Sri.P.V. P.V.Chandran, Calicut V. The DCIT, Calicut

ITA 521/COCH/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7550 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 06-11-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: T M SREEDHARAN
• Keywords: Recovery proceedings; Application of stay; Right to appeal

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH C OCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI B.P. JAIN, AM AND GEORGE GEOR GE K., JM I.T.A. NOS.515/COCH/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 M/S. KERALA TRANSPORT CO., YMCA ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001. [PAN: AADFK 0173H]. VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), KOZHIKODE. (ASSESSEE -APPELLANT) (REVENUE-RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NOS.516-518/COCH/2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06, 2007-08 & 2008-09 P.V. GANGADHARAN, M/S. KERALA TRANSPORT CO., YMCA ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001. [PAN : ADHPG 8318B] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), KOZHIKODE. (ASSESSEE -APPELLANT) (REVENUE-RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NOS.519-521/COCH/2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06, 2007-08 & 2008-09 P.V. CHANDRAN M/S. KERALA TRANSPORT CO., YMCA ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001. [PAN:ACEPC 5244J]. VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), KOZHIKODE. (ASSESSEE -APPELLANT) (REVENUE-RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI T.M. SREEDHARAN, SR. ADV. REVENUE BY SHRI ASHOK KUMAR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 06/01/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22/01/2016 I.T.A. NOS.515-521/COCH/2015 2 O R D E R PER BENCH: THESE SEVEN APPEALS OF THREE DIFFERENT ASSESSE ES ARISE FROM THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A), KOZHIKODE FOR D IFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER: SL. NO. I.T.A. NO. NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AY CIT(A) DATE OF ORDER 1. 515/COCH/ 2015 KERALA TRANSPORT CORPORATION 2009- 10 CIT(A), KOZHIKO DE 06/10 /2015 2. 516/COCH/ 2015 P.V. GANGADHARAN 2005- 06 -DO- -DO- 3. 517/COCH/ 2015 P.V. GANGADHARAN 2007- 08 -DO- -DO- 4. 518/COCH/ 2015 P.V. GANGADHARAN 2008- 09 -DO- -DO- 5. 519/COCH/ 2015 P.V. CHANDRAN 2005- 06 -DO- 05/10 /2015 6. 520/COCH/ 2015 P.V. CHANDRAN 2007- 08 -DO- 05/10 /2015 7. 521/COCH/ 2015 P.V. CHANDRAN 2008- 09 -DO- 05/10 /2015 2. SINCE THE MATTER IN ALL THE APPEALS ARE IDENTI CAL AND THEREFORE, ALL THE APPEALS ARE BEING TAKEN UP BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORD ER. 3. FIRST OF ALL WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL IN THE CASE OF KERALA TRANSPORT CORPORATION IN I.T.A. NO. 515/COCH/2015 AND OUR ORD ER HEREINABOVE SHALL BE I.T.A. NOS.515-521/COCH/2015 3 IDENTICALLY APPLICABLE IN ALL THE OTHER APPEALS IN THE CASE OF THE OTHER TWO ASSESSEES. KERALA TRANSPORT CORPORATION IN I.T.A. NO 515/COCH/ 2015 : AY 2009-10 4. THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF GOODS CARRIAGE. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2009-10 DECLARING A LOSS OF RS.1,39,11,411 ON 30/09/2009. T HE TOTAL INCOME ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER DATED 23/03/2015 WAS RS.28,15,81,840/-. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE SAME BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) KOZHIKODE ON 23/04/2015 AND THE APPEAL IS PENDING A DJUDICATION. 5. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPLICATION FOR STAY OF RECOVERY OF THE DEMAND BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND ON 06/10/2015, THE SAME W AS DISPOSED OFF BY STAYING 75% OF THE TOTAL DEMAND SUBJECT TO THE PAYM ENT OF THE BALANCE DEMAND OF 25% IN TWELVE EQUAL MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS. THE FIRST INSTALLMENT OF RS.27,00,167/- WAS TO BE PAID ON OR BEFORE 31/10 /2015. 6. CHALLENGING THE AFORESAID ORDER DATED 06/10/20 15, DISPOSING OFF THE STAY APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: I.T.A. NOS.515-521/COCH/2015 4 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), KOZHIKODE IN I.T.A. NO. 121/R1/CIT(A)/CLT/2015-16 D ATED 06/10/2015 ON THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IS INFIRM IN LAW AND CONTRARY TO FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) ERRED IN STAYING 75% OF THE TOTAL DEMAND OF RS.12,96,08,000/- AND ALLOWING TO PAY THE BALANCE TAX OF 25%, I.E., RS.3,24,02,000/- IN 12 EQUAL MONT HLY INSTALLMENTS WITH EFFECT FROM OCTOBER, 2015. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) OUGHT TO HAVE FOUND THAT ON IDENTICAL ISSUE FOR EARLIER YEARS THE ADDITION W AS DISALLOWED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES, AND THEREFORE, HE OUGHT TO H AVE GRANTED 100% STAY OF THE DEMAND. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) OUGHT TO HAVE TAKEN UP THE APPEAL ON PRIORITY BASIS AS A SPECIFIC REQUEST WAS MADE BY THE APPELLANT FOR DOING SO. A COPY OF THE SUBMISSION DT . 05-10-2015 MADE IS ENCLOSED. 5. THE APPELLANT ALSO SUBMITS THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. INTUR I RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (I.T.A. NOS. 1766 TO 1768/DEL/201 5 A.YS. 2011-12 TO 2013-14 AND S.A. NOS.242 TO 244/DEL/2015(IN I.T. A. NOS. 1766 TO 1768/DEL/2015) (A.YS. 2011-12 TO 2013-14), AGAINST THE STAY ORDER OF THE CIT(A), AN APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. 6. FOR THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URG ED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE APPELLANT HUMBLY PRAYS THAT THE HONBL E INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN-16, MAY BE PLEASED TO DIRECT COMPLETE STAY OF COLLECTION OF THE DEMAND AND RENDE R JUSTICE TO THE APPELLANT. 7. IN THE APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS PRAYED FOR C OMPLETE STAY OF DEMAND AS AGAINST THE STAY OF 75% OF THE DEMAND GRANTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). I.T.A. NOS.515-521/COCH/2015 5 8. WE SHALL FIRST ADVERT TO THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE STAY APPLICATION COULD HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE AFORESAID QUESTIO N HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS WHEREIN I T WAS OBSERVED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) U/S. 250 OF THE ACT HAS THE POWER OF ADJ UDICATING THE STAY APPLICATION DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE APPEAL BEFOR E HIM. THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PREM PRAKASH TR IPATHI VS. CIT 208 ITR 461 HELD AS UNDER: 6. IT IS AMPLY CLEAR THAT IT IS AFTER THIS DECISIO N THAT POWER TO GRANT STAY WAS CONFERRED ON THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BY INSERTIN G RULE 35A IN THE RULES OF 1963. 7. WHEN THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS HELD TO HAVE TH E POWER TO GRANT STAY AS INCIDENTAL OR ANCILLARY TO ITS APPELLATE JU RISDICTION, WE SEE NO REASON WHY THE SAME LEGAL POSITION SHOULD NOT FOLLO W IN THE CASE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS), WHO IS ALSO AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY LIKE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. IN THIS SITU ATION, WHAT HOLDS GOOD IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL EQUALLY APPLI ES TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS). FOLLOWING THIS AUTHORITY, WE HOLD THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) MUST BE HELD TO HAVE HE POWER TO GRANT STAY, WHICH IS INCIDENTAL OR ANCILLARY TO ITS APPELLATE JURISDICTION. 8. THE PETITIONER MAY, THEREFORE, MAKE A STAY APPLI CATION BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) BEFORE WHOM THE APPEALS ARE PENDING FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 9. FURTHERMORE, THE AFORESAID LEGAL POSITION HAS BEEN SUCCINCTLY ELABORATED IN THE CASE OF MAHESHWARI AGRO MILLS VS. UNION OF I NDIA (2012) 246 CTR 113(RAJ.). I.T.A. NOS.515-521/COCH/2015 6 10. NOW COMING TO THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE AP PEAL U/S. 253 IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF STAY PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) U/S. 250 OF THE ACT, IT IS PERTINENT TO REFER TO SOME OF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF I NDIA IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. M.K. MOHAMMED KUNHI 1969 AIR 430 WHICH ARE REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW: THE RIGHT OF APPEAL IS A SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT AND THE QUESTIONS OF FACT AND LAW ARE AT LARGE AND ARE OPEN TO REVIEW BY THE APPE LLATE TRIBUNAL. INDEED THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN GIVEN VERY WIDE POWERS U/S. 254(1) FOR IT MAY PASS SUCH ORDERS AS IT THINKS FIT AFTER GIVING FULL HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL. IF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER AN D THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HAVE MADE ASSESSMENTS OR IMP OSED PENALTIES RAISING VERY LARGE DEMANDS AND IF THE APPELLATE TRI BUNAL IS ENTIRELY HELPLESS IN THE MATTER OF STAY OR RECOVERY THE ENTI RE PURPOSE OF THE APPEAL CAN BE DEFEATED IF ULTIMATELY THE ORDERS OF THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE. IT IS DIFFICULT TO CONCE IVE THAT THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD HAVE LEFT THE ENTIRE MATTER TO THE ADMINISTR ATIVE AUTHORITIES TO MAKE SUCH ORDERS AS THEY CHOOSE TO PASS IN EXERCISE OF UNFETTERED DISCRETION. SECTION 255(5) OF THE ACT DOES EMPOWER THE APPELLA TE TRIBUNAL TO REGULATE ITS OWN PROCEDURE, BUT IT IS VERY DOUBTFUL IF THE POWER TO STAY CAN BE SPELT OUT FROM THE PROVISION. IN OUR OPINION THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUST BE HELD TO HAVE THE POWER TO GRANT ST AY AS INCIDENTAL OR ANCILLARY TO ITS APPELLATE JURISDICTION. THIS IS PA RTICULARLY SO WHEN S.220(6) DEALS EXPRESSLY WITH A SITUATION WHEN AN APPEAL IS PENDING BEFORE THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BUT THE ACT IS SI LENT IN THAT BEHALF WHEN AN APPEAL IS PENDING BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIB UNAL. IT COULD WELL BE SAID THAT WHEN S.254 CONFERS APPELLATE JURISDICT ION, IT IMPLIEDLY GRANTS THE POWER OF DOING AL SUCH ACTS, OR EMPLOYING SUCH MEANS, AS ARE ESSENTIALLY NECESSARY TO ITS EXECUTION AND THAT THE STATUTORY POWER CARRIES WITH IT THE DUTY IN PROPER CASES TO MAKE SU CH ORDERS FOR STAYING PROCEEDINGS AS WILL PREVENT THE APPEAL IF SUCCESSFU L FROM BEING RENDERED NUGATORY A CERTAIN APPREHENSION MAY LEGITIMATELY AR ISE IN THE MINDS OF THE AUTHORITIES ADMINISTERING THE ACT THAT IF THE A PPELLATE TRIBUNALS I.T.A. NOS.515-521/COCH/2015 7 PROCEED TO STAY RECOVERY OF TAXES OR PENALTIES PAYA BLE BY OR IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE AS A MATTER OF COURSE THE REVENUE WILL BE PUT TO GREAT LOSS BECAUSE OF THE INORDINATE DELAY IN THE DISPOSAL OF APPEALS BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNALS. IT IS NEEDLESS TO POINT OUT TH AT THE POWER OF STAY BY THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT LIKELY TO BE EXERCISED IN A ROU TINE WAY OR AS A MATTER OF COURSE IN VIEW OF THE SPECIAL NATURE OF TAXATION AND REVENUE LAWS. IT WILT ONLY BE WHEN A STRONG PRIMA FACIE CASE IS MA DE OUT THAT THE TRIBUNAL WILL CONSIDER WHETHER TO STAY THE RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS AND ON WHAT CONDITIONS AND THE STAY WILL BE GRANTED IN MOS T DESERVING AND APPROPRIATE CASES WHERE THE TRIBUNAL IS SATISFIED T HAT THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF THE APPEAL WILL BE FRUSTRATED OR RENDERED NUGATO RY BY ALLOWING THE RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS TO CONTINUE DURING THE PENDENC Y OF THE APPEAL. 11. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE AFORESAID C ASE SPELT OUT THE POWERS OF THE ITAT AS AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY OVER T HE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AS WELL AS VARIOUS OTHER PRECEDENTS, ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION V S. ADDL. CIT (TDS), GHAZIABAD IN I.T.A. NOS. 1766 TO 1768/DEL/2015 AND S.A. NOS. 242 TO 244/DEL/2015 HELD THAT AGAINST AN ORDER OF STAY PAS SED BY THE LD. CIT(A), AN APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE ITAT. IN THE AFORESAID ORDER, IT WAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 7. THEREFORE, NOW THE LAW IS WELL SETTLED THAT TH E FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY I.E. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS POWER TO GRANT STAY. IN EXERCISE OF THIS POWER, LEARNED COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OBVIOUS LY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250 OF THE ACT SINCE THERE IS NO OTHER PROVISION OF THE ACT UNDER WHICH COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS) CAN PASS THE ORDER. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE ORDER N EED NOT BE AN ORDER OF CIVIL COURT ALONE, IT CAN BE OF ANY OTHER STATUT ORY AUTHORITY (C.G. GHANSHAMDAS V. COLLECTOR OF MADRAS, AIR 1987 SC 180 , (1986) 4 SCC 305, (1986) 2APLJ (SC) 25). THE TERM ORDER HAS NO T BEEN DEFINED I.T.A. NOS.515-521/COCH/2015 8 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. IT IS JUDICIALLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE WORD ORDER AS A NOUN, HAS BEE N HELD EQUIVALENT TO OR SYNONYMOUS WITH DECISION. THEREFORE, HAVIN G HELD THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS PASSED THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 250 OF THE ACT, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE APPEAL IS CLEARLY MAINTAINABLE UNDER CLAUSE (A) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 253 OF THE ACT. 12. RULE 35A OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ) RULES, 1963 PROVIDES FOR THE PROCEDURE OF STAY WHICH IS EXTRACTED HEREINBELO W: 35A (1)(A) EVERY APPLICATION FOR STAY OF RECOVERY OF DEMAND OF TAX, INTEREST, PENALTY, FINE, ESTATE DUTY OR ANY OTHER S UM SHALL BE PRESENTED IN TRIPLICATE BY THE APPLICANT IN PERSON, OR BY HIS DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT, OR SENT BY REGISTERED POST TO THE REGISTRAR OR THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, AT THE HEADQUARTERS OF A BENCH OR BENCHES HAVING JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE APPEALS IN RESPECT OF WHOM THE STAY APPLICATION ARISES. (B) SEPARATE APPLICATIONS SHALL BE FILE FOR STAY O F RECOVERY OF DEMANDS UNDER DIFFERENT ENACTMENTS. (2) EVERY APPLICATION SHALL BE NEATLY TYPED ON ONE S IDE OF THE PAPER AND SHALL BE IN ENGLISH AND SHALL SET FORTH CONCISELY TH E FOLLOWING:- (I) SHORT FACTS REGARDING THE DEMAND OF THE TAX, IN TEREST, PENALTY, FINE, ESTATE DUTY OR ANY OTHER SUM, RECOVERY OF WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE STAYED; (II) THE RESULT OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE CIT( APPEALS), IF ANY; (III) THE EXACT AMOUNT OF TAX, INTEREST, PENALTY, F INE, ESTATE DUTY OR ANY OTHER SUM DEMANDED. AS THE CASE MAY BE, AND THE AMO UNT UNDISPUTED THEREFROM AND THE AMOUNT OUTSTANDING; (IV) THE DATE OF FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBU NAL AND ITS NUMBER, IF KNOWN; (V) WHETHER ANY APPLICATION FOR STAY WAS MADE TO TH E REVENUE AUTHORITIES CONCERNED, AND IF SO THE RESULT THEREOF (COPIES OF CORRESPONDENCE, IF ANY, WITH THE REVENUE AUTHORITIE S TO BE ATTACHED); (VI) REASONS IN BRIEF FOR SEEKING STAY; I.T.A. NOS.515-521/COCH/2015 9 (VII) WHETHER THE APPLICANT IS PREPARED TO OFFER SE CURITY, AND IF SO, IN WHAT FORM; (VIII) PRAYERS TO BE MENTIONED CLEARLY AND CONCISEL Y (STATING EXACT AMOUNT SOUGHT TO BE STAYED); (IX) THE CONTENTS OF THE APPLICATION SHALL BE SUPP ORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE APPLICANT OR HIS DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT .; (X) ***. 13. FOR THE GRANT OF STAY OF DEMAND, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO MAKE OUT A STRONG PRIMA FACIE CASE IN ITS FAVOUR. IF THE ASSES SEE IS RELYING UPON THE FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES, THE NECESSARY AVERMENTS OR DOCUMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO SHOW AS TO HOW THE IRREPARABLE INJURY WOULD OCCUR, UNLESS THE STAY IS GRANTED. THE BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE IS ALSO REQUIRED TO BE SEEN AT THE T IME OF GRANT OF STAY. 14. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD STAYE D 75% OF THE DEMAND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF BALANCE DEMA ND OF 25% IN 12 EQUAL INSTALLMENTS STARTING FROM 31-10-2015. THE LD. AR HAS ADMITTED THAT NONE OF THE INSTALLMENTS DIRECTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO BE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN PAID TILL DATE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER FAILED TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE ON MERITS TO SHOW THAT THE COMPLETE STAY OF DEMAND SHOULD BE GRA NTED. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EVEN FILED ANY PAPER BOOK IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISS IONS. THE ORDER OF STAY CANNOT BE GRANTED ON BALD ASSERTIONS DEHORS ANY EVI DENCE TO CORROBORATE THE SAME. IN VIEW OF AFORESAID FACTS, MORE PARTICULARL Y THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT COMPLIED WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. C IT(A), ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED I.T.A. NOS.515-521/COCH/2015 10 BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. THUS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NO. 515/COCH/2015 IS DISMISSED. 15. AS REGARDS THE APPEALS IN THE CASE OF P.V. G ANGADHARAN IN I.T.A. NOS. 516- 518/COCH/2015 AND IN THE CASE OF P.V. CHANDRAN IN I .T.A. NOS. 519- 521/COCH/2015 EACH FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 , 2007-08 AND 2008-09, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF KERALA TRANSPORT CORPORATION IN I.T.A. NO. 515/COCH/2015 WHICH IS DE CIDED BY US HEREINABOVE AND ACCORDINGLY, OUR ORDER IN THE CASE OF KERALA TRANSP ORT CORPORATION IN I.T.A. NO. 515/COCH/2015 SHALL BE IDENTICALLY APPLICABLE IN TH E CASE OF P.V. GANGADHARAN IN I.T.A. NOS. 516-518/COCH/2015 AND IN THE CASE OF P. V. CHANDRAN IN I.T.A. NOS. 519-521/COCH/2015. THUS ALL THE GROUNDS TAKEN IN A LL THE APPEALS IN THE CASE OF BOTH THE ASSESSES ARE DISMISSED. 16. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE THREE A SSESSEES IN I.T.A. NOS. 515- 521/COCH/2015 ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22-01 -2016. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE GEORGE K.) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACC OUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: KOCHI DATED: 22 ND JANUARY, 2016 GJ COPY TO: 1. M/S. KERALA TRANSPORT CO., YMCA ROAD, KOZHIKODE - 673 001. 2. P.V. GANGADHARAN, M/S. KERALA TRANSPORT CO., YMC A ROAD, I.T.A. NOS.515-521/COCH/2015 11 KOZHIKODE - 673 001. 3. P.V. CHANDRAN, M/S. KERALA TRANSPORT CO., YMCA R OAD, KOZHIKODE - 673 001. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1( 1), KOZHIKODE. 5. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS), KOZHIKO DE. 6. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOZHIKODE. 7. D.R., I.T.A.T.,COCHIN. 8. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) I.T.A.T., COC HIN