ACIT, V. Cochin International Airport Ltd., Cochin

ITA 541/COCH/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61484 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 10 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2007
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T J VINCENT
• Assessee Lawyers: R RAJASEKHARAN
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Principle of natural justice; Retrospective amendment; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 115JB; 263

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 NO. 541/COCH/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM. VS. COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD., 35, 4 TH FLOOR, GCDA, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, MARINE DRIVE, COCHIN- 682 031. [PAN: AAACC 9658B] (REVENUE-APPELLANT) (ASSESSEE - RESPONDENT) I.T.A NO. 898/COCH/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD., 35, 4 TH FLOOR, GCDA, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, MARINE DRIVE, COCHIN- 682 031. [PAN: AAACC 9658B] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM. (ASSESSEE -APPELLANT) (REVENUE- RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY SHRI T.J. VINCENT, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY SHRI R. RAJASEKHARAN, CA DATE OF HEARING 08/03/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27/04/2012 O R D E R PER B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19-03-2007 PASSED BY LD CIT(A)-II, KOCHI AND IT RELATES TO THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2004-05. THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18-08-20 08 PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. SINCE THESE TWO APPEALS I.T.A. NO. 541 /COCH/2007 & 898/COCH/2008 2 ARE RELATED TO THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR, THEY ARE D ISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE F IRST. THE REVENUE IS ASSAILING THE DECISION OF LD CIT(A) ON THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:- (A) THE HEAD UNDER WHICH THE INCOME DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ROYALTY, RENT AND SERVICES, MISCELLANEOUS INCOME AND INTERES T ON BANK DEPOSITS ETC, IS ASSESSABLE. (B) WHETHER THE SET OFF OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE ON THE INCOME ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER S OURCES. (C) WHETHER THE LD CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE DEFERRED TAX LIABILITY HAS TO BE EXCLUDED WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT U/S 1 15JB OF THE ACT. 3. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE STATED IN BRIEF. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS OPERATING A PRIVATE AIRPORT, I.E. IT IS ENGAGED IN OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF AIRPORT AND OTHER ALLIED COMMERCIAL SERVICES. THE ASSESSEE WAS DECLARING ALL TYPES OF INCOME DERIVED FROM THE OPERATION OF AIRPORT UNDER THE HEA D INCOME FROM BUSINESS. IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE ASSESSEE HAD SEGREGATED THE INCOME INTO TWO CATEGORIES VIZ., TRAFFIC INCOME AND NON-TRAFFIC INCOME. THE AO TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE NON-TRAFFIC INCOME IS NON-BUSINESS INCOME AND ASSESSED THE SAME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE NON-TRAFFIC INCOME CONSISTED O F ROYALTY INCOME, RENT & SERVICES, OTHER MISCELLANEOUS INCOME ETC. CONSEQUENTLY, THE A O DID NOT ALLOW THE SETTING OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD DEPRECIATION AGAINST THE INCOME SO ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, AS THERE WAS A BAR OPERATING I N THE ACT FOR CERTAIN PERIOD DENYING SUCH SETTING OFF. THE AO ALSO ADDED THE AMOUNT PRO VIDED FOR DEFERRED TAX LIABILITY WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT. IN THE APPEAL FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD CIT(A) REVERSED THE ORDER OF THE AO ON THE ABOVE SAID ISSU ES. HENCE THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE FIRST ISSUE RELATES TO THE TREATMENT OF INCOME DERIVED FROM ROYALTY, RENT & SERVICES, MISCELLANEOUS INCOME ETC. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. A.R IS THAT THE ASSESSEE I.T.A. NO. 541 /COCH/2007 & 898/COCH/2008 3 HAS SET UP A PRIVATE AIRPORT OF INTERNATIONAL STAND ARD AND ALL THE INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED BY IT ON EXPLOITATION OF THE SAID INFRASTRU CTURE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE VARIOUS INFRASTRUCTURE CREATED IN THE AIRPORT SUCH AS RUNWAY, APRON, TAXI WAY, TERMINAL BUILDINGS, AERO BRIDGES, CARGO HANDLING, GROUND HAN DLING, DUTY FREE SHOPS, PASSENGER AMENITIES LIKE FOREIGN EXCHANGE COUNTERS, TRAVEL AN D TOURISM COUNTERS, OTHER COUNTERS LIKE HOSPITALITY, COFFEE/TEA VENDING, COMMUNICATION FACILITIES, CAR PARKING, TAXI SERVICES ETC., ARE INTEGRATED OPERATIONS AND ARE INEXTRICABL Y CONNECTED TO THE BUSINESS OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF AIRPORT OF INTERNATION AL STANDARD. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE INCOME FROM THESE SERVICES, WHET HER ON PIECE RATE BASIS OR ON FIXED RENTAL BASIS, ARE DERIVED ON COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATIO N OF THE AIRPORT AND HENCE THEY CAN ONLY BE CATEGORISED AS BUSINESS INCOME. EXPLAINING FURTHER, THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE INCOME FROM ROYALTY ACTUALLY REPRESENTS THE COM PENSATION EARNED TOWARDS USE OF FACILITIES AND OTHER ASSETS OF THE ASSESSEE, I.E., SHARE INCOME FROM GROUND HANDLING SERVICES OF PASSENGERS AND CARGO, USE OF SPACE, POW ER, LIGHTING, AIR CONDITIONING, X-RAY EQUIPMENTS, BAGGAGE CONVEYERS, ESCALATORS, TROLLIES , APRON FACILITIES, PARKING SPACES, AERO BRIDGES ETC. THE INCOME DERIVED ON PROVIDING FUEL TO AIRCRAFTS WAS ALSO CLASSIFIED AS ROYALTY. THE INCOME FROM RENTAL & SERVICES AR E DERIVED FROM THE PROVIDERS OF PASSENGER AMENITIES SUCH AS SHOPS, CANTEEN, MOBILE PHONE COUNTERS, RESTAURANTS, FOREIGN EXCHANGE COUNTERS ETC. 5. THE LD A.R PLACED RELIANCE ON HOSTS OF DECIS IONS TO CONTEND THAT THE INCOME CHRISTENED AS ROYALTY AND ALSO AS RENTAL AND SER VICES ARE ASSESSABLE AS BUSINESS INCOME ONLY. HE HAS ALSO DISTINGUISHED THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE AO. 6. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED FIXED SUMS OF MONEY FROM VARIOUS PERSONS, THE SERVICE PROVIDER S HAVE BEEN GIVEN EARMARKED AREAS AND HENCE THE INCOME RECEIVED FROM THEM IS R ENT SIMPLICITER NOT ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS. HOWEVER, I T IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT THE AO HAS, PECULIARLY, ASSESSED THE ABOVE SAID INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. I.T.A. NO. 541 /COCH/2007 & 898/COCH/2008 4 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAR EFULLY PERUSED THE RECORD. IT IS WELL SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW NOW THAT THE INCOME DERI VED ON EXPLOITATION OF COMMERCIAL ASSETS WOULD BE BUSINESS INCOME. THE QUESTION WHET HER A PARTICULAR TYPE OF INCOME IS TO BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME OR INCOME FROM OTH ER SOURCES HAS TO BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES PREVAILING IN A PARTICULAR CASE. WE NOTICE THAT THERE IS A DIRECT DECISION ON THE ISSUE UNDER CONSI DERATION IN A VERY OLD CASE, VIZ., IN THE CASE OF CROFT (INSPECTOR OF TAXES) VS. SYWELL AEROD ROME LTD REPORTED IN (1942)(10 ITR 96 (SUPP.)(EC)(CA), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE INC OME DERIVED BY THE OWNER OF AN AERODROME, A COMMERCIAL ASSET, FROM VARIOUS SOURCES FROM THE USE BY OTHERS OF LICENSING THE SAID PROPERTY IS ASSESSABLE AS BUSINE SS INCOME. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY EXPLOITATION OF COMMERCIAL ASSET AND THE SAID INTENTION WAS NOT PROVED TO BE WRONG. THE INCOME D ERIVED BY WAY OF ROYALTY; I.E. SHARE OF INCOME FROM VARIOUS SERVICES AS WELL AS TH E INCOME DERIVED BY WAY OF RENT AND SERVICES HAVE BEEN DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ONL Y ON COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATION OF THE AIRPORT. THERE CANNOT BE ANY DOUBT THAT THE VARIO US FACILITIES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE FORM INTEGRAL PART OF SETTING UP OF AN AIRPORT AND IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE TO OPERATE AN AIRPORT WITHOUT SUCH FACILITIES. THE AO, ON THE O THER HAND, HAS FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO DERIVE RENTAL INCOME ONLY, I.E. RENT SIMPLICITER AND THERE WAS NO INTENTION OF THE COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATION OF THE AIR PORT SET UP BY IT. ON THE CONTRARY, THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED BEFORE US VARIOUS AGREEMENTS, LICENCES ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO SHOW THAT ITS OBJECT WAS ONLY COMMERC IAL EXPLOITATION OF THE AIRPORT. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSIONS, WE AGREE WITH TH E VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD CIT(A) THAT THE INCOME DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF ROYAL TY AND RENT AND SERVICES ARE ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS. 8. THE BREAK UP DETAILS OF MISCELLANEOUS INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.75,84,609/- WAS NOT FURNISHED BEFORE US BY BOTH THE PARTIES. HOWEV ER FROM THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE, WE NOTICE THAT THE SAID INCOME CONSISTED O F INCOME RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATIONS, FILM/VIDEO SHOOTING, INTEREST ON INCOME TAX REFUND, TENDER FORM FEE ETC. IN OUR VIEW, THE INCOME DERIV ED FROM FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATIONS, TENDER FORM FEE ARE HAVING CONNECTION WITH THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES CARRIED I.T.A. NO. 541 /COCH/2007 & 898/COCH/2008 5 ON BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THEY SHOULD BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME ONLY. HOWEVER, THE INCOME DERIVED BY ALLOWING FILM/VIDEO SHOOTING AND INTEREST ON INCOME TAX REFUND DO NOT HAVE ANY CONNECTION WITH THE CORE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, IN OUR VIEW, THEY SHOUL D BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE NATURE OF OTHER R ECEIPTS THAT ARE INCLUDED UNDER THE HEAD MISCELLANEOUS INCOME IS NOT AVAILABLE. ACCO RDINGLY, IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSESSABILITY OF VARIOUS ITEMS INCLUDED UNDER THE HEAD MISCELLAN EOUS INCOME WOULD DEPEND UPON THE NATURE OF VARIOUS ITEMS OF INCOME INCLUDED THER EIN, WHICH REQUIRE EXAMINATION ITEM WISE. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD CI T(A) WITH REGARD TO THE MISCELLANEOUS INCOME AND RESTORE THE SAME TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE NATURE OF INCOME INCLUDED UNDER THE SAID HEAD AND T AKE THE DECISION IN THE LIGHT OF FOREGOING DISCUSSIONS AND ALSO IN ACCORDANCE WITH T HE LAW. 9. THE LD A.R FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE INTEREST INCOME DERIVED FROM BANK DEPOSITS IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE S. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THAT O F THE AO. 10. THE NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO THE ALLOWING SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD DEPRECIATION AGAINST THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IN OUR VIEW , THIS ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION AS THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY NECESSITY TO CLAIM SUCH SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES, IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION RENDERED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 11. THE LAST ISSUE RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF D EFERRED TAX LIABILITY TO THE COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. THE LD A. R FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THIS ISSUE NOW STANDS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT IN WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT IN SECTION 115JB. ACCORDINGLY , WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THAT OF THE AO. 12. WE SHALL NOW TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE. THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION @ 25% ON RUNWAY, I.T.A. NO. 541 /COCH/2007 & 898/COCH/2008 6 ISOLATION PARKING BAY, ROADS, CULVERTS, DRAINS BY TREATING THEM AS PLANT AND THE SAID CLAIM WAS NOT EXAMINED BY THE AO. ACCORDING TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER, THESE STRUCTURES ARE INCLUDED UNDER THE HEAD BUILD INGS IN THE APPENDIX-I TO INCOME TAX RULES AND HENCE THE DEPRECIATION WAS ALLOWABLE @ 10% ONLY. ACCORDINGLY, AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION ER DIRECTED THE AO TO RESTRICT THE DEPRECIATION TO 10% ON THE ABOVE MENTIONED ASSETS. THE ASSESSEE IS CHALLENGING THE SAID DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISS IONER. 13. ADMITTEDLY, THE AO DID NOT EXAMINE THE MAT TER OF DEPRECIATION DISCUSSED ABOVE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING OF THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE SCOPE OF REVISION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT WAS CONSIDERED BY HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. V CIT (321 ITR 92) BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPRE ME COURT. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS ARE EXTRACTED BELOW: SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 EMPOWERS TH E COMMISSIONER TO CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORD OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT AND, IF HE CONSIDERS THAT ANY ORDER PASSED THEREIN, BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT ERESTS OF THE REVENUE, TO PASS AN ORDER UPON HEARING THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER A N ENQUIRY AS IS NECESSARY, ENHANCING OR MODIFYING THE ASSESSMENT OR CANCELLING THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTING A FRESH ASSESSMENT. THE KE Y WORDS THAT ARE USED BY SECTION 263 ARE THAT THE ORDER MUST BE CONSIDERE D BY THE COMMISSIONER TO BE ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THIS PROVISION HAS BEEN INTERPRETED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN SEVERAL JUDGMENTS TO WHICH IT IS NOW NECESSARY TO TURN. IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. V. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE PROVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED TO CORRECT EACH AND EVERY TYPE OF MISTAKE OR ERROR COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IT IS ON LY WHEN AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS THAT THE SECTION WILL BE ATTRACTED. THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACT OR AN INCORRECT APP LICATION OF LAW, WILL SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS. AN ORDER PASSED IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE OR WITHOUT APP LICATION OF MIND, WOULD BE AN ORDER FALLING IN THAT CATEGORY. THE EXPRESSION PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, THE SUPREME COURT HELD, IT IS OF W IDE IMPORT AND IS NOT CONFINED TO A LOSS OF TAX. WHAT IS PREJUDICIAL TO T HE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE IS EXPLAINED IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT (HEA DNOTE) : THE PHRASE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE RE VENUE HAS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PASSED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER. EVERY I.T.A. NO. 541 /COCH/2007 & 898/COCH/2008 7 LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS O F THE REVENUE, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN AN INCOME-TAX OFFICER ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE, OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF T HE REVENUE UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THE PRINCIPLE WHICH HAS BEEN LAID DOWN IN MALABAR I NDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) HAS BEEN FOLLOWED AND EXPLAI NED IN A SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V. MAX INDIA L TD. [2007] 295 ITR 282. THUS, NON-APPLICATION OF MIND ON AN ISSUE WOULD REN DER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE R EVENUE. THE LD. A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED REVISION PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER AFTER THE RECEIPT OF THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COM MISSIONER ON THE VERY SAME ISSUE IN THE SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR, I.E., ASSESSMENT YE AR 2005-06. IT IS A WELL SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT THE PRINCIPLES OF RES-JUDIC ATA SHALL NOT APPLY TO THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE AO, THOUGH HE HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE OF DEPRECIATION ON RUN WAYS ETC. IN THE S UCCEEDING YEAR, YET HE DID NOT EXAMINE THE SAME IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. NON-EXAMINATION OF THE SAID ISSUE AND NON-APPLICATION OF MIND ON IT, IN OUR VIEW, HAS RENDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER CONSIDERATION ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO TH E INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE RE VISION ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER. I.T.A. NO. 541 /COCH/2007 & 898/COCH/2008 8 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSE D. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY ON 27-04-2012 SD/- SD/- (N.R.S.GANESAN) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: KOCHI DATED: 27TH APRIL, 2012 GJ COPY TO: 1. COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD., 35, 4 TH FLOOR, GCDA, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, MARINE DRIVE, COCHIN-682 031. 2.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), ERNAKULAM 3.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1 ), ERNAKULAM.3. THE 4. 4.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-II, KOCH I. 5.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOCHI. 6. D.R., I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 7. GUARD FILE. BY O RDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) I.T.A .T., COCHIN