Joint CIT(OSD), Ernakulam V. Cochin Malabar Estates & Industries, , Cochin

ITA 582/COCH/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73935 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 27-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 1996-1997
• Appeal Filed On: 04-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K JOHN
• Assessee Lawyers: R KRISHNA IYER
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 2(14); 148

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.582/COCH/2011 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) AND SHRI B.R. BASKA RAN(AM) I.T.A NO. 582/COCH/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97) JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (OSD) VS M/S COCHI N MALABAR ESTATES & CIRCLE 4(2), KOCHI INDUSTRIES LTD, MALABAR HOU SE BRISTOW ROAD, W/ISLAND KOCHI-3 PAN : NOT AVAILABLE (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.K. JOHN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R KRISHNA IYER DATE OF HEARING : 27-01-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28-03-2014 O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-II, KOCHI DATED 19-08-2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996 -97. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETH ER THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND EXEMPT FROM C APITAL GAIN TAX. 2 ITA NO.582/COCH/2011 3. SHRI K.K. JOHN, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE SOLD LAND SITUATED IN KINALUR AND KANTHALAD VILLAGE IN QUILAN DI TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE PROPERTY W AS AGRICULTURAL LAND SUBJECTED TO CULTIVATION, THEREFORE, EXEMPT FROM CA PITAL GAIN TAX. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE LAND WAS SOLD FOR NON AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF INDUSTRIAL ESTATE TO KE RALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (KSIDC, HEREINAFTER), THERE FORE, THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE LAND MAY NOT BE TREATED AS AGRICULTUR AL LAND. REFERRING TO THE AGREEMENT SAID TO BE EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND K SIDC, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF LAND IS A RUBB ER ESTATE AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TO CUT AND REMOVE ALL THE RUBBER TREES AND OTHER STANDING TREES ON THE LAND BEFORE THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, ON THE DATE OF SALE OF THE PROPERTY, THE LAND WAS NOT AGRICULTURAL LAND; HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, REFERRING TO TH E JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN SARIFABIBI MOHMED IBRAHIM & ORS (1 993) 204 ITR 631 (SC) FOUND THAT THE LAND IS NOT AGRICULTURAL LAND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO PAY CAPITAL GAIN UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT . HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE LAND IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND ON THE DATE OF SALE AND MERELY BECAUSE IT WAS SOLD FOR NON AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE, I T WILL NOT LOSE ITS CHARACTER AS AGRICULTURAL LAND. ACCORDINGLY, THE C IT(A) FOUND THAT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE LAND IN KINALUR AND KANTHALAD VILLAGE IS NOT LIABLE FOR TAXATION. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE LAND WAS 3 ITA NO.582/COCH/2011 TRANSFERRED IS FOR NON AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE AFTER R EMOVING THE STANDING TREES, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AGRICULTU RAL LAND ON THE DATE OF SALE; HENCE, THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REVERSI NG THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI R KRISHNA IYER, THE LD.REP RESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETU RN OF INCOME DECLARING LOSS OF RS. 3,11,96,233. THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S WERE COMPLETED ON 16-02-1999 DETERMINING THE LOSS AT RS.7,70,987. TH EREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED BY ISSUING A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 289- 02-2000. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME O N 25-09-2000 IN PURSUANCE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 DECLARING A LOSS OF RS. 1,99,55,320 AND THE RE-ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 22-03-2002. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) CANCELLED THE ASSESSMENT ON TH E GROUND THAT REOPENING IS INVALID. ON FURTHER APPEAL BY THE REV ENUE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WAS CONFIRMED HOLDING THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 143(2) WAS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR, THEREFORE , THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS INVALID. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEF ORE THE HIGH COURT BY THE REVENUE. THE HIGH COURT FOUND THAT IN VIEW OF SECTION 153(2), THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CHALLENGE THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 143 (2) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL WAS SET ASI DE AND THE MATTER WAS REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR RECONSI DERATION AND TO DECIDE 4 ITA NO.582/COCH/2011 APPEAL ON MERIT. CONSEQUENT TO THE DIRECTION OF TH E HIGH COURT, BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19-08-2011 THE CIT(A) FOUND TH AT THE SUBJECT OF THE LAND IS AGRICULTURAL LAND WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC TION 2(14) OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, NOT LIABLE FOR CAPITAL GAIN. THE PRESEN T APPEAL IS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT THE SUB JECT LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND. 5. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE DATE OF SALE THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE ASSESSEE AGREE D TO GIVE POSSESSION OF LAND IMMEDIATELY AFTER SALE TO THE PURCHASER. T HE SUBJECT LAND IS NOT SITUATED WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OR WITHIN THE AREA NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. THE SUBJECT LAND IS ACTUALLY USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE TILL THE DATE OF THE SALE. ALL THESE FACTS WERE DISCLOS ED IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT AND OTHER MATERIAL FILED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE PROPERTY WAS SITUATED IN A VILLAGE AND IT WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND AS ON THE DATE OF SALE AS IT WAS A RUBBER PLANTATION. THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE JUDGME NT OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CIT VS MANILAL SOMNATH 106 ITR 917 (GUJ). THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND WAS REGISTERED AS A GRICULTURAL LAND IN THE REVENUE RECORDS. IT WAS ALSO USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE FOR A LONG PERIOD TILL THE DATE OF SALE. THE LD.REPRESENTATIV E HAS ALSO PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT ( PANAJI BENCH) IN THE 5 ITA NO.582/COCH/2011 CASE OF CIT VS MINGUEL CHANDRA PAIS AND ANOTHER (20 06) 282 ITR 618 (BOM); AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE OF THE MADRAS HIGH C OURT (2007) 292 ITR 481 (MAD). THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE HAS ALSO PLACED H IS RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE VARIOUS HIGH COURTS AND SUBMITTED T HAT THE LAND WAS ACTUALLY UNDER CULTIVATION TILL THE DATE OF SALE, T HEREFORE, THE CIT(A) RIGHTLY FOUND THAT THE SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND I S NOT LIABLE FOR TAXATION. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE ASSESSEE SOLD 308.08 ACRES OF LAND IN K INALUR AND KANTHALAD VILLAGE TO KSIDC. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE SU BJECT LAND SOLD TO KSIDC IS AGRICULTURAL LAND, THEREFORE, THE GAIN / I NCOME CANNOT BE TREATED AS CAPITAL GAIN WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(14) READ WITH SECTION 45 OF THE ACT; THEREFORE, NOT EXIGIBLE FOR TAXATION. TH E REVENUE AUTHORITIES ADMITTED THAT THE LAND IS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND IT IS A RUBBER PLANTATION. HOWEVER, THE REVENUE CONTENDS THAT THE AGREEMENT SA ID TO BE EXECUTED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND KSIDC ON 01-12-1995 SPECIF ICALLY SAYS THAT THE LAND WAS ACQUIRED FOR DEVELOPING INDUSTRIAL GROWTH IN KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE LAND FOR NON AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES FOR PROMOTING IN DUSTRIAL ESTATE THE SUBJECT LAND HAS TO BE TREATED AS NON AGRICULTURAL LAND; HENCE, IT IS A CAPITAL ASSET WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(14) OF THE AC T. 6 ITA NO.582/COCH/2011 7. THE FIRST QUESTION ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS W HETHER THE LAND IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND OR NOT? THE TERMS AGRICULTURE AND AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE ARE NOT DEFINED IN THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THEREFORE, WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE TERMS AGRICULTURE AND AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE AS UNDERSTOOD IN COMMON PARLANCE. THE APEX COURT HAD AN OCCASION TO EXAMINE THE TERMS AGRICULTURE AND AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE IN CWT VS OFFICER-IN-CHARGE (COURT OF WARDS), PAIGAH (1976) 105 ITR 133 (SC). AFTER R EFERRING TO VARIOUS CASE LAWS ON THE SUBJECT AND ITS EARLIER JUDGMENT I N CIT VS RAJA BENOY KUMAR SAHAS ROY (1957) 32 ITR 466 (SC) THE APEX COU RT FOUND THAT WHAT IS REALLY REQUIRED TO BE SHOWN IS THE CONNECTION WI TH AN AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE AND USER AND NOT THE MERE POSSIBILITY OF US ER OF LAND BY SOME POSSIBLE FUTURE OWNER OR POSSESSOR FOR AN AGRICULTU RAL PURPOSE. THE SUPREME COURT FURTHER FOUND THAT IT IS NOT THE MERE POTENTIALITY WHICH WILL ONLY AFFECT ITS VALUATION AS PART OF ASSET. BUT IT IS ACTUAL CONDITION AND INTENDED USER WHICH HAS TO BE SEEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXEMPTION. THE APEX COURT HAS ALSO FOUND THAT THE OBJECT OF EXEMPT ION IS TO ENCOURAGE CULTIVATION OR ACTUAL UTILISATION OF THE LAND FOR A GRICULTURAL PURPOSE AND THE ENTRIES IN REVENUE RECORDS ARE GOOD PRIMA FACIE EVI DENCE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT, THE LAND IN QUEST ION HAS TO BE USED EARLIER FOR AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND AGRICULTURA L PURPOSE. THE POSSIBILITY OF USING THE LAND FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE BY A FUTURE OWNER CANNOT BE A 7 ITA NO.582/COCH/2011 REASON TO TREAT THE LAND AS AGRICULTURAL LAND. IT SHOULD BE ACTUALLY USED ON THE DATE OF SALE OF THE PROPERTY. 8. THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SARIFABIBI MOHMED IBRAHIM & ORS (SUPRA) EXAMINED THE MATTER ELABORATELY AND FOUND T HAT WHETHER A LAND IS AGRICULTURAL LAND OR NOT IS ESSENTIALLY A QUESTION OF FACT. SEVERAL TESTS EVOLVED BY THE HIGH COURTS AND SUPREME COURT ARE MO RE IN THE NATURE OF GUIDELINES. THE QUESTION HAS TO BE EXAMINED IN EAC H CASE HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT CASE. IN TH E CASE BEFORE THE APEX COURT, THE LAND WAS NOT CULTIVATED FOR FOUR YEARS C ONTINUOUSLY. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE APEX COURT APPLIED FOR PERMISSI ON TO SELL THE LAND FOR NON AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. THE LAND WAS SITUATED W ITHIN THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF SURAT CITY. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION AL L THE FACTS AND THE LAND WAS NOT CULTIVATED, CONTINUOUSLY FOR FOUR YEARS, THE AS SESSEE HAD NO INTENTION TO BRING THE LAND UNDER CULTIVATION AFTER 1965-66, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS NOT AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE APEX COURT HAS ALSO TAKEN NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE APPLIED IN JUNE, 1968 FO R PERMISSION TO SELL THE SAID LAND FOR NON AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HEAVILY PLACING RELIANCE ON THIS JUDGMENT TO HOLD THAT THE SUBJECT LAND IS NON AGRICULTURAL LAND. AS OBSERVED BY THE APEX COURT, THE TESTS LAID DOWN BY VARIOUS HIGH COURTS AND SUPREME COURTS ARE MORE IN THE NATURE OF GUIDELINE. THEREFORE, EACH CASE HAS TO BE EXAMINED ON ITS OWN FACTS. 8 ITA NO.582/COCH/2011 9. LET US NOW EXAMINE THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY OF GROWING AND CULTIVATING RUBBER TREES. THE SUBJECT LAND IN QUES TION IS ALSO IS A RUBBER PLANTATION. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT T HE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACTUALLY USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE / ACTIVIT IES. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IS THAT AS PER THE AGREEMENT SAID TO BE ENT ERED INTO WITH KSIDC ON 01-12-1995 THE ASSESSEE HAS TO CUT AND REMOVE TH E STANDING RUBBER AND OTHER TREES ON THE LAND AND THEREAFTER HAND OVE R THE POSSESSION TO KSIDC. THE REVENUE ALSO CONTENDS THAT THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING THE LAND BY KSIDC IS TO ESTABLISH AN INDUSTRIAL ESTATE. STA NDING TREES ON THE LAND IS ALSO A CAPITAL ASSET ATTACHED TO THE EARTH. THEREF ORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS OPTION EITHER TO SELL THE STANDING TREES ALONGWITH THE LAND OR SEPARATELY. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS DECIDED TO SELL THE LAN D SEPARATELY THEREFORE AS PER THE AGREEMENT SAID TO BE ENTERED WITH KSIDC, THE STANDING TREES ON THE LAND WERE TO BE REMOVED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE 29-02-1996. THE AGREEMENT WAS SAID TO BE ENTERED INTO ON 01-12-1995 . THEREFORE, AS ON 01-12-1995 WHEN THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO SALE OF T HE PROPERTY, THE SUBJECT LAND IS ADMITTEDLY AGRICULTURAL LAND. IN O THER WORDS, THE ASSESSEE USED THE LAND FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES CONTINUOUSL Y TILL HE ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT FOR SALE. THE ASSESSEE INTENDED TO SELL THE LAND AFTER REMOVING THE STANDING TREES ON THE LAND. THEREFORE, ONE OF THE CONDITIONS ATTACHED 9 ITA NO.582/COCH/2011 TO THE SALE WAS THE STANDING TREES WERE TO BE REMOV ED BEFORE 29-02-1996. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE SUBJECT LAND IS IN A VILLAGE BEYOND 8 KMS RADIUS OF ANY MUNICIPALITY. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REV ENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR PERMISSION TO SELL ALL THE LAND FOR NON AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE. THE ASSESSEE SIMPLY TRANSFERRED THE AGRICULTURAL LAND A FTER REMOVING THE STANDING TREES. IN SUCH SITUATION, CAN WE SAY THAT THE SUBJECT LAND IS AGRICULTURAL LAND OR NOT? IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE A PEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SARIFABIBI MOHMED IBRAHIM & ORS (SUPRA), THE LAND W AS SOLD TO HOUSING CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY. THE ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR PERMIS SION TO TRANSFER THE LAND FOR NON AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE BEFORE THE SALE O F THE LAND. THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE LAND WAS NOT CULTIVATED FOUR YEARS BE FORE THE DATE OF THE SALE. THE LAND WAS SITUATED IN SURAT MUNICIPALITY. THE L AND WAS SOLD AT SQUARE YARD RATE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APEX COURT FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO INTENTION TO BRING THE LAND UNDER CULTIVATIO N FOUR YEARS BEFORE THE DATE OF SALE, I.E. AFTER 1965-66. THEREFORE, THE A PEX COURT FOUND THAT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE LAND IS NOT AGRICULTURAL LAND . IN THIS CASE, THE FACTS ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. WHEN THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF THE LAND ON 01-12-1995 RUBBER PLANTATION CULTIVATED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS VERY MUCH IN EXISTENCE AND THE LAND WAS USED FOR AG RICULTURAL PURPOSE. THE LAND WAS NOT SOLD IN SQUARE YARD RATE. THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT APPLIED FOR PERMISSION TO USE FOR NON AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE. THEREFORE, THE 10 ITA NO.582/COCH/2011 JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SARIFABIB I MOHMED IBRAHIM & ORS (SUPRA) MAY NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE FACT OF TH E CASE. 10. THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M.S. SRINI VASA NAICKER & ORS VS ITO (2007) 292 ITR 481 (MAD) HAD AN OCCASION TO EXAMINE AN IDENTICAL ISSUE. THE MADRAS HIGH COURT AFTER REFERRING TO TH E JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN SARIFABIBI MOHMED IBRAHIM & ORS (SUPRA) FO UND THAT WHEN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE LAND WAS USED FOR AGRICULTURA L OPERATION ON THE DATE OF THE SALE IT MATTERS VERY LITTLE HOW SUBSEQUENT PURC HASER INTENDED THE LAND IN QUESTION TO BE PUT TO USE. THEREFORE, THE USAGE OF THE LAND BY THE PURCHASER AFTER THE PURCHASE MAY NOT BE A RELEVANT FACTOR TO FIND WHETHER THE LAND IN QUESTION IS AGRICULTURAL LAND OR NOT? IN THIS CASE, THE ONLY CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LAND WAS PURC HASED BY KSIDC FOR PROMOTING INDUSTRIAL ESTATE. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO P LACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN HINDUSTAN INDUS TRIAL RESOURCES LTD VS ACIT (2011) 335 ITR 77 (DEL) 11. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE LAND WAS A RUBBER ESTATE AND THE ASSESSEE USED THE LAND FOR AGRICULTURAL OPERATION T ILL THE DATE OF SALE THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE SUBJ ECT LAND IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND. THEREFORE, AS FOUND BY THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M.S. SRINIVASA NAICKER & ORS (SUPRA), THE SUBJECT LAND I S NOT A CAPITAL ASSET 11 ITA NO.582/COCH/2011 WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(14) OF THE ACT; HEN CE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE FOR CAPITAL GAIN TAX. 12. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAM E IS CONFIRMED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 28 TH MARCH, 2014. SD/- SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN, DT : 28 TH MARCH, 2014 PK/- COPY TO: 1. JCIT, CIR.4(2), KOCHI 2. M/S COCHIN MALABAR ESTATE & INDUSTRIES LTD, MALA BAR HOUSE, BRISTOW ROAD, W/ISLAND, KOCHI-3 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOCHI 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A)-II, KOCHI 5. THE DR (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH