ACIT, Trivandrum V. Somatheeram Ayurvedic Hospital & Yoga Centre P.Ltd, Trivandrum

ITA 448/COCH/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 69046 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 03-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LATHA V KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: K I JOHN
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Difference of opinion; Assessment record; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3); 147; 148; 154; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JM AND B.R.BASKARA N, AM I.T.A. NO. 448/COCH/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CIRCLE-1(1), TRIVANDRUM. VS. SOMATHEERAM AYURVEDIC HOSPITAL & YOGA CENTRE PVT. LTD., CHOWARA P.O., BALARAMAPURAM, TRIVANDRUM. [PAN:AAECS 5973K] (REVENUE-APPELLANT) (ASSESSEE- RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY SMT. LATHA V. KUMAR, JR. DR ASSESSEE BY SHRI K.I. JOHN, CA DATE OF HEARING 03/10/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22/11/2013 O R D E R PER B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 04-04-2013 PASSED BY LD CIT(A), TRIVANDRUM AND IT RELATES TO THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT, HAVING BEEN HELD BY LD CIT(A) AS INVALI D, THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS BARR ED BY LIMITATION BY ONE DAY. THE REVENUE HAS FILED A PETITION REQUESTING THE BENCH T O CONDONE THE DELAY. WE HEARD THE PARTIES ON THIS PRELIMINARY ISSUE. HAVING REGARD TO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE PETITION, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING. 2. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERAT ION ARE STATED IN BRIEF. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION ON 23.12.2004. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 22.12.2006. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 27 .3.2009 AND THE REOPENED ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 15.12.2009. AT THE TIME OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE SOUG HT THE REASONS FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. IT APPEARS THAT THE AO COMPLETED THE A SSESSMENT WITHOUT FURNISHING THE REASONS. HENCE THE ASSESSEE FILED A WRIT PETITION CHALLENGING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEFORE I.T.A. NO. 448/COCH/2013 2 THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA WITH THE PLEA THAT THE AO HAS PASSED THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURES PRESCRIBED B Y THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GKN DRIVE SHAFTS VS. ITO (259 ITR 19). THE HON BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THIS ISSUE MAY URGED BEFORE LD CIT(A), SINCE THE MATTER REQUIRES V ERIFICATION OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD. 3. IN THE CASE OF GKN DRIVE SHAFTS (INDIA) LTD, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS LAID DOWN THE PROCEDURE AS UNDER:- WHEN A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX A CT 1961 IS ISSUED, THE PROPER COURSE OF ACTION FOR THE NOTICEE IS TO FILE THE RET URN AND, IF HE SO DESIRES, TO SEEK REASONS FOR ISSUING THE NOTICES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOUND TO FURNISH REASONS WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME. ON RECEIPT OF THE REASONS, THE NO TICEE IS ENTITLED TO FILE OBJECTION TO ISSUANCE OF NOTICE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOU ND TO DISPOSE OF THE SAME BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE LD CI T(A) AND THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY EXAMINED THE ASSESSMENT RECORD AND ALSO HEARD BOTH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSEE. THE LD CIT(A) NOTICED THAT THERE IS NOTHING ON RECO RD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SUPPLIED THE REASONS FOR RE-OPENING THE ASSESSMENT. THE LD CIT(A) ALSO NOTICED THAT THE RECORD ALSO DID NOT CONTAIN ANY OBJECTION LETTER FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE LD CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD ISSUED A NO TICE U/S 154 OF THE ACT FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY MAKING DISALLOWANCES U/S 40(A)(I) AND SEC. 40A(3) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, HE DROPPED THE SAID PROCEEDINGS AND THEREA FTER REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE VERY SAME REASON. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE LD CIT(A) THAT THE AO IS DEBARRED FROM REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT ON THE VERY SAME GROUND FOR WHICH RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED AND IN THIS REGARD, IT PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD VS. ACIT (322 ITR 369). THE LD CIT(A), VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 31.8.2010, QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- HENCE IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON THE PART OF THE AO SHOULD HAVE BEEN TO FIRST SUPPLY THE REASONS TO THE NOTICEE AGA INST WHOM THE PROCEEDINGS WERE PRPOSED TO HAVE BEEN INITIATED AS PER THE VERDICT O F THE APEX COURT AS QUOTED ABOVE. SINCE AO HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE SAME THE ASSESSE E WINS ON THIS GROUND. SINCE THE LD CIT(A) HAD QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS ON LEGAL GROUND, HE DID NOT DECIDE THE ISSUES URGED ON MERITS OF ADDITIONS. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE DEPARTMENT DID NOT FILE ANY APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL CHALLEN GING THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A). I.T.A. NO. 448/COCH/2013 3 4. THEREAFTER, THE AO AGAIN RE-OPENED THE ASSES SMENT BY ISSUING A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 23.3.2011. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT FOUR YEARS HAD ELAPSED BY THE TIME, THE SECOND REOPENING WAS MADE. THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.11.2011 ARE EXTRACTED BELOW:- 2. HOWEVER, THERE WAS A FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH A TRUE AND FULL DISCLOSURE OF INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME OR STA TEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME AS REQUIRED IN THE INCOME TAX ACT AND TAXABLE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO INCOME TAX. THERE IS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED A SSESSMENT. HENCE, AFTER RECORDING REASONS FOR THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME, THE ASSESSMEN T WAS ONCE AGAIN REOPENED U/S 147 BY ISSUING A NOTICE U/S 148 ON 23.3.2011. ON T HE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE THE REASON FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT WERE COMMUNICAT ED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 18-08-2011. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OBJECTED TO THE R EOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. SUBSEQUENTLY A NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS SERVED ON 27-0 9-2011. IN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESS EE SHRI RAJU THOMAS, FCA APPEARED ON VARIOUS DATES MENTIONED ABOVE AND THE CASE WAS H EARD.. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THE AO HAD REOPENED THE ASS ESSMENTS ON BOTH THE OCCASIONS ONLY TO MAKE DISALLOWANCES U/S 40(A)(I) AND U/S 40A(3) OF T HE ACT. 5. BEFORE LD CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED TH E VALIDITY OF REOPENING ON MORE THAN ONE REASONS. THE LD CIT(A) AGAIN QUASHED THE REASS ESSMENT PROCEEDING. HENCE, THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CARE FULLY PERUSED THE RECORD. THE UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 3 1.8.2010 PASSED BY LD CIT(A), WHEREIN HE HAD QUASHED THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT ON THE GROU ND THAT THE AO DID NOT FURNISH THE REASONS OF REOPENING TO THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF TH E DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GKN DRIVE SHAFTS (INDIA) LTD (SUPRA) HA S BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT, SINCE THE REVENUE DID NOT FILE APPEAL BEFORE THE TR IBUNAL. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS ONLY PRESCRIBED THE PROCE DURES TO BE FOLLOWED, IF THE ASSESSEE PREFERS TO OBJECT TO THE REOPENING. NOWHERE, THE H ONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING OR THE RELEVA NT ASSESSMENT ORDER IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED IF THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN BY IT WAS NOT FO LLOWED. THOUGH THE LD CIT(A) HAS QUASHED THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR NOT FOLLOW ING THE PROCEDURES PRESCRIBED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, YET WE NOTICE THAT THE DEPAR TMENT HAS ACCEPTED THE SAID ORDER BY NOT PREFERRING APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL AND HENCE THE MATTER HAS REACHED FINALITY AT THAT STAGE. I.T.A. NO. 448/COCH/2013 4 7. THE AO HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE SECOND TIME BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 ON 23.03.2011. THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT YEAR BEING 2 004-05, WE MAY NOTICE THAT THE SAID NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS F ROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WA S COMPLETED ON 22.12.2006 U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. HENCE, THE FIRST PROVISO TO SEC. 147 OF T HE ACT, WHICH READS AS UNDER, IS REQUIRED TO BE SATISFIED BY THE AO FOR INITIATING THE REASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS:- PROVIDED THAT WHERE AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SUB-SECTIO N (3) OF SECTION 143 OR THIS SECTION HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, NO ACTION SHALL BE TAKEN UNDER THIS SECTION AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNLESS ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASS ESSMENT FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR BY REASON OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSE E TO MAKE A RETURN UNDER SECTION 139 OR IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTI ON (1) OF SECTION 142 OR SECTION 148 OR TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECE SSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT , FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THUS, THE AO HAS TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSME NT, IF HE WANTS TO TAKE ACTION FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YE ARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, IF THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT OF THE S AID YEAR WAS COMPLETED EITHER U/S 143(3) OF SEC. 147 OF THE ACT. 8. WE NOTICE THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A CLE AR FINDING THAT THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. FOR THE S AKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE EXTRACT BELOW THE OBSERVATIONS MADE AND THE DECISION TAKEN BY LD CIT( A) ON THIS ISSUE:- 10.0 IT IS SEEN FROM THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLAN T THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN CHALLENGED ON LEGAL GROUNDS I.E. T HE VALIDITY OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 HAS BEEN QUESTIONED AS WELL AS THE APPELLANT HA S ASSAILED IT ON MERITS. THE APPELLANT HAS REIED UPON A NUMBER OF JUDGMENTS OF H ONBLE COURTS IN ITS SUPPORT. THE MAIN ARGUMENTS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT AGAINST T HE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 ARE AS UNDER: I) THE CASE WAS REOPENED AFTER FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS NOTIC E U/S. 148 ISSUED HAS NOT MADE ANY ALLEGATION THAT THERE WAS A FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO DISCLOSE THE MATERIAL FACTS RELEVANT FOR ITS ASSESS MENT FULLY AND TRULY AND THEREFORE, THE REASONS RECORDED ALSO LACK THE SAID ALLEGATIONS. II) THE ORDER DATED 31.8.2010 OF THE CIT(A) HAD BEC OME FINAL AND SINCE NO APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE SAID ORDER BY WHICH REASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ANNU LLED, NO NOTICE U/S. 148 COULD BE ISSUED SUBSEQUENTLY. III) THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/ S. 154 EARLIER AND THEN AFTER DROPPING THEM, ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148. THE CIT(A) I N HIS ORDER DATED 31.8.2010 I.T.A. NO. 448/COCH/2013 5 HAS HELD THAT THE NOTICE U/S. 148 ISSUED AFTER DROP PING OF RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS WAS INVALID AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED, T HEREFORE, THE NOTICE U/S. 148 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT ON 23.3.2011 WAS ALSO LEGAL LY NOT SUSTAINABLE. 1V) THE APPELLANT FILED OBJECTIONS AGAINST REOPENIN G OF ASSESSMENT ON 25.8.2011 AND WITHOUT PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER ON T HE SAID OBJECTIONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IS NOT VALID IN LAW. V) ALL THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FOR COMPLETION OF ASSE SSMENT WAS DISCLOSED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO DISCLOSE THE SAME. THE CASE IS THAT OF CHANGE OF OPINION WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW. 10.1 COMING TO THE FIRST OBJECTION THAT IN THE REAS ONS RECORDED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO ALLEGE THAT THERE WAS FAILURE TO DISC LOSE MATERIAL FACTS ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT, THE ASSESSMENT RECORD OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER WAS EXAMINED ALONG WITH THE AO. IT IS SEEN FROM THE LETTER DATED 18.8.2011 REGARDING COMMUNICATION OF THE REASONS RECORDED TO THE APPELLANT, THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS MENTIONED THAT BY FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH A TR UE AND FULL DISCLOSURE OF INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME OR STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME A S REQUIRED IN THE INCOME TAX ACT, TAXABLE INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.55,01,896 HAS ES CAPED ASSESSMENT. HOWEVER, IT IS SEEN FROM THE FORM FOR RECORDING REASONS FOR INITIA TING PROCEEDINGS U/S. 148 AND FOR OBTAINING THE APPROVAL OF THE CIT, TVM, THE AO HAS GIVEN THE UNDER MENTIONED REASONS: REASONS FOR THE BELIEF THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASS ESSMENT: AS PER FORM 3CD, THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID RS.16,89,440 /- IN CASH. 20% OF THE SAME WAS BE DISALLOWED U/S. 40A(3) BUT ONLY RS.4282 8 WAS DISALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S. 143(3). BALANCE RS.295060 /- IS ALSO TO BE DISALLOWED. AGAIN THE FOLLOWING PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE T O NON RESIDENTS OUTSIDE INDIA ARE MADE WITHOUT DEDUCTION TDS. HENCE ARE TO B E DISALLOWED U/S. 409A)(IA): RS.36,61,541/- RS. 5,56,370/- RS. 48,975/- RS. 9,40,050/- 10.2 FURTHER, IT IS SEEN FROM THE ORDER SHEET THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED UNDER MENTIONED REASONS VIDE ORDER SHEET E NTRY DATED 17.3.2011 (SIGNED ON 18.3.2011) 17.3.2011 THE A HAS PAID RS.16,89,440 IN CASH, 2 0% OF THE SAME WAS TO BE DISALLOWED U/S. 40A(3) BUT ONLY RS.42,828/- WAS DISALLOWED. THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE A TO NRIS ARE M ADE WITHOUT DEDUCTING TDS IN THE FOLLOWING PAY MENTS WHICH ARE TO BE DISALLOWED U/S. 40A(I): I.T.A. NO. 448/COCH/2013 6 BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES RS.36,61 ,541/- PAYMENT MADE TO BIJU GEORGE RS. 5,56 ,270/- AND RS. 48, 975/- PAYMENT MADE TO SAVY MATHEW RS. 9,40, 050/- APPROVAL FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 14 8 SUBMITTED TO CIT. SD/- AO 18.3.2011 10.3 IT IS, THEREFORE, SEEN THAT NOWHERE IN THE RE ASONS RECORDED, IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IS ON ACCO UNT OF FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FULLY AND TRULY DISCLOSE ALL MAT ERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO AS RECO RDED VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DT. 4.4.2013, AGREED DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS T HAT THE REASONS RECORDED DO NOT CONTAIN THE SAID ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE ASSESS EE. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IS A.Y. 2004-05 AND IMPUGN ED NOTICE U/S. 148 WAS ISSUE ON 23.3.2011 I.E. AFTER EXPIRY OF ABOUT 4 YEA RS FROM THE END OF THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR. THEREFORE, PROVISO TO SEC. 147 IS APPLICABLE WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. TH E RELIANCE PLACED BY THE APPELLANT ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF SOUND CASTING PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT AND TITANOR COMPON ENTS LTD. VS. ACIT (SUPRA) ARE FULLY APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT A ND ONLY ON THIS GROUND, THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 148 IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF L D CIT(A) EXTRACTED ABOVE, WE NOTICE THAT THE AO HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THERE WAS FAILU RE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FO R ASSESSMENT. ACCORDINGLY, IN OUR VIEW, THE LD CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 9. THOUGH THE LD CIT(A) HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THE O THER CONTENTIONS URGED BY THE ASSESSEE AND QUASHED THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT, W E DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO ADDRESS THEM IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION GIVEN IN THE EARLIER P ARAGRAPHS. THE LD CIT(A) DID NOT ADJUDICATE THE GROUNDS URGED BEFORE HIM BY THE ASSE SSEE ON MERITS OF ADDITION. BEFORE US, THE REVENUE HAS ALSO RAISED GROUNDS ON MERITS. WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE THEM, SINCE THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT ITSELF HAS BEEN QUASHED. I.T.A. NO. 448/COCH/2013 7 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVE NUE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY ON 22-11- 2013 SD/- S D/- (N.R.S.GANESAN) (B.R.BA SKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER PLACE: KOCHI DATED: 22ND NOVEMBER, 2013 GJ COPY TO: 1. SOMATHEERAM AYURVEDIC HOSPITAL & YOGA CENTRE PVT . LTD., CHOWARA P.O., BALARAMAPURAM, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), TRIVAND RUM. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TRIVANDRUM. 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) ITAT, COCHIN