Smt.Santhi Krishnan, Trivandrum V. The ITO, Trivandrum

ITA 671/COCH/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4155 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRITUNJAYA SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: R KRISHNAN
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Rule of consistency; Fair market value; Valuation report; Revenue expenditure; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 143(2); 191; 54EC

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFOR E SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 671 /COCH/201 9 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006 - 07 SMT. SANTHI KRISHNAN, TC 25/1023, SANTHI NIVAS, KUNNUKUZHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. [PAN: A AOPI 8737J] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (ASSESSEE - APPELLANT) (REVENUE - RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI R. KRISHNAN, FCA REVENUE BY SHRI MRITUNJAYA SHARMA , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 20 / 0 2 / 20 20 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 25 TH /0 2 /20 20 O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K.,JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), TRIVANDRUM DATED 04/10/2019. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2006 - 07. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.18,37,600/ - IN RESPECT OF SALE OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IN CHENNAI. I.T.A. NO. 671/ COCH/2019 2 2) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN SUMMARILY REJECTING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT AND T HE VALUATION REPORT FILED BY THE APPELLANT W.R.T FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01/04/1981. 3) THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE VALUATION BY THE REGISTERED VALUER IS ALSO ONE OF THE OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO ARRIVE AT THE FAIR MA RKET VALUE AS ON 01 - 04 - 1981. 4) THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN CREDENCE TO THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF COST OF THE BUILDING AND IMPROVEMENTS THEREON. 5) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE VALUATION REP ORTS FILED BY THE APPELLANT. 6) THE LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT CONSIDER ANY OF THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT AND TO THAT EXTENT THERE IS DENIAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS: THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDI VIDUAL. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07, THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 31.07.2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.51,238/ - . BASED ON A I R INFORMATION, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD AN IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY AT CHENNAI , T H E ASSESSMENT WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE I.T. ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ONE OF THE FOUR LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHRI M.G. KRISHNAN WHO EXPIRED ON 18.05.1989. LATE SHRI M.G. KRISHNAN WAS OWNER OF PROP ERTY AT CHENNAI, WHICH HE HAD PURCHASED PRIOR TO THE YEAR 1981. T HE OTHER LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHRI M.G. KRISHNAN ARE THE ASSESSEES MOTHER AND TWO OF HER BROTHERS. THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHER CO - OWNERS HAD SOLD PROPERTY AT CHENNAI ON 5 - 10 - 2005 FOR TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.90 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEES SHARE IN THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY BEING 1/4 TH , THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY HER WAS I.T.A. NO. 671/ COCH/2019 3 RS.22,50,000/ - . THE ASSESSEE CALCULATED HER LON G TERM CAPITAL GAINS (LTCG) ON THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY HER AT RS.3,68,299/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION ON LTCG FOR INVESTMENT IN REC BONDS. THE COMPUTATION OF THE LTCG BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS FOLLOWS: - COST OF LAND PER SQ .FT. IN THE FIN. YE AR 81 - 82 = 150/ - COST OF LAND FOR 4425 SQ. FT. OF LAND =4425 *150 = 6,63,750 (A) INDEXED COST IN THE YEAR OF SALE 6,63,750*497/100 = 32,98,838 THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED BY LATE DR. M.G. KRISHNAN IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 78 - 79. THE APPROXIMATE ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN THE FIN. YEAR 80 - 81 IS RS.400/SQ. FT. TOTAL PLINTH ARE OF THE BUILDING = 140 0 SQ. FT. ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION 1400*400 = 5,60,000/ - (B) INDEXED COST IN THE YEAR OF SALE F.Y. 05 - 06 = 27,83,200/ - 5,60,000*497/172 AN AMOUNT OF NEARLY RS.5 LAKHS WAS SPENT ON THE BUILDING FOR MAJOR REPAIRS DUE TO LEAKAGE AND FOR CHANGING OF WARDROBES AND A FEW DOORS AND WINDOWS DURING THE FIN. YEAR 1989 - 90. (C) INDEXED COST IN THE YEAR OF SALE F.Y. 05 - 06 = 14,44,767 5,00,000*497/172 (D) TOTAL INDEXED COST OF BUILDING (B+C) = 42,27,967 (E) TOTAL INDEXED COST OF LAND & BUILDING (A+D) = 75,26,805 (F) SALE PROCEEDS = 90,00,000 (G) L .T. CAPITAL GAIN (F - E) = 14,73,196 THIS IS APPORTIONED AMONG FOUR LEGAL HEIRS AND SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE IF RS.3,68,299/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY INVESTE D RS.54,00,000/ - FOR PURCHASE OF BONDS IN RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD. AND IT IS CAPITAL GAINS EXEMPTION BONDS. HENCE, NO CAPITAL GAINS ARISES TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF COMPUTATION OF LTCG. THE ASSESSEE FILED HER REPLY I.T.A. NO. 671/ COCH/2019 4 VIDE LETTER DATED 30/12/2008. THE FAIR MARKET VALUE (FMV) OF THE LAND AND BUILDING AS ON 01/04/1981 W AS CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION REPORT OF TWO CHARTERED ENGINEERS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RE - COMPUTED THE LTCG AT RS.18,88,840/ - . THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER READS AS FOLLOWS: 9. THE A SSESSEE'S REPLY HAS BEEN CONSIDERED. THE COST OF LAND HAS TO BE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF GUIDELINE VALUE FURNISHED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR, CHENNAI. SINCE THE TWO R.S.NO. ARE HAVING TWO DIFFERENT GUIDELINE VALUE, THE AVERAGE OF THIS WHICH COMES TO RS. 28 , 000/ - IS ADOPTED AND COST OF LAND IS CALCULATED AS BELOW: AREA OF LAND SOLD 3 GROUNDS * 378 SQ. FT. (ONE GROUND IS EQUAL TO 2387 SQ. FT . AND HENCE AREA O F LAND SOLD IS 4425 SQ.FT) COST OF LAND SOLD = 28000 * 4 , 425/2 , 387 = 51,906 INDEXED CO ST OF LAND SOLD = 51,906 * 497/100 = 2,57,973 THE SALE CONSIDERATION F OR LAND AS PER SALE DEED IS RS. 34,55 , 925/ - HENCE LTCG ON LAND IS AS BELOW: SALE PROCEEDS 34,55,925/ - LESS: INDEXED COST O F LAND SOLD 2 , 57,973 / - L.T.C . G. ON LAND 31,97,95 1 (A) THE VALUE OF THE BUILDING AS PE R SALE DEED IS MENTIONED AS RS. 55 , 44 , 075/ - AND AREA OF THE BUILDING IS 1400 SQ.FT. THE BUILDING HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED DURING FY 80 - 81. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ADDUCED ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HER CLAIM FOR COST OF CONSTRUCTION @ RS.400/ - PER SQ. FT. AS PER THE CPWD RATES THE COST OF STRUCTURE IS APPROXIMATELY RS .684 PE R SQ. METRE. SINCE T HE BUILDING IS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, THE COST OF FULLY COMPLETED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CAN REASONABLY BE ESTIMATED AS RS. 2,053/ - PER SQ. METRE INCLUDING THE COST OF WOOD WORK, DOOR FRAME, FLOORING SANITARY. ELECTRICAL FITTINGS, ETC. WHICH COMES TO RS. 191 P ER SQ.FT WHICH IS TAKEN AS RS. 200 PER SQ. FT. INCLUDING ALLOWANCE FOR SUPERVISION, ETC.. THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION DURING FY 80 - 81 IS ADOPTED @RS.200 PER SQ.FT. AND THE COST OF THE BUILDING COMES TO RS.2,80,000/ - . INDEXED COST OF CONSTRUCTION 2,80,000*497/100 = 13,91,600 L . T. CAPITAL GAIN ON BUILDING (55,44,075 - 13,91,600= 41,52 , 471 (B) THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT REPAIRS WERE MADE TO THE BUILDING DURING THE FY 89 - 90 AT A COST OF RS.5 , 00,000/ - THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED I.T.A. NO. 671/ COCH/2019 5 COPIES OF CERTAIN BILLS ETC. IN RESPECT OF THIS CLAIM. THE TOTAL OF ALL THE BILLS DOES NOT EXCEED RS.2 0,000/ - AND THE BIGGEST BILL IS THE ONE DATED 18 - 10 - 1989 STATED TO BE ISSUED BY CREATIVE MANNEOUIM COMPANY FOR RS 6 , 510 / - . IT IS NOT A PRINTED BILL BUT ONLY WRITTEN ON A LETTER HEAD AND THE ADDRESS I S NO.9 , MUNIAPPA GARDEN, BANGALORE. HENCE THIS CANNOT BE RELIED UPON. THE REPAIRS CAN ONLY BE TAKEN AS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS ADDITION/EXTENSION TO T HE BUILDING. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY PROOF IN RESPECT OF THIS CLAIM OTHER THAN THE COPY OF BILLS FOR PURCHASE OF ITEMS USED FOR MAINTENANCE OF A BUILDING. NO SANCTION OR APPROVAL OF ANY AUTHORITY WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR EXTENSION OF BUILDING HAS BE EN FILED. HENCE I AM UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION REGARDING REPAIRS AND THE CLAIM OF REPAIRS IS NOT CONSIDERED. 10. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT SHE HAS INVESTED RS.5,00,000/ - IN REC BONDS AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION FROM L.T.C.G. THE ASSESSE E HAS BEEN ALLOTTED THE BONDS ONLY ON 31/03/2008 AND IS BEYOND THE PERIOD WITH IN WHICH THE INVESTMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AS MENTIONED IN SEC. 54EC OF THE ACT. HENCE THE CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 54EC IS NOT ALLOWED. 11. THE L.T.C.G. ON SALE OF THE LA ND AND BUILDING IS COMPUTED AS BELOW. L.T.C.G. ON LAND (MENTIONED AS A IN PARA 9) 31,97,951 L.T.C.G. ON LAND (MENTIONED AS B IN PARA 9 41,52,475 TOTAL L.T.C.G. 73,50,426 SHARE OF THE ASS ESSEE (1/4 TH OF 73,50,426) = 18,37,606 ROUNDED OFF TO 18,37,600/ - INCOME AS RETURNED 51,238 ADD: L.T.C.G. 18,37,606 ASSESSED INCOME 18,88,840 5 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSMENT IN RECOMPUTING THE LTCG AND IN DENYING THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCT ION U/S. 54EC OF THE I.T. ACT, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE COMPUTATION OF LTCG BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CIT(A) NOTICED THAT LTCG COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THE VALUATION REPORT OF TWO CHARTERED ENGINEERS IS ON ESTIMATE BASIS AND ORAL STATEMENTS , WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER GATHERED THE GUIDELINE VALUE FROM SUB REGISTRAR, CHENNAI I.T.A. NO. 671/ COCH/2019 6 AND RELIED ON CPWD RATES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING . THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE CIT(A) IN REJECTING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE READS AS FOLLOWS: - 4.4. DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE LEARNED AR DID NOT EXPLAIN HOW THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR COMPUTING THE LTCG IS ERRONEOUS. NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED IN THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS TO CONTRADICT THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS, THE LTCG COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UPHELD AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT ARE DISMISSED. 6 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED PAPER BOOK ENCLOSING THE VALUATION REPORTS OF TWO CHARTERED ENGINEERS A ND A BRIEF WRITTEN SUBMISSION. THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ESSENTIALLY SUBMISSIONS REITERATED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES. FURTHER, THE LEARNED AR HAD PRODUCED A COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT OF ONE OF THE CO - OWNERS OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY WHEREIN COMPUTATION OF LTCG BY CO - OWNER (WHICH IS IDENTICAL TO COMPUTATION MADE BY ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE) WAS ACCEPTED BY THE A O. 7 . THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 WITHOUT DISCLOSING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. BASED ON A I R INFORMATION, THE ASSESSMENT WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE FMV ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ON 01/04/1981 FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS WAS PURELY ON AN ESTIMATE BASIS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD GATHERED GUIDELINE VALUE FROM I.T.A. NO. 671/ COCH/2019 7 THE SUB REGISTRAR, CHENNAI AND A LSO RELIED ON THE CPWD RATES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING FOR COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR THE FMV ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS ON 01/04/1981 IS ACCURATE AND MORE SCIENTIFIC THAN FMV SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE L D. DR SUBMITTED THAT COMPUTATION OF LTCG MADE BY THE AO DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE . 8 . I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE FOUR CO - OWNERS OF TH E PROPERTY AT CHENNAI WHICH WAS SOLD ON 05/10/2005 . THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED ON THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS RS.90 LAKHS. T HE ASSESSEE S S HARE ON SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS R S.22,50,000/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALCULATED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AT RS.18,37,600/ - INSTEAD OF RS.3,68,299/ - COMPUT ED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 54EC ON PURCHASE OF REC BONDS WAS ALSO REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. TH E ASSESSEE DOES N OT HAVE A CASE BEFORE THE TR IBUNAL THAT SHE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 54EC ON PURCHASE OF R EC BONDS. THE LIMITED DISPUTE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS REGARDING ADOPTION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE (FMV) AS ON1 - 4 - 1981 OF THE LAND, BUILDING AND IMPROVEMENTS MADE ON THE SAME . 8.1 T HE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS WAS COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF VALUA TION REPORTS SUBMITTED BY THE TWO CHARTERED ENGINEERS. MO ST IMPORTANTLY IN THE HANDS OF ONE OF THE CO - OWNERS, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT BY ACCEPTING THE COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS MADE BY I.T.A. NO. 671/ COCH/2019 8 THE CO - OWNER ( SHRI THINKAL GOVIND KUMAR ) . IN THE CASE OF SHRI THINKAL GOVIND KUMAR, THE ASSESSMENT WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY BASED ON AIR INFORMATION THAT HE HAD SOLD AN IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY AT CHENNAI ON 05/10/2005. THE COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS CALCULATED BY T HE SHRI TH I NKAL GOVIND KUMAR ( ONE OF THE CO - OWNERS OF THE SAID PROPERTY AT CHENNAI ) WAS ACCEPTED AT RS.3,68,299/ - IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT (ORDER DATED 30/09/2008) . IN THE HANDS OF THE OTHER CO - OWNER S OF IMPUGNED PROPER TY, NAMELY, SMT. INDIRA KRISHNAN (MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE) AND SHRI K. KRISHNAN (BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE), THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO INFORMATION AS REGARDS THE FATE OF COMPUTATION OF LTCG OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY. THE LIABILLITY OF LONG T ERM CAPITAL GAINS CANNOT DIFFER BETWEEN THE CO - OWNERS OF A PROPERTY. EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO RES JUDICATA IN TAX PROCEEDINGS, THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY HAS TO BE APPLIED. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS VS. KAUMUDINI NA RAYAN DALAL AND ANOTHER ( 249 ITR 219 ) WAS CONSI DER ING AN ISSUE WHETHER IT IS OPEN TO REVENUE TO ACCEPT A JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF ONE ASSESSEE AND APPEAL AGAINST IDENTICAL JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF ANOTHER ASSESSEE. IN THIS CONTEXT IT WAS HELD BY HONBLE AP EX COURT THAT SUCH A DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW. THE SAME VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BERGER INDIA LTD. (266 ITR 99). I.T.A. NO. 671/ COCH/2019 9 8.2 IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED THE F MV AS ON 01/04/1981 BASED ON THE VALUATION REPORT S OF TWO CHARTERED ENGINEERS AND IS NOT WITHOUT ANY BASIS . FURTHER, IN THE HANDS OF ONE OF THE CO - OWNERS ( SHRI THINKAL GOVIND KUMAR ) THE COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS CALCULATED BY HIM WHICH WAS IDENTICAL TO THE LTCG COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT . FOR AFORESAID REASONS , I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE NEEDS TO BE ACCEPTED. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDIN GLY. 9 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH - 0 2 - 20 20 . SD/ - (GEORGE GEORGE K.) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: KOCHI DATED: 25 T H FEBRUARY, 20 20 GJ COPY TO: 1 . SMT. SANTHI KRISHNAN, TC 25/1023, SANTHI NIVAS, KUNNUKUZHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (AP P EALS) , TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, TRIVANDRUM 5. D. R., I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 6 . GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) I.T.A.T., COCHIN I.T.A. NO. 671/ COCH/2019 10