Parisons Milling Co.P.Ltd, Calicut V. ACIT, Calicut

ITA 587/COCH/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 65004 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 08-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S VIJAYAPRABHA
• Assessee Lawyers: A S NARAYANAMURTHY
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 587/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. 587/COCH/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08) PARISONS MILLING CO (P) LTD VS A.C.I.T., CIR.2(1) 6/1183, CHEROOTY ROAD KOZHIKODE KOZHIKODE PAN : AADCP3070B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.S. NARAYANAMURTHY RESPONDENT BY : SMT. S VIJAYAPRABHA DATE OF HEARING : 19-11-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07-12-2012 O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) THIS APPEAL OF THE TAXPAYER IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER U/S 263 OF THE INCOME-T AX ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. SHRI A.S. NARAYANAMURTHY, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE TAXPAYER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143 (3) OF THE ACT AFTER 2 ITA NO. 587/COCH/2011 CALLING FOR ALL THE DETAILS REQUIRED. HOWEVER, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS N OT VERIFIED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM MADE BY THE TAXPAYER. ACC ORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE TAXPAYER PURCHASED ONE OF TH E ASSETS BELONGING TO M/S STAR AGRO & WHEAT ROLLER FLOUR MILLS (P) LTD IN AN AUCTION CONDUCTED BY KSIDC IN THE MONTH OF JUNE 2002. THE TAXPAYER COMM ENCED THE COMMERCIAL OPERATION IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06. HOWEVER, THERE WAS AN ARREAR TO THE ELECTRICITY BOARD TO THE EXTENT OF RS .32,65,484. THE SAID AMOUNT WAS MADE AS ONE TIME SETTLEMENT AND THE LIAB ILITY TO PAY THE AMOUNT CRYSTALLIZED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION. THEREFORE, THE TAXPAYER CLAIMED THAT IT IS EXPENDITURE FOR THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISCUS SED THE CLAIM OF THE TAXPAYER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT VERIFIED THE CLAIM MADE BY THE TAXPAYER. T HE TAXPAYER HAS NO CONTROL OVER THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, IF AT ALL THERE IS ANY DEFECT IN DRAFTING THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, THE TAXPAYER CANN OT BE PENALIZED. REFERRING TO THE WASTAGE, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE SUB MITTED THAT THE TAXPAYER CLAIMED 2.45% ON CONVERSION OF WHEAT INTO WHEAT PRO DUCTS. IN THE CASE OF M/S YENKAY FLOUR MILLS, THE WASTAGE WAS RESTRICTED TO 1.57% BY THIS 3 ITA NO. 587/COCH/2011 TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS C ASE HAS ALLOWED ONLY 0.59% INSTEAD OF 1.57% APPROVED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE OF M/S YENKAY FLOUR MILLS. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATI VE, NO PREJUDICE WAS CAUSED TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. ACCORDING T O THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS SHOWN THAT THE INTEREST OF T HE REVENUE WAS PREJUDICED AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS , THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CANNOT EXERCISE HIS JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SMT. S VIJAYAPRABHA, THE LD.DR S UBMITTED THAT IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.32,65,484 TOW ARDS ELECTRICITY CHARGES THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY REFERENCE IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATI VE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONDUCTED ANY ENQUIRY AND NO VERIFICATION W AS ALSO MADE. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ER RONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. REFERRING TO THE WAST AGE CLAIMED BY THE TAXPAYER, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE TAXPAYER HAS CLAIMED 2.45% WASTAGE. THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OF FICER, AFTER CALLING FOR EXPLANATION, HAS FIXED THE WASTAGE AT 0.59%. ACCOR DING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THERE WAS SUPPRESSION OF PRODUCT ION. THEREFORE, THE 4 ITA NO. 587/COCH/2011 ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER HAS RIGHTLY REVISED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO PE RUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS REGARDS THE PAYMENT OF ELEC TRICITY BILL, THOUGH THE TAXPAYER CLAIMS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CALL ED FOR ALL THE DETAILS, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS SILENT. IN FACT, THERE IS NO D ISCUSSION ABOUT THE PAYMENT OF ARREARS OF ELECTRICITY BILL. THE TAXPAY ER CLAIMS THAT ONLY THE ASSETS OF M/S STAR AGRO & WHEAT ROLLER FLOUR MILLS (P) LTD WAS PURCHASED AND NOT THE ENTIRE BUSINESS. THE TERMS AND CONDITI ONS UNDER WHICH THE AUCTION WAS CONDUCTED WAS ALSO NOT EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEING A QUASI JUDICIAL AUTH ORITY HAS TO CONSIDER ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS RELEVANT TO THE CLAIM OF THE TAXPAYER AND BRING ON RECORD THE REASONS FOR ALLOWING OR DISALLOWING THE CLAIM. THE APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD SHOULD BE REFLECTED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. UNFORTUNATELY, THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER IS VERY SILENT. IT DOES NOT INDICATE ANYTHING ABOUT THE RE ASONS FOR ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE TAXPAYER. WE FIND THAT THE PUNJAB & HA RYANA HIGH COURT IN THE 5 ITA NO. 587/COCH/2011 CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS SUNIL KUMAR G OEL (2005) 274 ITR 53 (P&H) CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN MUKHERJEE (S.N.) VS UOI (1990) AIR 1990 SC 1984 HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS : IN S.N. MUKHERJEE V. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1990 SC 1 984, A CONSTITUTION BENCH OF THE SUPREME COURT DISCUSSED T HE DEVELOPMENT OF LAW ON THIS SUBJECT IN INDIA, AUSTRAL IA, CANADA, ENGLAND AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND AFTER MAKING REFERENCE TO A LARGE NUMBER OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS, THEIR LORDSHIPS CULLED OUT THE FOLLOWING PROPOSITIONS (PA GE 1995): THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT REFERRED TO ABOVE IND ICATE THAT WITH REGARD TO THE REQUIREMENT TO RECORD REASO NS THE APPROACH OF THIS COURT IS MORE IN LINE WITH THAT OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION WHICH HAS WEIGH ED WITH THE COURT FOR HOLDING THAT AN ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHOR ITY EXERCISING QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS MUST RECORD THE REASONS FOR ITS DECISION, IS THAT SUCH A DECISION IS SUBJECT TO THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION AS WELL AS THE SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURTS UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THAT THE REASON S, IF RECORDED, WOULD ENABLE THIS COURT OR THE HIGH COURT S TO EFFECTIVELY EXERCISE THE APPELLATE OR SUPERVISORY P OWER. BUT THIS IS NOT THE SOLE CONSIDERATION. THE OTHER CONS IDERATIONS WHICH HAVE ALSO WEIGHED WITH THE COURT IN TAKING TH IS VIEW ARE THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF RECORDING REASONS WOULD (I) GUARANTEE CONSIDERATION BY THE AUTHORITY; (II) INTRODUCE CLAR ITY IN THE DECISIONS; AND (III) MINIMIZE CHANCES OF ARBITRARIN ESS IN DECISION MAKING. IN THIS REGARD A DISTINCTION HAS BEEN DRAW N BETWEEN ORDINARY COURTS OF LAW AND TRIBUNALS AND AUTHORITIE S EXERCISING JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS ON THE GROUND THAT A JUDGE IS TRAI NED TO LOOK AT THINGS OBJECTIVELY UNINFLUENCED BY CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY OR EXPEDIENCY WHEREAS AN EXECUTIVE OFFICER GENERALL Y LOOKS AT THINGS FROM THE STAND POINT OF POLICY AND EXPEDIENC Y. 6 ITA NO. 587/COCH/2011 REASONS, WHEN RECORDED BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHOR ITY IN AN ORDER PASSED BY IT WHILE EXERCISING QUASI-JUDI CIAL FUNCTIONS, WOULD NO DOUBT FACILITATE THE EXERCISE O F ITS JURISDICTION BY THE APPELLATE OR SUPERVISORY AUTHORI TY. BUT THE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, REFERRED TO ABOVE, WHICH HAVE ALSO WEIGHED WITH THIS COURT IN HOLDING THAT AN ADMINIST RATIVE AUTHORITY MUST RECORD REASONS FOR ITS DECISION, ARE OF NO LESS SIGNIFICANCE. THESE CONSIDERATIONS SHOW THAT THE R ECORDED OF REASONS BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY SERVICES A S ALUTARY PURPOSE, NAMELY, IT EXCLUDES CHANCES OF ARBITRARINE SS AND ENSURES A DEGREE OF FAIRNESS IN THE PROCESS OF DECI SION-MAKING. THE SAID PURPOSE WOULD APPLY EQUALLY TO ALL DECISIO NS AND ITS APPLICATION CANNOT BE CONFINED TO DECISIONS WHICH A RE SUBJECT TO APPEAL, REVISION OR JUDICIAL REVIEW. IN OUR OPIN ION, THEREFORE, THE REQUIREMENT THAT REASONS BE RECORDED SHOULD GOV ERN THE DECISIONS OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY EXERCISING QUASI- JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETHER THE DECISION IS SUBJECT TO APPEAL, REVISION OR JUDICIAL REVIEW. I T MAY, HOWEVER, BE ADDED THAT IT IS NOT REQUIRED THAT THE REASONS SHOULD BE AS ELABORATE AS IN THE DECISION OF A COUR T OF LAW. THE EXTENT AND NATURE OF THE REASONS WOULD DEPEND ON PA RTICULAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. WHAT IS NECESSARY IS THAT THE REASONS ARE CLEAR AND EXPLICIT SO AS TO INDICATE THAT THE A UTHORITY HAS GIVEN DUE CONSIDERATION TO THE POINTS IN CONTROVERS Y. THE NEED FOR RECORDING OF REASONS IS GREATER IN A CASE WHERE THE ORDER IS PASSED AT THE ORIGINAL STAGE. THE APPELLATE OR REV ISIONAL AUTHORITY, IF IT AFFIRMS SUCH AN ORDER, NEED NOT GI VE SEPARATE REASONS IF THE APPELLATE OR REVISIONAL AUTHORITY AG REES WITH THE REASONS CONTAINED IN THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE. IN TESTEELS LTD V. N.M. DESAI (1970) 37 FJR 7; AIR 1970 GUJ 1, A FULL BENCH OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS MAD E AN EXTREMELY LUCID ENUNCIATION OF LAW ON THE SUBJECT AN D WE CAN DO NO BETTER THAN TO EXTRACT SOME OF THE OBSERVATIO NS MADE IN THE DECISION. THE SAME ARE (HEADNOTE OF AIR 1970 ( GUJ)): 7 ITA NO. 587/COCH/2011 THE NECESSITY OF GIVING REASONS FLOWS AS A NECESS ARY COROLLARY FROM THE RULE OF LAW WHICH CONSTITUTES ON E OF THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL SET-U P. THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES HAVING A DUTY TO ACT JUDI CIALLY CANNOT THEREFORE DECIDE ON CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY OR EXP EDIENCY. THEY MUST DECIDE THE MATTER SOLELY ON THE FACTS OF THE PARTICULAR CASE, SOLELY ON THE MATERIAL BEFORE THEM AND APART FROM ANY EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS BY APPLYING PRE- EXISTING LEGAL NORMS TO FACTUAL SITUATIONS. NOW THE NECESSI TY OF GIVING REASONS IS AN IMPORTANT SAFEGUARD TO ENSURE OBSERVA NCE OF THE DUTY TO ACT JUDICIALLY. IT INTRODUCES CLARITY, CHEC KS THE INTRODUCTION OF EXTRANEOUS OR IRRELEVANT CONSIDERAT IONS AND EXCLUDES OR, AT ANY RATE, MINIMIZES ARBITRARINESS I N THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS. ANOTHER REASON WHICH COMPELS MAKING OF SUCH AN ORD ER IS BASED ON THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH IS PO SSESSED BY THE HIGH COURT UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND THE SUPREME CO URT UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION. THESE COURTS HAVE THE POWER UNDER THE SAID PROVISIONS TO QUASH BY CERTIORARI A QUASI-JUDICIAL ORDER MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND THIS PO WER OF REVIEW CAN BE EFFECTIVELY EXERCISED ONLY IF THE ORD ER IS A SPEAKING ORDER. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REASONS IN S UPPORT OF THE ORDER, THE SAID COURTS CANNOT EXAMINE THE CORRE CTNESS OF THE ORDER UNDER REVIEW. THE HIGH COURT AND THE SUP REME COURT WOULD BE POWERLESS TO INTERFERE SO AS TO KEEP THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE LAW . THE RESULT WOULD BE THAT THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW WOULD BE STULTIFIED AND NO REDRESS BEING AVAILABLE TO THE CITIZEN, THER E WOULD BE INSIDIOUS ENCOURAGEMENT TO ARBITRARINESS AND CAPRIC E. IF THIS REQUIREMENT IS INSISTED UPON, THEN, THEY WILL BE SU BJECT TO JUDICIAL SCRUTINY AND CORRECTION. IF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IS SCRUTINIZED IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFOREMENTIONED PROPOSITION OF LAW, WE DO NOT FIND ANY DIFFICULTY IN SETTING ASIDE THE SAME ON THE GRO UND OF VIOLATION OF THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE FLOW ERY LANGUAGE 8 ITA NO. 587/COCH/2011 USED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO JUSTIFY ITS ACCEPTANCE OF TH E RESPONDENTS PLEA THAT HE DID NOT KNOW THE LAW DOES NOT WARRANT OUR AFFIRMATION. IN OUR OPINION, THE TRIBU NAL WAS DUTY BOUND TO RECORD TANGIBLE AND COGENT REASONS FOR UPS ETTING WELL REASONED ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). IT SHOULD HA VE DIRECTED ITS ATTENTION TO THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 2 71D AND 271E OF THE ACT IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE SAME FAMILY AND THEN DECIDED BY A REASONED ORDER WH ETHER THE RESPONDENT HAD BEEN ABLE TO MAKE OUT A CASE FOR DELETING THE PENALTY. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL SHOU LD HAVE CLEARLY REFLECTED THE APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE LE ARNED MEMBERS. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS NECESSARY ON THE PAR T OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIVE REASONS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR TAKING A PARTICULAR DECISION. THE REASONS RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT O RDER SHOULD ENSURE FAIRNESS IN THE PROCESS OF DECISION MAKING. FURTHE RMORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEING A QUASI JUDICIAL AUTHORITY SHOULD INDI CATE THE APPLICATION OF MIND IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE REASONS CONTAINE D IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WOULD DEFINITELY FACILITATE THE EXERCISE OF JU RISDICTION BY THE APPELLATE / REVISIONAL AUTHORITY. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REAS ONS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE APPELLATE / REVISIONAL AUTHORITY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO APPRECIATE THE DECISION OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. THEREFORE, TH E VERY PURPOSE OF PROVIDING APPELLATE / REVISIONAL REMEDY IN THE INCO ME-TAX ACT WOULD BE 9 ITA NO. 587/COCH/2011 INEFFECTIVE. THEREFORE, IT IS OBLIGATORY ON THE PA RT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISCUSS THE CLAIM MADE BY THE TAXPAYER AND GIVE REA SON ONE WAY OR THE OTHER FOR ACCEPTING OR ALLOWING THE CLAIM. 7. RECENTLY, THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF TOYOTA M OTOR CORPORATION VS C.I.T. (2008) 306 ITR 52 (SC) CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE AND FOUND THAT THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY CANNOT SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN REASO NING WHICH WERE REQUIRED TO BE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, IT IS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECORD THE REASONING FOR ACCEP TING OR NOT ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF THE TAXPAYER. SINCE SUCH A REASONING WAS NOT RECORDED, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ORDE R OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER HAS RIGHTLY EXERCISED H IS JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 8. NOW COMING TO THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THE WASTA GE, THE TAXPAYER CLAIMED 2.45%. THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S YE NKAY FLOUR MILLS HAS FIXED THE WASTAGE AT 1.57%. AFTER CONSIDERING THE CLAIM AND THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS FIXED THE WAS TAGE AT 0.59%. 10 ITA NO. 587/COCH/2011 THEREFORE, AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD.REPRESENT ATIVE FOR THE TAXPAYER NO PREJUDICE IS CAUSED TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. FOR THE PURPOSE OF JURISDICTION U/S 263, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER SHOULD NOT ONLY BE ERRONEOUS BUT ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERE ST OF THE REVENUE. SINCE NO PREJUDICE IS CAUSED TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENU E, THE EXERCISE OF EXERCISING JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT IN RESPEC T OF WASTAGE IN CONVERSION OF WHEAT INTO WHEAT FLOUR IS NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCORDI NGLY WHILE CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT OF ELECTRICITY CHARGES TO THE EXTENT OF 32,65,484 THE ORDER WITH REGARD TO WASTAGE IN CONVERSION OF WHEAT INTO WHEAT FLOUR IS SET ASIDE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RECONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE TAXPAYER WITH REGARD TO PAYMENT OF ELECTRICITY CHARGES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.32,65,484 A FTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE TAXPAYER AND THEREAFTER DECIDE T HE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER SHALL BRING ON RECORD ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS AND APPLICATION OF MIND SHALL BE REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ALSO RECORD THE REASON ONE WAY OR THE OTHER FOR ALLOWING OR DISALLOWING THE CL AIM OF THE TAXPAYER. 9. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, THE APPEAL OF THE T AXPAYER IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 11 ITA NO. 587/COCH/2011 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 07 TH DECEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN, DT : 07 TH DECEMBER, 2012 PK/- COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. THE DR (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH