M/s.A.V. Tourist Home, Palakkad V. The ITO, Palakkad

ITA 734/COCH/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 77445 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 06-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 15-11-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LATHA V KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: C B M WARRIER
• Keywords: Depreciation; Revised return; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 139(5); 148; 54; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JM AND B.R.BASKAR AN, AM I.T.A. NO. 734/COCH/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 M/S. A.V. TOURIST HOME, WELCARE HOSPITAL, NEAR MERCY COLLEGE, PALAKKAD. [PAN: AAAAA 4107B] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PALAKKAD. (ASSESSEE -APPELLANT) (REVENUE-RESPONDEN T) ASSESSEE BY SHRI C.B.M. WARRIER, CA REVENUE BY SMT. LATHA V. KUMAR, JR. DR DATE OF HEARING 06/05/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 06/06/2014 O R D E R PER B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 24- 09-2013 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-V, KOCHI AND IT RE LATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 12 ,12,740/- . 3. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ABOVE SAID ISSUE ARE S TATED IN BRIEF. THE ASSESSEE IS ASSESSED IN THE STATUS OF ASSOCIATION O F PERSONS (HEREINAFTER AOP). I.T.A. NO. 734/COCH/2013 2 THE MEMBERS OF AOP ARE SHRI A.V.ABDUL RAHIMAN AND S HRI A.V. NAZAR. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON DECLARING A LOSS OF RS.5,417/- AND IT WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE ACT ON 04-03-2006. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS COMPUTED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN BY TAKING THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF ASSETS AS RS.20,87,710/-. HOWEVER, THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF ASSETS AS PER THE RETURN OF INCOME RELATING TO 2004-05, I.E., PERTAINING TO IMM EDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR, WAS RS. 8,69,538/- ONLY. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK THE VIEW THAT THERE IS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME AND ACCORDINGLY RE-OPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. 4. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT IT HAS FILED REVISED RETURNS OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05 ON 25-11-2005 AND THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF ASSETS THA T WAS SHOWN IN THE REVISED RETURN WAS TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE RET URNS OF INCOME ORIGINALLY FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05 WERE P ROCESSED ON 17-05-2005. HE ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURNS OF INCOME FILED HAVE NOT BEEN FILED WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED U/S. 139(1) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BY REFERRING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 139 (5), HELD THAT AN ASSESSEE COULD FILE A REVISED RETURN ONLY IF THE ORIGINAL RETURN H AD BEEN FILED WITHIN THE DUE DATE PRESCRIBED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY HE T OOK THE VIEW THAT THE REVISED I.T.A. NO. 734/COCH/2013 3 RETURNS REFERRED ABOVE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS RETU RNS FILED IN TERMS OF SEC. 139(5) OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE ASS ESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH PROPER EXPLANATIONS AS TO HOW THE FIGURES RELATING TO VARI OUS ITEMS WERE REVISED IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FILED WITH THE REVISED RETURNS . ACCORDINGLY THE AO IGNORED THE REVISED RETURNS. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO PROCEEDED TO COMPUTE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON THE BASIS OF WDV SHOWN IN THE ORIGI NAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 5. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SALE OF ASSETS WHICH H AS RESULTED IN GENERATION OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS ARE STATED IN BRIEF:- (A) THE PROPERTY, WHICH WAS SOLD DURING THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION, CONSISTED OF LAND AND FOUR-STOREY BUILDING AND IT W AS PURCHASED BY AHRI A.V. NAZAR AND A.V. ABDUL RAHIMAN HAJI DURING THE Y EARS RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1992-93 AN 1993-94 THROUGH SIX CON VEYANCE DEEDS FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 12,44,300/-. (B) THE GROUND FLOOR WAS CONSISTING OF SHOP ROOMS AND THE REMAINING THREE FLOORS WERE USED AS LODGING HOUSE. (C) THE ENTIRE BUILDING WAS MANAGED THROUGH AOP AN D RETURNS OF INCOME WERE ALSO FILED BY THE AOP. (D) THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON THE V ALUE OF BUILDING. (E) THE ABOVE SAID PROPERTY WAS SOLD FOR A CONSIDE RATION OF RS.32,50,000/- THROUGH SIX CONVEYANCE DEEDS TO A PE RSON NAMED SHRI D. I.T.A. NO. 734/COCH/2013 4 SUDEVAN. THROUGH EACH DOCUMENT, A PORTION OF BUILD ING AS WELL AS A PORTION OF LAND WAS TRANSFERRED. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE COMPUTED SHOR T TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS UNDER: SALE CONSIDERATION RS. 22,50,000.00 LESS : BROKERAGE RS. 67,500.00 RS. 21,82,500.00 LESS : WDV OF ASSET RS. 20,87,710.00 . RS. 97,790.00 HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE SHORT T ERM CAPITAL GAIN AS UNDER: SALES CONSIDERATION RS. 22,50,000 LESS: BROKERAGE ON SALE OF ASSET RS. 67,500 LESS WDV AS PER RETURN OF INCOME FOR A/Y 2004-05 RS.8,69,538 RS. 9,37,038 RS. 13,12,962 THE AO HAS ADOPTED THE WDV VALUE OF ASSETS AT RS.8, 69,538/-, WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAD ADOPTED THE AMOUNT OF WDV AT RS.20,87, 710/-. 6. BEFORE LD CIT(A), IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE AOP WAS FORMED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING ON THE LODGING BUSINESS AND THE PROPERTY WAS CONTINUED TO BE OWNED BY SHRI A.V. NAZAR AND SHRI A.V. ABDUL REH IMAN. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN SHOULD HAVE BEEN AS SESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ABOVE SAID TWO PERSONS AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE HEREIN. ALTERNATIVELY IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE BUILDING SU FFERED A FIRE ACCIDENT IN THE YEAR 1999 AND A SUM OF RS.9,61,000/- (RS.2,25,000/- IN AY 2003-04 AND RS.7,36,000/- IN AY 2004-05) WAS SPENT ON IMPROVEM ENT AND THESE DETAILS WERE I.T.A. NO. 734/COCH/2013 5 DULY DISCLOSED IN THE REVISED RETURNS OF INCOME. I T WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE WERE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AS PER THE REVISED RET URNS. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WAS NOT RIGHT IN REJECTING DE DUCTION OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT, REFERRED ABOVE, AND ALSO IN NOT CONSID ERING THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED WORKING OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN DETERMINING A LOSS OF RS.2,43,373/-. 6.1 THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE T SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE CONSISTED OF LAND AND BUILDING AND NO SEPARATE VALU ES WERE ASSIGNED TO LAND / BUILDING. THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECI SIONS RENDERED BY HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. RAKA FOOD PRODUCTS (2005)(277 ITR 261) AND ALSO IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. UNION COMPANY (MOTORS) LTD (2006)(283 ITR 445), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE LAND AND BUI LDING NEED NOT BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY AND THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN CA N BE CONSIDERED AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND SECTION 50 RELATING TO DEPRECIABL E ASSETS IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SUCH KIND OF TRANSFERS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONTENDE D THAT THE MEMBERS OF AOP HAVE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT BY MAKING PRESCRIBED INVESTMENTS. 6.2 THE LD CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FR OM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE AO, IN THE REMAND REPORT, SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS ACTUALLY TRANSFERRED THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY FOR A SUM OF RS.3 2,50,000/-, BUT HAS TAKEN THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS RS.22,50,000/- ONLY FOR T HE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING SHORT I.T.A. NO. 734/COCH/2013 6 TERM CAPITAL GAIN, I.E., THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE SALE CONSIDERATION RELATING TO THE 1 ST , 2 ND AND 3 RD FLOOR AS RS.22,50,000/- AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.10.00 LAKHS WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE VALUE RELATI NG TO GROUND FLOOR. THE AO FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASS ESSEE DOES NOT SHOW THE VALUE OF GROUND FLOOR. THE AO ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PREPARED A REVISED BALANCE SHEET AND SUBMITTED THE SAME ALONG WITH REVISED RETURNS OF INCOME. WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF INCURRING EXPE NSES ON IMPROVEMENT, THE AO STOOD BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHEREIN IT WAS OBSER VED THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS WERE CARRIED OUT IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE OCCURRENCE O F FIRE ACCIDENT AND, IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCLOSE IN LODGING BUSINESS I NCOME IN THE IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING TWO YEARS. THE AO HAD ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN SHOWING CONSISTENT INCOME DURING THE YEARS RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS AY 2003-04 AND 2004-05 AND HENCE HELD THAT THE ASSESSE E COULD NOT HAVE INCURRED ANY EXPENSE ON IMPROVEMENT IN AY 2003-04 AND 2004-0 5, WHILE SUCCESSFULLY RUNNING THE LODGE. FURTHER, IT IS PERTINENT TO NOT E THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE EXPENSES ON IMPROVEMENT ONLY IN THE REVISED RET URNS OF INCOME FILED FOR AY 2003-04 AND 2004-05 AND THE SAID RETURNS HAVE BEEN IGNORED BY THE AO. WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF INVESTMENT MADE BY THE MEMBE RS OF AOP AS PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 54, THE AO SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME IS NOT RELEVANT IN THE ASSESSEES CASE. I.T.A. NO. 734/COCH/2013 7 6.3 THE LD CIT(A) HELD THAT (A) THE AO WAS CORRECT IN ADOPTING THE WDV AS PER T HE BALANCE SHEET AT RS.8,69,538/-, AS THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED THE SAL E CONSIDERATION AT RS.22,50,000/- ONLY INSTEAD OF RS.32,50,000/-. (B) THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE MADRAS HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF RAKA FOOD PRODUCTS (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE, AS TH E FACTS ARE DIFFERENT, I.E., IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS OWNER OF THE SUPERSTRUCTURE AND THE LAND IS OWNED BY THE MEMBERS OF AOP, WHEREAS IN THE CASE CONSIDERED BY HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT, ALL THE AS SETS WERE OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY. HENCE THERE IS NO MIXTURE OF DE PRECIABLE AND NON- DEPRECIABLE ASSETS IN THE INSTANT CASE. THE LD CIT(A) FURTHER PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S EXCLUDED THE VALUE OF LAND BY DECLARING THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS.22,5 0,000/-. THE LD CIT(A) FURTHER TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MISREPR ESENTED THE FACTS BY SUPPRESSING THE SALE CONSIDERATION AND INFLATING TH E CLAIM OF WDV. ACCORDINGLY, HE CONFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. THE FIRST CONTENTION OF LD A.R WAS THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD BY SHRI A.V. NAZAR AND SHRI A.V. ABDUL REHIMAN AND HENCE THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASSESSING THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ALTERNATIVELY, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE AO SHOULD HAVE ASSESSED THE SAME AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. I.T.A. NO. 734/COCH/2013 8 7.1 WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE ABOVE SAID CONT ENTION. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A COPY OF BALANCE SHEET AS AT 31.3.2004 AT PA GE 12 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN THE ASSET SIDE OF THE SAID BALANCE SHEET, THE VALUE OF GROUND FLOOR IS SHOWN AT COST AND THE VALUE OF FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD FLOOR S HAVE BEEN SHOWN AT WDV. WE HAVE ALREADY NOTICED THAT THE AO, IN THE REMAND REPORT, HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR THE VALUE OF GROUND FLOOR IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AOP. HENCE, THE BALANCE SHEET FURNISHED A T PAGE 12 OF THE PAPER BOOK CONTRADICTS THE ABOVE SAID OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT. THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT THE BALANCE SHEET FILED WITH THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME DID NOT INCLUDE THE VALUE OF GROUND FLOOR AN D THE BALANCE SHEET FILED ALONG WITH THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME MIGHT HAVE INCLUDED THE VALUE OF GROUND FLOOR. HOWEVER, THESE FACTS NEED VERIFICATION. WE HAVE ALREADY NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IGNORED THE REVISED RETURN ON THE REASONING THAT IT WAS NOT FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. 7.2 BE THAT AS IT MAY, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT IN THE VALUE OF THE FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD FLOORS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE AOP AND HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION THEREON. THERE SH OULD NOT BE ANY DISPUTE THAT THE AOP IS NOT A LEGAL PERSON IN THE EYES OF LAW AND ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCOME TAX PURPOSES, IT IS TREATED AS A SEPARATE PERSON. HENCE, THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES HAVE TO BE NECESSARILY TO BE H ELD BY THE MEMBERS OF AOP ON BEHALF OF THE AOP. ONCE THE VALUE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IS BROUGHT INTO THE I.T.A. NO. 734/COCH/2013 9 BOOKS OF THE ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS, IN OUR VIEW, I T SHALL BE TREATED AS THE PROPERTY OF THE AOP FOR THE PURPOSES OF INCOME TAX. 7.3 HOWEVER, AS PER THE AO, THE ASSESSEE HAS SH OWN ONLY THE VALUE OF FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD FLOORS IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND TH E VALUE OF GROUND FLOOR WERE NOT SHOWN. HENCE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD FLOORS, I.E., BOTH THE PARTIES ARE AGREEING THAT TH EIR VALUE HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET. HENCE, IN OUR VIEW, THE AO WAS JUST IFIED IN ASSESSING THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING ON THE SALE OF FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD FLOORS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE HEREIN. 7.4 WITH REGARD TO THE GROUND FLOOR, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES FRESH EXAMINATION AT THE END OF THE AO, SI NCE STATEMENT OF BOTH THE PARTIES CONTRADICTS WITH EACH OTHER AND FURTHER BOT H THE PARTIES HAVE FAILED TO FURNISH RELEVANT DOCUMENTS BEFORE US. HENCE, THE M ATTER RELATING TO THE GROUND FLOOR IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO. 7.5 ACCORDING TO LD A.R, THE SALE CONSIDERATIO N OF RS.32,50,000/- OR AS THE CASE MAY BE RS.22,50,000/- INCLUDES THE VALUE OF LA ND ALSO. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SALE VALUE OF LAND HAS ALSO BEEN ASSESSED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. ACCORDING TO LD A.R, THE VALUE OF LA ND WAS NOT BROUGHT INTO THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE AOP AND THE GAIN ARISING ON SALE OF LAND IS ASSESSABLE AS LONG I.T.A. NO. 734/COCH/2013 10 TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF SHRI A.V. NAZAR AND SHRI A.V. ABDURAHIMAN. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THESE FACTS ARE NOT EMANATING FROM THE DISCUSSIONS MADE BY THE AO / LD CIT(A). IF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LD A.R ARE FOUND TO BE FACTUALLY CORRECT, THEN IT MAY NOT BE PROPER TO ASS ESSEE THE SALE VALUE PERTAINING TO LAND IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AOP. HOWEVER, THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD A.R REQUIRE EXAMINATION AT THE END OF THE AO . 7.6 THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE INCURRING OF EXPENSES ON IMPROVEMENT DURING THE YEARS RELEVANT TO THE AY 2003-04 AND 2004-05 HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE LD CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSE E HAS ALSO NOT URGED THE SAME BEFORE US. HENCE, WE ARE NOT GOING INTO THOSE ASPECTS. 7.7 SINCE THE ASSETS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AOP AR E CONSISTED OF DEPRECIABLE ASSETS ONLY, IN OUR VIEW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAK A FOOD PRODUCTS (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE. 8. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE GROUND FLOOR AND THE LAND REQUIRES FRESH EXAMINATION. ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE BOTH THESE MATTERS TO THE FILE OF THE AO AND DIRECT HIM TO RE- COMPUTE THE AMOUNT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN BY CO NSIDERING ALL THE MATERIALS AND EXPLANATIONS THAT MAY BE FURNISHED BY THE ASSES SEE. I.T.A. NO. 734/COCH/2013 11 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSES SEE IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY ON 06-06- 2014. SD/- SD/- (N.R.S.GANESAN) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: KOCHI DATED: 6TH JUNE, 2014 GJ COPY TO: 1. M/S. A.V. TOURIST HOME, WELCARE HOSPITAL, NEAR M ERCY COLLEGE, PALAKKAD. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PALAKKAD 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-V, KOCHI . 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, THRISSUR. 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) I.T.A.T, COCHIN