 TREATED THE ASSESSEE AS CO - OPERATIVE BANK AND NOT CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE CIT(A) BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHIRAKKAL SERVICE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD. (384 ITR 490) AL LOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE I.T.ACT. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE GROUNDS RAISED READ AS FOLLOWS: 1. IN VIEW OF THE RECENT DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME C OURT IN THE CASE OF THE CITIZENS CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 9(1), HYDERABAD DATED 8 TH AUGUST 2017, IS NOT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AGAINST LAW AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE? 2. IS THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE ID CIT(A) TO GRANT THE ASSESSEE DEDUCTION U/S. 80P JUST IN LAW WHEN THE FULL BENCH OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN ITA NO : 97 OF 2016 &ORS HAS ANSWERED THE ISSUE OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80P IN FAVOUR OF THE REV ENUE AND WHILE ARRIVING AT THE DECISION RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED BY THE FULL BENCH OF HIGH COURT ON THE DECISION OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S CITIZENS CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED? 3. WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, IS THE ID CIT(A) JUSTIFIED IN GRANTING DEDUCTION U/S. 80P TO THE ASSESSEE RELYING ON THE DECISION OF DIVISION BENCH OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S CHIRAKKAL SERVICE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD WHEN THE DECISION OF FULL BENCH OF HIGH COURT IN ITA ITA NO. 446 /COCH /201 9. M/S. RAMAPURAM SCB LTD. 3 NO : 97 OF 2016 &ORS DATED 19.03.2019 HAS HELD THAT THE PROPOSITION LAID IN CHIRAKKAL IS BAD IN LAW? 4. IS THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S MARUTHONKARA SERVICE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD STATING THAT THE DECISION OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF M/ S CITIZENS CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE JUST IN LAW, WHEN THE FULL BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT HAS RELIED ON THE AFORESAID DECISION WHILE ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE A O NEED NOT EXTEND THE BENEFITS AVAILABLE, MERELY LOOKING AT THE CLASS OF THE SOCIETY AS PER THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR? 5. FROM THE TABLE GIVEN BELOW, LISTING THE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN M / S CITIZEN SERVICE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND THE ASSESSE E, HASN'T THE CIT(A) ERRED IN RELYING ON THE DECISION ITAT COCHIN BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/ S MARUTHONKARA SERVICE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE DECISION OF M/ S CITIZEN SERVICE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE? M/S.CITIZEN CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY M/S.RAMAPURAM SERVICE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD. GOVERNED BY MULTI - STATE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT. GOVERNED BY KERALA CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AREA OF OPERATION RESTRICTED TO THE STATES OF MAHARASHTRA, KARNATAKA AND ANDHRA PRADESH. AREA OF OPERATION RESTRICTED TO THE RESPECTIVE PANCHAYATH / MUNICIPALITY OF KERALA STATE. ACTIVITIES ARE CONFINED ONLY TO MEMBERS ORDINARY AND NOMINAL. ACTIVITIES ARE CONFINED TO CLASS A, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D MEMBERS OF WHICH ONLY CLASS A MEMBERS ARE ORDINARY (REGULAR) MEMBERS AND CLASS C AND CLASS D ARE NOMINAL MEMBERS. CLASS C IS GOVERNMENT / CO - OPERATIVE BANK / NABARD CONTROLLED RECOGNIZED INSTITUTIONS. NO NOMINAL OR ASSOCIATE MEMBER SHALL BE ENTITLED TO DIVIDEND OR HAVE ANY INTEREST IN THE MANAGEMENT THEREOF INCLUDING RIGHT TO VOTE, ELECT AS A DIRECTOR OF NO NOMINAL OR ASSOCIATE MEMBER (CLASS B & D) AND CLASS C MEMBERS SHALL BE ENTITLED TO DIVIDEND OR HAVE AN Y INTERST IN THE MANAGEMENT THEREOF ITA NO. 446 /COCH /201 9. M/S. RAMAPURAM SCB LTD. 4 THE BOARD OR PARTICIPATE IN THE GENERAL BODY MEETINGS. INCLUDING RIGHT TO VOTE, ELECT AS A DIRECTOR OF THE BOARD OR PARTICIPATE IN THE GENERAL BODY MEETINGS. MAJORITY OF THE DEPOSITS AND LOANS OF THE SOCIETY PERTAINS TO NOMINAL MEMBERS. MAJORITY OF THE DEPOSITS AND LOANS OF THE SOCIETY PERTAINS TO NOMINAL MEMBERS. MAJORITY OF THE INCOME OF THE SOCIETY PERTAINS TO THE INTEREST RECEIVED FROM NOMINAL MEMBERS. MAJORITY OF THE INCOME OF THE SOCIETY PERTAINS TO THE INTEREST RECEIVED FROM NOMINAL MEMBERS. THE SOCIETY DOES NOT HOLD ANY LICENSE FROM RESERVE BANK OF INDIA TO CARRY OUT BANKING BUSINESS. THE SOCIETY DOES NOT HOLD ANY LICENSE FROM RESERVE BANK OF INDIA TO CARRY OUT BANKING BUSINESS. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THERE IS NOT EVEN A SINGLE POINT THAT CAN BE PROJECTED AS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE M/ S CITIZEN CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND OUR ASSESSEE, MIS RAMAPURAM SERVICE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD. THEREFORE, THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MIS CITIZEN CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY IS SQ UARELY APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE. 7. WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, IS THE L D CIT(A) JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MIS CITIZEN CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE F ACTS OF THE CASE WHEN OUR ASSESSEE ALSO LACKS MUTUALITY WHERE ASSESSEE EARNS FROM OUTSIDE ITS MEMBERS VIDE DIVIDENDS AND INTEREST, PERMITS A CATEGORY OF PERSONS TO MAKE PROFIT AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS AND POSSESSES A PROFIT MOTIVE ANALOGICAL TO M/ S CITIZENS CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED? 8. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, CLASS C AND D MEMBERS ARE JUST NOMINAL MEMBERS WHO CAN TAKE LOANS AGAINST SECURITY AND DO NOT HAVE ANY OTHER RIGHTS. MAJORITY OF INCOME IS RECEIVED BY THE SOCIETY FROM NOMINAL MEMBE RS THROUGH NON AGRICULTURAL GOLD LOAN INTEREST AND MAJORITY OF SUCH INCOME IS USED TO GIVE AGRICULTURAL LOANS TO ORDINARY MEMBERS. IN SHORT, MAJOR PART OF THE INCOME ARE COLLECTED FROM NOMINAL ITA NO. 446 /COCH /201 9. M/S. RAMAPURAM SCB LTD. 5 MEMBERS WHO DOESN'T HAVE ANY SAY IN THE RUNNING OF THE SOCIETY AND IS PERUSED MAJORLY FOR GIVING LOANS TO CLASS A MEMBERS. HENCE, THERE IS NO MUTUAL ITY BETWEEN THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WHERE THE CLASS - A MEMBERS ARE MAKING PROFIT AT THE BEHEST OF NOMINAL MEMBERS I.E. THE CLASS B,C AND 0 MEMBERS. THEREFORE, THE IDENTITY OF THE CONTRIBUTORS TO THE FUND IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE PARTICIPATORS OF THE SURPLUSES. THEREFORE WE HAVE A SCENARIO WHICH IS THE SAME AS IN THE CASE OF M/ S CITIZENS CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED. IN THIS CONTEXT, HASN'T THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF M/ S CITIZEN SERVICE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE? 9. IT IS STATUTORY THAT 20% OF DEPOSITS COLLECTED IS TO BE MAINTAINED WITH THE DISTRICT CO - OPER ATIVE BANK AS FIXED DEPOSIT IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN LIQUIDITY FOR A SOCIETY DOING BANKING ACTIVITIES AS PER KERALA CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT. HOWEVER THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE MUCH MORE THAN THE REQUIRED AMOUNT TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE FORM OF V ARIOUS DEPOSITS AND SHARES IN KOZHIKODE DISTRICT CO - OPERATIVE BANK AND OTHER CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES. HERE, THE INCOME IS GENERATED FROM A THIRD PARTY(WHERE THE' INVESTMENTS ARE MADE) AND SUBSTANTIAL SHARE OF INCOME IS GENERATED OUTSIDE THE MEMBERS. THEREFO RE THE MUTUALITY ENTITLED BETWEEN THE CONTRIBUTOR AND THE RECIPIENT IS LOST IN SUCH A CASE. IN SUCH A CASE, AS LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT, THE SOCIETY IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80P. 10. IS THE DECISION OF ID CIT(A) JUST IN LAW, WHEN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANTONY PATTUKULANGARA IN 2012(3)KHC 726 HAS HELD THAT IF THE SOCIETY HAS CEASED TO BE A PACS , IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE REGISTRAR TO ORDER ALTERATION OF CLASSIFICATION O F SOCIETY AS PACS IN THE LIGHT OF THE DEFINITION CLAUSE (OA) OF SECTION 2(V) OF THE KCS ACT? ITA NO. 446 /COCH /201 9. M/S. RAMAPURAM SCB LTD. 6 11. THE JUDICIAL RATIOS IN THE CASES OF CIT V. BANDIPUR CLUB LTD. [1997] 226 ITR 97 AND WANKANER JAIN SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIETY V. CIT [2003] 260 ITR 241(MAD.) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THERE MUST BE COMPLETE IDENTITY BETWEEN THE CONTRIBUTORS AND THE PARTICIPA TORS FOR THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY TO HOLD GOOD. 12. THE BANGALORE BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/ S BAPOOJI PATTIN SOUHARD HAS REMITTED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE OF 80 P DEDUCTION IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER OF THE APEX C OURT IN THE CASE OF M/ S CITIZEN SERVICE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY. THIS MAY ALSO BE KINDLY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. 13. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTORED. 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL. FURTHER, THE LEARNED DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE LATEST JUDGMENT OF THE LARGER BENCH OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE MAVILAYI SERVICE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD. V. CIT [ITA NO.97/2016 ORDER DATED 19 TH MARCH, 2019] . NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LARGER BENCH OF THE ITA NO. 446 /COCH /201 9. M/S. RAMAPURAM SCB LTD. 7 HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE MAVILAYI SERVICE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD. (SUPRA) HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY INTO THE FACTUAL SITUATION AS TO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY TO DETERMINE THE ELI GIBILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE I.T.ACT. IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT BOUND BY THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF KERALA CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY CLASSIFYING THE ASSESSEE - SOCIETY AS A CO - OPER ATIVE SOCIETY. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR IS SEPARATE AND ELIGIBILITY SHALL BE VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE FINDING OF THE LARGER BENCH OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT READS AS FOLLOWS: - 33. IN VIEW OF THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN CITIZEN CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY [397 ITR 1] IT CANNOT BE CONTENDED THAT, WHILE CONSIDERING THE CLAIM MADE BY AN ASSESSEE SOCIETY FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE IT ACT, AFTER THE INTRODUCTION OF SU B - SECTION (4) THEREOF, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO EXTEND THE BENEFITS AVAILABLE, MERELY LOOKING AT THE CLASS OF THE SOCIETY AS PER THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION ISSUED UNDER THE CENTRAL OR STATE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT AND THE RULES MADE THEREUNDER. ON SUCH A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE IT ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO CONDUCT AN ENQUIRY INTO THE FACTUAL SITUATION AS TO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY AND ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION WHETHER BENEFITS CAN BE EXTENDED OR NOT IN TH E LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS UNDER SUB - SECTION (4) OF SECTION 80P. 33. IN CHIRAKKAL [384 ITR 490] THE DIVISION BENCH HELD THAT THE APPELLANT SOCIETIES HAVING BEEN CLASSIFIED AS PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETIES BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER THE KCS ACT, IT HAS NECESSARILY TO BE HELD THAT THE PRINCIPAL OBJECT OF SUCH SO CIETIES IS TO UNDERTAKE AGRICULTURAL CREDIT ACTIVITIES AND TO PROVIDE LOANS AND ADVANCES FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, THE RATE OF INTEREST ON SUCH LOANS AND ADVANCES TO BE AT THE RATE TO BE FIXED BY THE REGISTRAR OF CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES UNDER THE KCS ACT A ND HAVING ITS AREA OF OPERATION CONFINED TO A VILLAGE, PANCHAYAT OR A MUNICIPALITY AND AS SUCH, THEY ARE ENTITLED FOR THE BENEFIT OF SUB - SECTION (4) OF ITA NO. 446 /COCH /201 9. M/S. RAMAPURAM SCB LTD. 8 SECTION 80P OF THE IT ACT TO EASE THEMSELVES OUT FROM THE COVERAGE OF SECTION 80P AND THAT, THE AUTHORIT IES UNDER THE IT ACT CANNOT PROBE INTO ANY ISSUES OR SUCH MATTERS RELATING TO SUCH SOCIETIES AND THAT, PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETIES REGISTERED AS SUCH UNDER THE KCS ACT AND CLASSIFIED SO, UNDER THE ACT, INCLUDING THE APPELLANTS ARE ENTITLED TO SUC H EXEMPTION. 34. IN CHIRAKKAL [384 ITR 490] THE DIVISION BENCH EXPRESSED A DIVERGENT OPINION, WITHOUT NOTICING THE LAW LAID DOWN IN ANTONY PATTUKULANGARA [2012 (3) KHC 726] AND PERINTHALMANNA [363 ITR 268]. MOREOVER, THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE DIVISION BEN CH IN CHIRAKKAL [384 ITR 490] IS NOT GOOD LAW, SINCE, IN VIEW OF THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN CITIZEN CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY [397 ITR 1], ON A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, BY REASON OF SUB - SECTION (4) THEREOF, THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS TO CONDUCT AN ENQUIRY INTO THE FACTUAL SITUATION AS TO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY AND ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION WHETHER BENEFITS CAN BE EXTENDED OR NOT IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS UNDER SUB - SECTION (4) OF SECTION 80P OF THE IT ACT. IN VIEW OF THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN CITIZEN CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY [397 ITR 1] THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE DIVISION BENCH PERINTHALMANNA [363 ITR 268] HAS TO BE AFFIRMED AND WE DO SO. 35. IN VIEW OF THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN ACE MULTI AXES SYSTEMS CASE (SUPRA), SINCE EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR IS A SEPARATE UNIT, THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE IS IN NO MANNER DEFEATED BY NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE IT ACT, BY REASON OF SUB - SECTION (4) THEREOF, IF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY CEASES TO BE THE SPECIFIED CLASS OF SOCIETIES FOR WHICH THE DEDUCTION IS PROVIDED, EVEN IF IT WAS ELIGIBLE IN THE INITIAL YEARS. 7.1 IN VIEW OF THE DICTUM LAID DOWN BY THE FULL BENCH OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, THE ISSUE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A )(I) IS RESTORED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL EXAMINE THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE AND DETERMINE WHETHER THE ACTIVITIES ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ACTIVITIES OF A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY FUNCTIONING UNDER THE KERALA CO - OPERATIVE SOC IETIES ACT, 1969 AND GRANT DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2) IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO. 446 /COCH /201 9. M/S. RAMAPURAM SCB LTD. 9 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 0 7 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 . SD/ - SD/ - ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) ( GEORGE GEORGE K. ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER COCHIN ; DATED : 07 TH AUGUST, 2019 . DEVDAS* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, COCHIN 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) KOZHIKODE . 4. THE PR.CIT KOZHIKODE . 5. DR, ITAT, COCHIN 6 . GUARD FILE.