M star charitable society, Alappuzha V. CIt, Kottayam

ITA 605/COCH/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 65018 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 08-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S VIJAYAPRABHA; M ANIL KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SATHYANARAYANAN
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 122/COCH/2012 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.122/COCH/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08) DESAI HOMES VS THE DY.CIT, CIR.2(1) 40/7869-C, 1 ST FLOOR ERNAKULAM D.D. VYPAR BHAVAN MARKET ROAD, KOCHI-11 PAN : AACRFD0390E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SATHYANARAYANAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M. ANIL KUMAR & SMT. S VIJAYAPRABHA DATE OF HEARING : 29-11-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21-12-2012 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 PASSED U/S 263 OF THE I .T. ACT, 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2 ITA NO. 122/COCH/2012 2. SHRI SATHYARAYANAN, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR TH E TAXPAYER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER CONSIDERING THE M ATERIALS FILED BY THE TAXPAYER HAS ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO C ALLED FOR REPORT FROM THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME-TAX IN RESPECT OF AREA OF THE C ONSTRUCTION AND FOUND THAT ALL THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS WERE LESS THAN 1500 SQ.FT. THIS REPORT IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TAXPAYER IS THE OWNER OF THE LAND AND HE HIMSELF PR OMOTED THE HOUSING PROJECT. THEREFORE, THE QUESTION OF CONTRACT DOES NOT COME INTO CONSIDERATION. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH, WHETHER ALL THE DETAILS ARE EMBEDDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE LD.REPRESENTA TIVE SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH ALL THE FACTS ARE AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ALL THOSE FACTS IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE REPORT FILED BY THE INSPECTO R OF INCOME-TAX AND THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE TAXPAYER ARE AVAILABLE O N RECORD. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REFERRED TO A LL THOSE FACTUAL MATERIAL IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE. WE HAVE HEARD 3 ITA NO. 122/COCH/2012 SHRI M ANIL KUMAR, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-T AX(DR) AND SMT. S VIJAYAPRABHA, THE LD.JR.DR ALSO. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTED LY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS A QUASI JUDICIAL AUTHORITY. THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R IS A QUASI JUDICIAL ORDER. THEREFORE, THE REASON FOR DECISION SHALL CONTAIN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. THE APPLICATION OF MIND TO THE MATERIALS A VAILABLE ON RECORD SHALL BE REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. EVEN THOUGH THE TAXPAYER CLAIMS THAT THE REPORT OF THE INCOME-TAX INSPECTOR AND THE DETA ILS FILED BY THE TAXPAYER ARE AVAILABLE ON RECORD, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND TO THOSE FACTS AND SUCH APPLICATION IS NOT REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX A FTER EXAMINING THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD FOUND THAT THE BUILT UP AREA IS 1565 SQ.FT. FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 80IB(10), THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO EXAMINE THE CONSTRUCTED AREA OF EACH HOUSING UNIT A ND HE HAS TO SATISFY THAT THE CONSTRUCTED AREA DOES NOT EXCEED THE PRESC RIBED LIMIT. UNFORTUNATELY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT APPLIE D HIS MIND TO THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACT REMAINS IS THAT THE APPLICATION OF MIND IS NOT 4 ITA NO. 122/COCH/2012 REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS ALSO A FA CT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD WHETHER THE CONSTRUCTED H OUSING UNIT EXCEEDS THE LIMIT OR NOT? UNLESS AND UNTIL THE ASSESSING O FFICER BRING ON RECORD THAT THE HOUSING UNIT DOES NOT EXCEED THE PRESCRIBED LIM IT, THE TAXPAYER SHALL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE A CT. 4. THE CLAIM OF THE TAXPAYER THAT THE LAND BELONGS TO IT AND THE TAXPAYER BY ITSELF DEVELOPED THE HOUSING UNIT IS NOT BORNE O UT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE FACTS WHETHER THE LAND BELONGED TO THE TAXPAYER AND THE TAXPAYER BY ITSELF DEVELOPED THE HOUSING UNIT OR NO T WERE NOT EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EX PECTED TO EXAMINE ALL THESE FACTS AND BRING ON RECORD WHETHER THE TAXPAYER IS E LIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DO ES NOT REFLECT THE APPLICATION OF MIND TO THE MATERIALS SAID TO BE AVA ILABLE ON RECORD, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER IS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF T HE REVENUE. 5. THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS SUBJECT TO FURTHER AP PEAL / REVISION. WHENEVER, THE ASSESSMENT IS TAKEN UP FOR REVISION O R APPEAL, THE APPELLATE 5 ITA NO. 122/COCH/2012 / REVISIONARY AUTHORITY APPRECIATES THE REASONS FOR ALLOWING OR DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE TAXPAYER ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE REASONS RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE, IT IS OBLIGATORY ON T HE PART OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO RECORD THE REASONS IN THE ASSESSMENT O RDER FOR ALLOWING OR DISALLOWING THE CLAIM MADE BY THE TAXPAYER. THE AP PLICATION OF MIND TO THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD SHALL ALSO BE REFLECT ED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. GIVING REASONS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WOU LD ENSURE FAIRNESS IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS. UNFORTUNATELY, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER FAILED TO DO SO. THOUGH WE CANNOT BLAME THE TAXPAYER FOR THE NE GLIGENCE OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, THIS TRIBUNAL HAS TO SET RIGHT THE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CON SIDERED OPINION THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX HAS RIGHTLY EXERCISED HI S POWERS U/S 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT IN ASKING THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT AFTER BRINGING ALL THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. 6. IT MAY NOT BE OUT OF PLACE TO MENTION HERE THAT THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HAD AN OCCASION TO EXAMINE THIS ISSUE IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS SUNIL KUMAR GOEL (2005) 274 ITR 53 (P&H). THE PUNJAB & 6 ITA NO. 122/COCH/2012 HARYANA HIGH COURT AFTER CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENT O F 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 1984, A CONSTITUTION BENCH OF THE SUPREME COURT DISCUSSED T HE DEVELOPMENT OF LAW ON THIS SUBJECT IN INDIA, AUSTRA LIA, 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 TR AINED TO LOOK AT THINGS OBJECTIVELY UNINFLUENCED BY CONSIDERATION S OF POLICY OR EXPEDIENCY WHEREAS AN EXECUTIVE OFFICER GENERALL Y LOOKS AT THINGS FROM THE STAND POINT OF POLICY AND EXPEDIENC Y. REASONS, WHEN RECORDED BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHOR ITY IN AN ORDER PASSED BY IT WHILE EXERCISING QUASI-JUD ICIAL 7 ITA NO. 122/COCH/2012 FUNCTIONS, WOULD NO DOUBT FACILITATE THE EXERCISE O F ITS JURISDICTION BY THE APPELLATE OR SUPERVISORY AUTHOR ITY. 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 OPI NION, 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. IT 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 M ADE AN EXTREMELY LUCID ENUNCIATION OF LAW ON THE SUBJECT A ND 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)): 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 8 ITA NO. 122/COCH/2012 ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES HAVING A DUTY TO ACT JUD ICIALLY 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, CHE CKS 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 P OSSESSED 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 FLO WERY LANGUAGE USED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO JUSTIFY ITS ACCEPTANCE OF T HE RESPONDENTS PLEA THAT HE DID NOT KNOW THE LAW DOES NOT WARRANT OUR AFFIRMATION. IN OUR OPINION, THE TRIBU NAL WAS DUTY 9 ITA NO. 122/COCH/2012 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 PROVISION S 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. 7. THE APEX COURT ALSO HAD AN OCCASION TO CONSIDER THIS ISSUE IN TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (20 08) 306 ITR 52 (SC). THE APEX COURT HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS AT PAGE 53 O F THE ITR: WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNE D ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT. THE HIGH COURT HAS HELD T HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISPOSED OF THE PROCEEDINGS S TATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN THIS CASE UNDER SE CTION 271C READ WITH SECTION 274 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 A RE HEREBY DROPPED. ACCORDINGLY TO THE HIGH COURT, THERE WAS NO BASIS INDICATED FOR DROPPING THE PROCEEDINGS. THE TRIBUN AL REFERRED TO CERTAIN ASPECTS AND HELD THAT THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN S HORT, THE I.T. ACT) WAS IMPERMISSIBLE WHEN CONSIDERED IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE MATERIALS PURPORTEDLY PLACED BY T HE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WHAT THE HI GH COURT HAS DONE IS TO REQUIRE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PAS S A REASONED ORDER. THE HIGH COURT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE TRI BUNAL COULD NOT HAVE SUBSTITUTED ITS OWN REASONINGS WHICH WERE REQUIRED TO BE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, ALL RELEVANT ASPECTS WERE PLACED FOR CONS IDERATION AND IF THE OFFICER DID NOT RECORD REASONS, THE ASSE SSEE CANNOT BE FAULTED. 10 ITA NO. 122/COCH/2012 WE DO NOT THINK IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE AT THIS STAGE. IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT WHEN THE MATTER BE TAKEN U P BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON REMAND, IT SHALL BE HIS DUTY T O TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE RELEVANT ASPECTS INCLUDING THE MATE RIALS, IF ANY, ALREADY PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND PASS A REASONED ORDER. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE A SSESSING AUTHORITY TO RECORD REASON FOR ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE TAXPAYE R AFTER BRINGING ON RECORD ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS. THE APPLICATION OF MIND SHALL ALSO BE REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. APART FROM RECORDI NG REASONS FOR DECISION IN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, SINCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DO ES NOT DISCLOSE THE AREA OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND WHETHER IT WAS A CONTR ACT OR DEVELOPMENT OF THE TAXPAYERS OWN LAND, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CO NSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER HAS RIGHTLY INVOKED HIS JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NO T FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. A CCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE TAXPAYER STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 21 ST DECEMBER, 2012. SD/- D/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN, DT : 21 ST DECEMBER, 2012 PK/-