M/s HHA Tank Terminal P.Ltd, Cochin V. ACIT, Ernakulam

ITA 61/COCH/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 52263 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 23-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S VIJAYAPRABHA
• Assessee Lawyers: V SATHYANARAYANAN CAAR
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Competent authority; Revised return
• Section: 244A

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.61/COCH/2010 (ASSTT. YEAR 2002-03) 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLAT E TRIBUNAL COCHIN BEN CH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI N.VIJAYAKUMARAN, JM AND SANJAY AR ORA, AM I.T.A. NO. 61/COCH/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 HHA TANK TERMINAL (P.) LTD., CC 24/1869, MURAF AREA, INDIRA GANDHI ROAD, W/ISLAND, COCHIN-682 003. [PAN:AAACH 7268L] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), ERNAKULAM. (ASSESSEE-APPELLANT) (REVENUE- RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI V.SATHYANARAYANAN, CA-AR REVENUE BY MS. S. VIJAYAPRABHA, JR. DR DATE OF HEARING 16/8/2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21/10/2011 O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS-II, KOCHI (CIT(A) FOR SHOR T) DATED 30.11.2009, AND THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) UNDER REFERENCE IS 2002-03. 2. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE INSTANT APPEAL IS THE MAINTAINABILITY IN LAW, I.E., UNDER THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, OF THE I NTEREST WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) WITH REFERENCE TO SECTION 244A(2) OF T HE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT' HEREINAFTER), I.E., ON ACCOUNT OF THE DELAY ATTRIBU TABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, SINCE CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER. I.T.A. NO.61/COCH/2010 (ASSTT. YEAR 2002-03) 2 3.1 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE, WHICH ARE ADMITTED LY UNDISPUTED, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR ON 29.10.20 02 , CLAIMING A REFUND OF ` 86,333/-, WHICH WAS GRANTED ON PROCESSING U/S. 143(1) ON 29.1 2.2002, AND WITHIN TIME. THE ASSESSEE FILED A REVISED RETURN ON 22.3.2004 , CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA AND, CONSEQUENTLY, A REFUND OF ` 171.77 LAKHS. AGAIN, ON PROCESSING U/S. 143(1), AN AMOUNT OF ` 170.90 LAKHS WAS DETERMINED AS REFUNDABLE. AN ORDER U/S. 154 WAS PASSED ON 03.8.2006, SETTING RIGHT AN OMISSION IN THE COMPUTATION OF DEE MED INCOME U/S. 115JB, REDUCING THE AMOUNT REFUNDABLE, I.E., AS PER THE REVISED RETURN, TO ` 136.36 LAKHS, AND REFUND ISSUED. ON BOTH THE OCCASIONS, HOWEVER, THE AMOUNT REFUNDED DI D NOT BEAR ANY INTEREST U/S. 244A. THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT RECTIFICATION IN-AS-MUCH AS NO INTEREST U/S. 244A HAD BEEN ALLOWED. THE SAME WAS ACCEPTED, AND IT GRANTED INTEREST U/S. 244A AT ` 41.72LAKHS, I.E., FROM 1.4.2002 (THE FIRST DAY OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR) TO THE DATE OF GRANT OF THE REFUND, I.E., 21.11.2006 . 3.2 IT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY NOTICED BY THE REVENUE THAT THE DELAY IN THE GRANT OF REFUND WAS, AT LEAST IN PART, CAUSED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN-A S-MUCH AS THE SAME AROSE ONLY SUBSEQUENT TO THE REVISED RETURNED FILED ON 22.3.20 04. ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED THE COMPUTATION OF BOOK-PROFIT IN THE REQ UIRED FORM (FORM 29B), WHICH WAS ONLY ON 07.9.2006 . THE INTEREST U/S. 244A WAS ACCORDINGLY RE-COMPUTE D AT ` 205842/- , BY ALLOWING IT ON THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT REFUNDED ( ` 137.23 LAKHS) FROM THE PERIOD 02.8.2006 TO 31.10.2006 (I.E., THREE MONTHS) VIDE ORDER DATED 16.02.2007. THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION SEEKING INTEREST FROM AN EARLIER DATE/S WAS REJECTED VIDE ORDER DATED 22.5.2007. THE ASSESSEE APPEALED THERE-AGAINST, AND THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HELD THAT INTEREST U/S. 244A(1) COULD BE WITHDRAWN, I.E., ON ACCOUNT OF DELAY IN GRANTING THE REFUND AS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, ONLY U/S. 244A(2), ON A REFERENCE TO THE CIT OR CCIT. ACCORDINGLY, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOCHI (`CIT FOR SHORT), ON A REFERENCE BY THE AO, DIRECTED THE LATTER TO COMPUTE INTEREST BY EXCLUDING THE PERIOD UP TO 07.9.2006, I.E., THE DATE OF FILING OF THE REPORT BY THE ASSES SEE IN FORM 29B. THIS LED TO A FURTHER REDUCTION IN THE INTEREST U/S. 244A (AS THE ASSESSE E WAS NOW CONSIDERED AS ENTITLED TO INTEREST ONLY FOR THE PERIOD 08/9/2006 TO 21/11/200 6) AND, CONSEQUENTLY, A DEMAND OF I.T.A. NO.61/COCH/2010 (ASSTT. YEAR 2002-03) 3 ` 68,605/- RAISED VIDE ORDER U/S. 154 DATED 06.12.200 7. THE SAME STOOD CONFIRMED IN APPEAL BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE CIT, KOCHI HAD, IT W AS HELD BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, GIVEN A CLEAR DIRECTION TO THE AO, WHO H AD GIVEN EFFECT THERE-TO, AFTER EXTENDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSE E. AS REGARDS THE QUANTUM OF DELAY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME STANDS, AGAI N, CORRECTLY DETERMINED, IN-AS-MUCH AS SEC. 115JB(4), PROVIDING FOR FURNISHING A CERTIFICA TE FROM AN ACCOUNTANT IN FORM 29B, BEARS THE OPERATIVE WORDS SHALL FURNISH . IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE SAID REPORT WAS FILED ONLY ON 07.9.2006, SO THAT THE PERIOD UP TO THAT DA TE STOOD RIGHTLY EXCLUDED IN COMPUTING THE DELAY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE GRANT OF REFUND. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 4.1 BEFORE US, THE MATTER WAS ARGUED AT LENGTH BY THE LD. AR. ONCE THE AO HAD ALLOWED INTEREST FROM 1.4.2002 (VIDE ORDER DATED 21.11.2006 ), THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF IT BEING WITHDRAWN WITH REFERENCE TO SEC. 244A(2), I.E., IT CANNOT BE SUBJECT TO S. 154. SECONDLY, THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT WERE BEHIND THE ASSESSEES BACK, I.E., WITHOUT ALLOWING IT AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. TRUE, THE ASSESS EE HAD BEEN ALLOWED HEARING BY THE AO, BUT IT IS ONLY THAT ALLOWED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHOR ITY EXERCISING THE POWER IN CASE OF A DISPUTE, AND NOT A SUBORDINATE AUTHORITY, THAT IS R ELEVANT. SO, HOWEVER, HIS ORDER BEING NOT COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ACTION BY IT WOUL D ONLY BE WITH REFERENCE TO THE SEC. 154 ORDER SUBSEQUENTLY PASSED BY THE AO. FURTHER, O NCE A REVISED RETURN IS PASSED, THE SAME TAKES THE PLACE OF THE ORIGINAL RETURN, AND TH E CLAIMS PREFERRED THEREBY RELATE BACK TO THE SAID RETURN. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTIT LED TO INTEREST FROM THE FIRST DAY OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. (2011) 199 TAXMAN 82 (KER.) (MAG.), THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT EVEN FILED A RE VISED RETURN BUT MADE A CLAIM PER A LETTER; THE TIME FOR FILING THE REVISED RETURN OF I NCOME HAVING EXPIRED. YET, IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE COURT, ON THE ISSUE OF THE PERIOD FOR W HICH THE ENSUING INTEREST U/S. 244A WOULD ARISE, THAT THE SAME CANNOT BE PEGGED TO THE DATE OF THE ASSESSEES LETTER PRESSING THE IMPUGNED CLAIM, AS INSISTED BY THE REVENUE, AND THAT NO DELAY COULD BE SAID TO BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, SO THAT IT WOULD BE E NTITLED TO INTEREST U/S. 244A FROM THE FIRST I.T.A. NO.61/COCH/2010 (ASSTT. YEAR 2002-03) 4 DAY OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR, I.E., AS PROVIDED U/S. 244A(1)(A); THE INTEREST IN THAT CASE BEING ADMITTEDLY OUT OF THE ADVANCE-TAX. 4.2 THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE OR DERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, STATING THAT THE INTEREST IN THE INSTANT CASE HAD BEEN WITH DRAWN FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURE AS PRESCRIBED THEREFORE UNDER THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAD PASSED A WELL REASONED ORDER, COVERING BOTH THE PROCEDURAL (LEGAL) AS WELL AS THE FACTUAL ASPECTS OF THE CASE ON MERITS, AND HIS ORDER, WHEREIN NO INFIRMITY HAS BEEN POINTE D OUT, DESERVES TO BE UPHELD. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE CASE LAW CITED. 5.1 THE FIRST THING THAT WE OBSERVE IS THAT THE RECTIFICATION ORDER APPEALED AGAINST RAISES A DEMAND OF ` 68,605/-, I.E., THE INTEREST DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN T HAT AS ALLOWED BY THE AO VIDE ORDER DATED 16.2.2007 ( ` 205842/-) AND AS REVISED BY HIM ON BEING DIRECTED B Y THE LD. CIT ( ` 137227/-) VIDE ORDER DATED 06.12.2007. THE RECOURSE TO THE LD. CIT WAS CONSEQUENT TO THE CHALLENGE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE ORDER DATED 16.2.2007 IN APPEAL, WITH THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DIRECTING SO AND, TO OUR MIND, ONLY RIGHTLY; THE CORRECT PROCEDURE, WHERE THE AO WISHES TO WITHDRAW OR DISAL LOW INTEREST U/S. 244A FOR DELAY IN ITS GRANT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, WHERE OBJEC TED TO BY THE ASSESSEE, AS IN THE INSTANT CASE, HE, RATHER THAN DECIDING IT HIMSELF, OUGHT TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE CIT/CCIT, BEING THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE UNDER LAW. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CHALLENGE THE SAID APPELLATE ORDER, AND AGAIN, IN OUR VIEW, ONLY RIGHTLY, THAT BEING THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN LAW, EVEN AS EXPLAINED BY THE HONBLE JURIS DICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. (2011) 199 TAXMAN 82 (KER.) (MAG.) (COPY ON RECORD ). THE SAID APPELLATE ORDER, THUS, ASSUMES FINALITY. SECTI ON 244A (2) PROVIDES THAT THE DECISION BY THE CIT/CCIT IN THE MATTER SHALL BE FINAL. HOW, THEN, WE WONDER, THE SAME COULD BE EITHER OBJECTED TO BEFORE THE AO OR, IN CASE OF HIS NON-ACCEPTANCE OF HIS ORDER, BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES ? IN OTHER WORDS, THE ORDER U/S. 244A(2) BY THE CIT /CCIT IS NOT AN APPEALABLE ORDER, EITHER U/S. 246A OR U/S. 253 OF T HE ACT. TRUE, THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, I.T.A. NO.61/COCH/2010 (ASSTT. YEAR 2002-03) 5 I.E., CCIT/CIT, OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE PASSING HIS ORDER DIRECTING THE AO TO WITHDR AW INTEREST FOR THE PERIOD UP TO 07/9/2006. THIS IS FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT THE P ROCEEDINGS ARE QUASI-JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ENTAILING A CIVIL LIABILITY OR CURTAILMENT OF A VES TED RIGHT AND, THEREFORE, OBSERVANCE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WHICH THE RULE OF AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM ESSENTIALY IS, MUST NECESSARILY BE READ INTO THE PROVISION, EXCEPT WHER E SPECIFICALLY BARRED BY THE EXPRESS LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE, AS EXPLAINED BY THE APEX C OURT TIME AND AGAIN. THIS IS MORE SO IN THE INSTANT CASE AS HIS ORDER IS DECLARED BY LAW AS FINAL. EQUALLY TRUE, THAT EXTENSION OF OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO, W HICH WE OBSERVE HE INDEED HAS, WOULD NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT, I.E., OF AN OPPORTUNIT Y OF HEARING BEFORE THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, AS THE DECISION BY THE CIT/CCIT IS BINDI NG NOT ONLY ON THE ASSESSEE, BUT ALSO ON THE AO. AS SUCH, WHAT VALUE OR TO WHAT PURPOSE THE OPPORTUN ITY ALLOWED BY THE AO ? SO, HOWEVER, THAT WOULD NOT MAKE OR OPERATE TO MAKE THE ORDER BY THE CIT/CCIT U/S. 244A(2) AS APPEALABLE. IF THE FORMER, I.E., THE NON ALLOWANCE OF OPPORTUNITY, COULD BE SAID TO BE A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE, AS THE LD. AR WAS AT P AINS TO EMPHASISE BEFORE US, THE LATTER (I.E., MAKING THE RESULTING ORDER AS APPEALABLE), W OULD BE A TRAVESTY OF LAW. THE LD. CIT(A) HAD NO JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2007 BY THE AO, GIVING EFFECT TO THE DIRECTIONS BY THE LD. CIT, THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER THE ACT U/S. 244A(2). THE TRIBUNAL, THOUGH BOUND TO AD MIT ANY APPEAL ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER U/S. 251, IS CONSTRAINED NOT TO DECIDE THE ISSUE UN DER APPEAL, I.E., THE EXTENT OF DELAY THAT UNDER THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE CAN BE SAID TO BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. SECTION 244A(2), REPRODUCED AS UNDER, IS UNEQUIVOCALLY CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS, AFFORDING NO SCOPE FOR ANY INTERPRETATION, I.E., OT HER THAN THAT CONVEYED BY THE MEANING OF ITS EXPRESS LANGUAGE, EVEN AS OBSERVED BY THE BENCH DURING HEARING: INTEREST ON REFUNDS 244A (1) (2) IF THE PROCEEDINGS RESULTING IN THE REFUND ARE DELAYED FOR REASONS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, WHETHER WHOLLY OR IN PART, THE PE RIOD OF THE DELAY SO ATTRIBUTABLE TO HIM SHALL BE EXCLUDED FROM THE PERIOD FOR WHICH INTEREST IS PAYABLE, AND WHERE I.T.A. NO.61/COCH/2010 (ASSTT. YEAR 2002-03) 6 ANY QUESTION ARISES AS TO THE PERIOD TO BE EXCLUDE D, IT SHALL BE DECIDED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER WHOSE DECISION THEREO N SHALL BE FINAL. COUPLED WITH S. 246A OF THE ACT, WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE ORDERS UNDER THE ACT THAT ARE SUBJECT TO APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AU THORITY, WHOSE ORDER IS UNDER CHALLENGE BEFORE US, LEAVES NO ROOM FOR ANY CONTROVERSY OR DI FFERENT VIEW. THE REMEDY IN LAW LIES ELSEWHERE, AND THE ASSESSEE HAS PURSUED THE WRONG C OURSE. 5.2 COMING TO THE DECISION BY THE HONBLE JURISDICT IONAL HIGH COURT, THE SAME ASSISTS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE, RATHER THAN THAT OF THE AS SESSEE; THE HONBLE COURT CLEARLY OBSERVING THAT THE CORRECT PROCEDURE IN THE MATTER WAS FOR THE AO TO HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER FOR ARBITRATION TO THE CIT/CCIT AS PROVIDED U/S. 244A(2) OF THE ACT. THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT IN THAT CA SE WAS AN ORDER U/S. 154 R/W S. 244A(1)(A), WHILE THAT BEFORE US IS U/S. 154 R/W S. 244A(2), AND THEREIN LIES THE WHOLE DIFFERENCE . FURTHER, EVEN ON MERITS, ONCE AN ASSESSMENT IS FI NALIZED, DETERMINING THE INCOME ASSESSABLE, THE REFUND ARISING IN PURSUANCE THEREOF, CANNOT, QUITE SIMPLY, BE SEGREGATED INTO THE DIFFERENT CLAIMS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARD ITS ASSESSABLE INCOME, WHETHER PER A RETURN OF INCOME OR OTHERWISE AND, TH US, WHERE ARISING OUT OF PRE-PAID TAXES, INTEREST THEREON HAS NECESSARILY TO BE FROM THE FIRST DAY OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR (S. 244A(1)(A)). THE SAID CASE IS, THUS, COMPL ETELY DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS; THE REFUND IN THE INSTANT CASE ONLY ARISING OUT OF, AGA IN, AS OBSERVED BY THE BENCH DURING HEARING, THE ASSESSEES REVISED RETURN FILED IN MAR CH, 2004, WHILE IT CLAIMS INTEREST FROM 1.4.2002. THE ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR, IT MAY BE APPRECIATED, HAD BEEN COMPLETED MUCH EARLIER, BY ACCEPTANCE OF ITS RETURN AS ORIGINALLY FILED AND NON-ISSUE OF A NOTICE U/S. 143(2). EQUALLY, WE WONDER, AND FIND NO CLEAR ANSWER IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, AS TO HOW THE DELAY FOR THE PERI OD APRIL, 2004 TO NOVEMBER, 2006, COULD BE ASCRIBED TO THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE REVISED RETURN STANDS PROCESSED ACCEPTING THE REVISED RETURN AS SUCH, I.E., WITHOUT INTIMATING TH E DEFECT OF NON-FURNISHING OF THE REPORT U/S. 115JB(4) TO THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE SAID IN TIMATION COULD AS WELL BE IN APRIL, 2004, AND MAY NOT EVEN ARISE IN AUGUST/SEPTEMBER, 2006, W HEREAT IT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN; THE I.T.A. NO.61/COCH/2010 (ASSTT. YEAR 2002-03) 7 SAID REPORT HAVING BEEN FILED ON 07.9.2006. AGAIN, THE INTEREST U/S. 244A (1) ON THE FIRST REFUND FOR ` 86,333/- WOULD ONLY BE FROM 1/4/2002 TO THE DATE OF ITS GRANT IN DECEMBER, 2002, AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ASSESSEES REV ISED CLAIM IN MARCH, 2004. OUR OBSERVATIONS IN THIS REGARD, HOWEVER, ARE ONLY IN P ASSING, AND THE CITED DECISION WOULD BE OF NO ASSISTANCE TO THE ASSESSEE. LIKE-WISE, IN THE CASE OF CIT (DY.) V. VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD . (IN ITA NO. 2892/MUM/2002 DATED 23/11/2005 2006 -TIOL-90- ITAT-MUM), THE OTHER DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE AS SESSEE, WHEREIN, AGAIN, THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ARISES OUT AN ORDER U /S. 244A(1)(A) AND NOT U/S. 244A(2), AS IN THE INSTANT CASE. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. SD/- SD/- (N.VIJAYAKUMARAN) (SANJAY ARORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: ERNAKULAM DATED: 21 ST OCTOBER, 2011 GJ COPY TO: 1. HHA TANK TERMINAL(P) LTD., CC 24/1869, MURAF ARE A, INDIRA GANDHI ROAD, W/ISLAND, COCHIN-682 003 2. THE ASST. COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 (2), ERNAKULAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-II, KOC HI. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOCHI. 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 6. GUARD FILE .