Skyline Builders, Cochin V. The DCIT, Cochin

ITA 500/COCH/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90774 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 05-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: A S NARAYANAMOORTHY
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 80IB; 263

Judgement Text

ITA NOS. 500 & 501/COCH/2014 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI V DURGA RAO, JM & B. R. BASKARAN, AM ITA NO S . 5 00 & 501 /COCH/2014 (ASST YEAR S 200 5 - 06 & 2007 - 08 ) SKYLINE BUILDERS RAJAJI ROAD ERNAKULAM VS THE DY COMMR OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(2), ERNAKULAM ( APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AAMFS8117N ASSESSEE BY SHRI A S NARAYANAMOORTHY REVENUE BY SHRI K K JOHN, SR DR/ SHRI M ANIL KUMAR, CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING 5 TH MAY 201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 8 TH , MAY 2015 ORDER PER B.R. BASKARAN , AM: THE SE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDER S , BOTH DATED 9 TH SEPT 2014 , PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A) - II, KO CHI AND THEY RELATE TO THE AYS 2005 - 06 & 2007 - 08 RESPECTIVELY. SINCE ONE OF THE ISSUES CONTESTED IN THESE APP EALS IS IDENTICAL IN NATURE IN BOTH THESE APPEALS; THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2 THE ASSESSEE IS A BUILDER. THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE AY 2005 - 06 WAS EARLIER COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W.S 153A OF THE ACT CONSE QUENT TO THE SEARCH CONDUCTED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SET ASIDE BY THE CIT UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENT THERETO , THE ITA NOS. 500 & 501/COCH/2014 2 PRESENT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE AO TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. 2.1 BEFORE THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FILED AUDIT REPORT AS REQUIRED U/S 80IB OF THE ACT THROUGH A LETTER. THE AO TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE FILED THE AUDIT REPORT ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME ORIGINALLY FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153A OF THE ACT . THE AO FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB IN RESPECT OF THE PROJECTS NAMED TULIP AND MARIGOLD; BUT THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT PREPARED IN RESPECT OF THOSE PROJECTS WAS SHOWING LOSS. FURTHER, THE AO ALSO TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS EXECUTING THE WORK ON CONTRACT BASIS FOR ITS CLIENTS AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE IS HIT BY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 80IA(13) OF THE ACT . FOR THE ABOVE SAID CUMULATIVE REASONS, THE AO REJ ECTED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB. 2.2 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF PROJECTS NAMED MELROSE AND MARIGOLD. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO.10CCB ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. FURTHER THERE WAS DIFFERENCE IN THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION ORIGINALLY CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND SUBSEQUENTLY CLAIMED IN THE LETTER FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUC TION OF RS.39,61,051/ - IN THE LETTER AS AGAINST THE ORIGINAL CLAIM OF RS.13,23,278/ - , THE AO TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITIONAL CLAIM COULD BE MADE BY FILING REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ONLY AND IN THIS REGARD, THE AO PLACED HIS ITA NOS. 500 & 501/COCH/2014 3 RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HON BLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF GOETZE INDIA LTD VS. CIT (2006)(204 CTR (SC) 182). ACCORDINGLY, THE AO REJECTED THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT IN AY 2007 - 08 ALSO. 2.3 THE LD CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO ON THIS ISSU E IN BOTH THE YEARS. 3. WE HEARD THE PARTIES ON THIS ISSUE. IT IS WELL SETTLED PROPOSITION THAT THE FILING OF AUDIT REPORT IS ONLY PROCEDURAL IN NATURE AND HENCE THE DEFICIENCY IN THAT REGARD COULD BE MADE GOOD AT ANY POINT OF TIME. WITH REGARD TO THIS PROPOSITION, THE LD A.R PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAW: - CIT VS. MALAYALAM PLANTATIONS LTD (103 ITR 835)(KER) CIT VS. G.KRISHNAN NAIR (259 ITR 727)(KER) ITO VS. SEEYAN PLY WOODS (238 ITR 395)(KER). WE MAY ALSO REFER TO THE DECISION OF HO NBLE S UPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NAGPUR HOTEL OWNERS ASSOCIATION (209 ITR 441). IN THE INSTANT CASES, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE AUDIT REPORT BEFORE THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HENCE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE AUDIT REPORTS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD CIT(A) WAS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE AO IN THIS REGARD. 3.1 WITH REGARD TO THE ENHANCEMENT OF CLAIM MADE U/S 80I B(10), WE HAVE NOTICED EARLIER THAT THE AO REJECTED THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE FILED REVISED RETURN FOR MAKING ENHANCED CLAIM. IN THIS REGARD, THE ITA NOS. 500 & 501/COCH/2014 4 AO HAD PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN TH E CASE OF GOETZE INDIA LTD (SUPRA) . HOWEVER, IN THE ABOVE SAID CASE, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT ITS DECISION WILL NOT IMPINGE THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL TO ENTERTAIN ADDITIONAL CLAIMS. 3.2 WITH REGARD TO THE COMMENT OF THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE IS EXECUTING THE WORK ON CONTRACT BASIS AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE WA S ONLY A CONTRACTOR AND NOT DEVELOPER , THE LD AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 24.09.2014 RENDERED IN THE CASE OF DESAI HOMES IN ITA NO. 29/COCH/2014 , WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: 12. IN THE CASE BEFORE US ALSO, THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF UNDIVIDED LAND AND ALSO AGREED TO CONSTRUCT THE FLAT ON BEHALF OF THE PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER. IT HAS TO BE NECESSARILY KEPT IN MIND THAT PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER OF A FLAT HAS NO CHOICE OF GIVING THE WORK TO ANY OTHER BUILDER. THEREFORE, WHEN THE PURCHASER PURCHASES THE UNDIVIDED SHARE OF AND HE HAS TO NECESSARILY AGREE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDI NG BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE BUILDING PLAN SANCTIONED BY RESPECTIVE LOCAL AUTHORITY. THEREFORE, WHEN WE LOOK INTO THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION AS SUCH IT IS A DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING PROJECT BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF AND NO ONE AWARDED ANY WORK TO THE ASSESSEE. MER ELY BECAUSE, THERE IS AN ENABLING CLAUSE IN THE PARTNERSHIP DEED TO DO THE WORKS CONTRACT, THAT CANNOT BE A REASON TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE UNDERTOOK WORKS CONTRACT. ON THE 11 ITA NO.29/COCH/2014 FACTS OF THIS CASE AND THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS ENTER ED INTO BY THE ASSESEE CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE EXECUTED THE HOUSING PROJECT AS A DEVELOPER. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT A CASE OF WORKS CONTRACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U /S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 3.3 THE LD AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KERALA BUILDERS FORUM VS STATE OF KERALA (WP( C) NO.17794 OF 2007 DATED 28 TH AUG 2009 HAS HELD THAT THE BUILDERS ARE BUILDING AND SELLING FLATS TO ITA NOS. 500 & 501/COCH/2014 5 THE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS AND SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED IN INSTALMENTS . UNDER THESE SET OF FACTS, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE AGREEMENTS ARE MADE TO APPEAR THE TRANSACTION TO BE ONE OF WORKS CONTRACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HE LD THAT THE BUILDERS ARE NOT ACTING AS WORK CONTRACTORS. THE LD AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXECUTED 132 PROJECTS TILL DATE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKE N FULL RESPONSIBILITY RIGHT FROM THE DATE OF SELECTION OF LAND , CONSTRUCTION OF FLATS AND T O THE DATE OF HANDING OVER THE POSSESSION OF THE FLATS TO THE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS. HE SUBMITTED THAT A WORK CONTRACTOR WOULD NOT TAKE SUCH KIND OF RISK AND RESPONSIBILITIES. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY A DEVELOPER AND HENCE IT IS E LIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 3.4 ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT PLACE RELIANCE ON THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH SINCE THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON THAT CASE WAS VERY C LEAR NAMELY THE ASSESSEE WAS THE OWNER OF THE LAND; THE PROJECT WAS CONCEIVED AND EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE FLATS WERE SOLD TO THE INDIVIDUAL PROSPECTIVE BUYERS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE NOT CLEAR IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE LD DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS BEEN SHOWING CONTRACT RECEIPTS ONLY IN THE P&L ACCOUNT AND HENCE, THE LD CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE ASSESSEE AS WORK CONTRACTOR. 3.5 IN THE REJOINDER, THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS BEEN FOLLOWING PERCENTAGE COMPLETION ME THOD FOR DECLARING ITS INCOME FROM OUT OF THE ITA NOS. 500 & 501/COCH/2014 6 PROJECTS AND HENCE, IT HAD GIVEN NOMENCLATURE OF CONTRACT RECEIPTS IN RESPECT OF INCOMPLETE PROJECTS. THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE NOMENCLATURE CANNOT DECIDE THE NATURE OF RECEIPTS . 4 HAVING HEARD THE RIV AL CONTENTION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE DEDUCTION U/S 80 - IB (10) REQUIRES FRESH EXAMINATION AT THE END OF THE AO BY DULY EXAMINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THE PARITY OF FACTS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S DESAI HO MES. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO TAKEN SUPPORT O N THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KERALA BUILDERS FORUM (SUPRA). WITH REGARD TO THE DISCLOSING INCOME AS CONTRACT RECEIPTS, THE LD A.R HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME REPRESENTS PART OF SALE CONSIDERATION ONLY. THESE FACTS ALSO REQUIRE VERIFICATION, SINCE WE NOTICE THAT THE TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT EXAMINED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. ACCORDINGLY , WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISS UE IN BOTH THE YEARS AND DIRECT THE AO TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB (10) IN BOTH THE YEARS BY DULY CONSIDERING THE AUDIT REPORT S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE . WITH REGARD TO THE OTHER ISSUES RELATED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) ALSO, THE AO SHOULD EXA MINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY TAKE APPROPRIATE DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. ITA NOS. 500 & 501/COCH/2014 7 5 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ONE MORE ISSUES IN THE APPEAL FILED FOR AY 2007 - 08 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARIS ING ON SALE OF LAND AS BUSINESS INCOME. 5.1 THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A LAND IN KUMBALAM AREA IN THE YEAR 1994. IT HAS TREATED THE SAME AS A TRADING ASSET TILL 2004. HOWEVER, SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT COMMENCE THE PROJECT IN THE ABOVE SAID LAND DUE TO COSTAL REGULATION ZONE (CRZ) PROVISIONS, THE ASSESSEE CONVERTED THE ABOVE SAID LAND INTO CAPITAL ASSET IN APRIL 2004. SUBSEQUENTLY, IN A PRIL 2006, THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE LAND AND DECLARED THE PROFITS AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN . THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE WAS THAT IT WAS HOLDING THE LAND SINCE 1994 AND HENCE THE GAIN ARISING ON ITS SALE SHALL BE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. HOWEVER, THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONVERT ED THE TRADING ASSET INTO CAPITAL ASSET ONLY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE PROVISIONS OF INDEXATION AVAILABLE W H ILE COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSED THE GAIN ARISING ON SALE OF LAND AS BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAME. 5.2 THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSTRAINED TO CONVERT THE TRADING ASSET , REFERRED ABOVE, INTO CAPITAL ASSET DUE TO CRZ REGULATIONS AND HENCE THE TAX AUTHORITIES ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE SAID CONVERSION WAS A PLOY ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO AVAIL THE BENEFITS OF INDEXATION AVAILABLE TO LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. WITH REGARD TO THE INDEXATION, THE LD AR ITA NOS. 500 & 501/COCH/2014 8 SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HOLDING THE ASSET SINCE 1994 AND HENCE, IT IS ENTITLED FOR INDEXATION FROM THAT DATE. 5.3 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD D R PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 6 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE CONVERTED THE TRADING ASSET , BEING A LAND LO CATED IN KUMBALAM AREA, INTO A CAPITAL ASSET , SINCE THE KUMBALAM LAND F E LL IN THE NOTIFIED AREA UNDER CRZ REGULATIONS. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE G OVERNMENT COULD NOT GIVE PERMISSION TO DEVELOP TH E ABOVE SAID LAND IN TO RESIDENTIAL FLATS, SINCE CRZ R EGULATIONS PROHIBITED SUCH KIND OF ACTIVITY . IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY POSSIBILITY TO DEVELOP A HOUSING PROJECT ON THE KUMBALAM LAND, THE ASSESSEE HAS DECIDED TO CONVERT THE SAME INTO A CAPITAL ASSET . WE FIND THE ABOVE SAID EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE A REASONABLE ONE. 6.1 WE NOTICE THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS TAKEN THE VIEW THAT SUCH KIND OF CONVERSION WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER ANY PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. WE ARE NOT ABLE TO AGREE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD CIT(A). IN OUR VIEW, THE INCOME TAX ACT IS NOT CONCERNED WITH THE COMMERCIAL DECISION TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEES. ON THE CONTRARY, THE PROVISIONS OF SUB SEC. (2) OF SEC. 45, VISUALIZES CONVERSION OF A CAPITAL ASSET INTO A TRADING ASSET, M EANING THEREBY , THERE IS NO SPECIFIC ITA NOS. 500 & 501/COCH/2014 9 PROHIBIT ION UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR SUCH KIND OF CONVERSION. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS VERY MUCH ENTITLED TO CONVERT A TRADING ASSET INTO CAPITAL ASSET FOR A VALID REASON. 6. 2 IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT IT WAS CONSTRAINED TO CONVERT THE TRADING ASSET INTO CAPITAL ASSET DUE TO CRZ REGULATIONS. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD CANNOT BE HELD TO BE UNJUSTIFIED. 6.3 WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS CONVERTED THE TRADING ASSET IN APRIL 2004 AND SOLD IT IN APRIL 2006. THUS, THE LAND IN THE FORM OF CAPITAL ASSET WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY FOR TWO YEARS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING GAIN ARISING ON THE SALE OF LAND AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND FURTHER, CLAIMING INDEXA TION BENEFIT FROM THE YEAR 1994. 6. 4 THE TERM CAPITAL ASSET IS DEFINED U/S 2 ( 14 ) OF THE ACT. THE EXPRESSION LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSET IS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 2(29A) OF THE ACT AS UNDER: - LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSET MEANS A CAPITAL ASSET WHICH IS NOT A S HORT TERM CAPITAL ASSET; THE EXPRESSION SHORT TERM CAPITAL ASSET IS DEFINED U/S 2(42A) OF THE ACT AS UNDER: SHORT TERM CAPITAL ASSET MEANS A CAPITAL ASS E T HELD BY AN ASSESSEE FOR NOT MORE THAN THIRTY SIX MONTHS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE DATE OF ITS T RANSFER. ITA NOS. 500 & 501/COCH/2014 10 6. 5 A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE SAID DEFINITIONS WOULD SHOW THAT THE PERIOD OF HOLDING OF A CAPITAL ASSET DETERMINES THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE SAME INTO EITHER LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSET OR SHORT TERM CAPITAL ASSET, I.E., THE ASSET SHOULD HAVE BEEN HE LD AS CAPITAL ASSET. 6. 6 IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS HOLDING THE KUMBALAM LAND AS CAPITAL ASSET ONLY FROM APRIL 2004. ACCORDINGLY , IN OUR VIEW , THE ASSESSEE HAS HELD THE KUMBALAM LAND AS A CAPITAL ASSET FROM APRIL 2004 TO APRIL 2006 AND HENCE , THE GAIN ARISING ON THE SALE OF THE SAME IS ASSESSABLE AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN . 7 IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DIRECT THE AO TO ASSESS THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING ON THE SALE OF KUMBAL AM LAND AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 8 IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE TREATED AS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 8 TH , DAY OF MAY 2015 . SD/ - SD/ - ( V DURGA RAO ) (B.R. BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER COCHIN: DATED 8 TH , MAY 2015 RAJ* ITA NOS. 500 & 501/COCH/2014 11 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT M/S SKYLINE BUILDERS RAJAJI R OAD, ERNAKULAM 2. RESPONDENT THE DYCOMR OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 (2), ERANAKULAM 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT, - KOCHI 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, COCHIN