Sri.Jayaram Das Devadasan, Trivandrum V. The ADCIT, Trivandrum

ITA 74/COCH/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4026 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 09-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A DHANARAJ
• Assessee Lawyers: G SUNRENDRANATH RAO
• Keywords: Capital asset; Salary income; Additional evidence; Capital receipt
• Section: 143(3); 54B; 2(14); 10

Judgement Text

ITA NO 74/C/2016 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH KOCHI BEFORE S/ SHRI B P JAIN , AM & GEORGE GEORGE K, JM ITA NO 74/COCH/2016 (A SST YEAR 2009 - 10 ) SH JAYARAM DAS DEVADASAN DEVADEEPAM TC 3/2035 LIC LANE, PATTOM PALACE PO KESAVADASAPURAM TRIVANDRUM 4 VS THE ADDL COMMR OF INCOME TAX RANGE 2 TRIVANDRUM ( APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. ACOPD9162A ASSESSEE BY SH G SUNRENDRANATH RAO REVENUE BY SH A DHANARAJ, SR DR DATE OF HEARING 9 TH AUG 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11TH AUG 2016 ORDER PER GEOR GE GEORGE K, JM; THIS APPEAL, AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 14.12.2015. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2009 - 10. 2 THE SOLITARY ISSUE THAT ARISES FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE AMOUNT RECEIVED ON TRA NSFER OF 2.02 ACRES OF LAND IS LIABLE FOR CAPITAL GAIN TAX OR NOT ?. 3 BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS: THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL HAVING SALARY INCOME. DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE CONCERNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSE E HAD RECEIVED A ITA NO 74/C/2016 2 SUM OF RS. 1,63,40,452/ - AS COMPENSATION FOR TRANSFER OF 2.02 ACRES OF LAND. IN THE RETURN FILED FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THIS AMOUNT AS EXEMPT U/S 2(14)(III) (B)OF THE I T ACT 1961 AS ACCORDING TO HIM, THE LAND TRANSFERRED WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATE D OUTSIDE TRIVANDRUM MUNICIPAL C ORPORATION AND WAS NOT A NOTIFIED PANCHAYAT AS PER THE CBDT NOTIFICATION NO. 9447 DATED 6.1.1994 - (205 ITR (ST) 121). 4 THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U / S 143(3) OF THE I T AC T VIDE ORDER DATED 29.12.2011 , WHEREIN THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD LIABLE FOR CAPITAL GAIN TAX. FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN, THE AO ESTIMATED THE VALUE OF LAND, AS ON 1.4.1981, AT RS 300 / - PER CENT AN D THE INDEX ED COST OF LAND WAS ARRIVED AT RS.3,84,692/ - . THUS THE CHARGEABLE CAPITAL GAIN WAS FIXED AT RS. 1,59,55,560/ - . 5 AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL TO THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED CERT AIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FOR CLAIMING THE SAID LAND WAS NOT CAPITAL ASSET AND WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND EXEMPT U/S 2(14)(III)(B) OF THE I T ACT. THE CIT(A) HAD CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO AND ON RECEIPT OF THE REMAND REPORT, DECIDED THE ISSUE AGA INST THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED ON TRANSFER OF THE IMPUGNED LAND SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO TAX AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN TAX AND THEREBY CONFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE CIT(A) BASED HIS FINDINGS ON THE FOLLOWING: ITA NO 74/C/2016 3 A ) THE SUB JECT LAND CANNOT BE TREATED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND AS NO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES HAVE CONTINUOUSLY BEEN CARRIED OUT WHICH IS EVIDENCED FROM THE FACT THAT NO AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAS BEEN RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004 - 05 TO 2009 - 10. B ) THE CAPTIONED PROPERTY IS SITUATED ANDOORKONAM PANCHAYAT WHICH I S WITHIN 8 KMS FROM THE CORPORATION LIMIT OF TRIVANDRUM . THIS PROPERTY CANNOT BE TREATED AS AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY UNDER SECTION 2(14)(III)(B) OF THE ACT BUT SHOULD BE TREATED AS A CAPITAL ASSE T . C ) NO EVIDENCE WAS FORTHCOMING AT ANY POINT OF TIME TO PROVE THAT THE LANDED PROPERTY WAS CONTINUOUSLY USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES FOR A MINIMUM PERIOD OF TWO YEARS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF ACQUISITION BY THE GOVERNMENT . D ) NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED TO PROVE THAT THE LAND WAS COMPULSORILY ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT. SINCE THE LAND WAS NOT COMPULSORILY ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT THE PROVISIONS OF S . 1O(37) OF THE ACT WOULD NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS AS DECIDED BY THE KERALA HIGH COURT IN ITS DECISION IN THE CASE OF ARAVIDAKSHAN MADHAVAN(WA 240 OF 2014 DT 19 - 02 - 2014). E ) AS PER PA R A 3 , 4 & 5 OF THE C I RCULAR DATED 13 - 04 - 2011 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LAND RESOURCE , MIN I STRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT , GOVERNMENT OF INDIA , T HE APPELLANT'S LAND IS TO BE TREATED AS URBAN AGRICUL TURAL LAND SINCE THE SAME IS SITUATED WITHIN 8 KMS FROM T HE CO R PORATION LIMIT OF TRIVANDRUM , A TAXABLE ENTITY UNDER THE ACT . F ) AS URBAN AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS TRANSFERRED , CAPITAL GAINS TAX IT TO BE LEVIED . 6 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1 THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS AGAINST LAW AND FACTS. 2 THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) BASED ON THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE HIM , HAD SOUGHT A REMAND RE PORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT FAILED TO GRANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO REBUT THE FININGS AND CONCLUSIONS REACHED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY IN HIS REMAND REPORT. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE A PPELLANT TO REBUT THE FINDINGS IN THE REMAND REPORT IS INVALID . 3 THE APPELLANT AND HIS MOTHER OWNED 10 . 28 ACRES OF LAND IN ANDOORKONAM PANCHAYAT IN TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. THE LAND WAS USED TO GROW A RUBBER PLANTATION . DURING THE PER I OD IMMEDIATELY BEFORE T HE LAND WAS ACQUIRED THE RUBBER TREES ITA NO 74/C/2016 4 WERE REMOVED AS THEY HAD OUTLIVED ITS USEFUL LIFE AND SMALL CROPS WERE BEING CULTIVATED AS THERE WAS NO CERTAINTY AS TO THE ACTUAL DATE ON WHICH THE ACTUAL TAKE OVER WOULD HAPPEN. AS LAND ACQUISITION NOTIFICATION WAS I SSUED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT ON 07 - 10 - 2006 NO REPLANTING OF RUBBER WAS DONE BUT SOME AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS WERE CARRIED OUT ON THE LAND THOUGH IN A SMALL WAY. THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION ON THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED ON TRANSFER OF LAND AS THE L AND WAS AGRICULTURAL IN NATURE AND HENCE NOT A CAPITAL ASSET UNDER SECTION 2(14 )(III) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT . ENOUGH EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF CERTIFICATE FROM THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER AND RE V ENUE DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT WERE PRODUCED BASED ON W HICH IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL . THOUGH THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS FINALLY NOT DISPUTED THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS AGRICULTURAL , HE HELD THAT THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED ON TRANSFER AS TAXABLE ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO PROOF OF HAVING USED THE LAND FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES DURING THE TWO YEARS IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE TRANSFER AND THAT THE LAND WAS WITHIN SPECIFIED DISTANCE OF 8 KM FROM THE LOCAL LIMITS OF A MUNICIPALITY. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IGNORED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT THAT CULTIVATION WAS CARRIED OUT ON SMALL SCALE DURING THE IMMEDIATELY PREVIOUS YEARS AS THE ACQUISITION NOTIFICATION HAD ALREADY BEEN I SSUED AND ALSO THAT THE LAND WAS SITUATED IN ANDOORKONAM PANCHAYAT AND THIS PANCHA Y AT WAS OUTSIDE THE LIMITS O F TRIVANDRUM MUNICIPALITY. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SHOULD HA V E APPRECIATED THAT ONCE THE AGRICULTURAL LAND IS OUTSIDE THE LOCAL LIMITS OF A MUNICIPALITY OR IS NOT WITHIN THE NOTIFIED AREA OUTSIDE THE LOCAL LIMITS OF THE MUNICIPALITY WITHIN SUCH DISTANCE NOT EXCEEDING 8 KM THEN IT WOULD NOT BE A CAPITAL ASSET AS PER SECTION 2(14)(III) OF THE ACT AND HENCE A CAPITAL RECEIPT . 4 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GROUNDS STATED ABOVE , THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN FIXING THE VALUE OF THE LAND AS ON 01 . 04 . 1981 AT RS 300 / - PER CENT . THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SHOULD HAVE FIXED THE VALUE OF THE LAND AS ON 01 . 04 . 1981 BASED ON REVERSE INDEXATION OR ON THE BASIS OF 1 / 10 T H OF THE VALUE AT WHICH IT WAS TRANSFERRED. 6 .1 THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITER ATED THE SUBMISSIONS RAISED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES AND STRONGLY RELIED ON THE GROUND RAISED BEFORE US. 6 .2 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD DR RELIED ON THE FINDINGS/CONCLUSION S OF THE AO AND T H E CIT(A). 7 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ITA NO 74/C/2016 5 THE ASSESSEE AND HIS MOTHER WAS HOLDING 10.28 ACRES OF LAND IN SURVEY NOS 856/1 AND 856/2 . OUT OF 10.28 ACRES OF LAND, THE ASSESSEES SHARE WAS 2.02 ACRES OF LAND. THE ENTIRE EXTENT OF LAND ALONG WITH THE OTHER SURROUNDING LAND I N THE PANCHAYAT WAS ACQU I RED BY THE GOVERNMENT . THE CLAIM OF THE MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE THAT 8 . 26 ACRES IN SURVEY NO 856/2 BEING AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED OUTSIDE MUNICIPAL AREA WAS ACCEPTED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT IN THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) ON 17 . 11 . 2011 . THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME OF THE MOTHER AND THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED IN HER HANDS ARE PLACED ON RECORD AT PAGES 9 TO 11 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. PRIMA FACIE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT W HEN THE EXTENT OF THE LAND OWNED BY T HE ASSESSEE ' S MOTHER LOCATED NEXT TO THAT OF THE A SSESSEE W AS ACCEPTED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND , SITUATED OUTSIDE MUNICIPAL AREA , THERE WA S NO JUSTIFICATION FOR REJECTING THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HIS PORTION OF THE LAND AS ALSO AGRICULTURAL LAND . IT IS CLEAR FROM THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE LAND TRANSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND . HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE LAND WAS SITUATED WITHIN 8 KMS FROM THE PER I PHERY OF TR I VANDRUM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AN D HENCE, WAS A CAPITAL ASSET . THE CIT(A)S DECISION IS ALSO BASED ON HIS FINDING THAT THERE WAS NO PROOF O F ACTUAL USER OF THE LAND F OR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES FOR A CONTINUOUS PERIOD OF TWO YEARS I MMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE YEAR OF TRANSFER . IN THIS CONTE XT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE EXEMPTION WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 2(14)(III)(B) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS AGRICULTURAL AND WAS SITUATED IN ITA NO 74/C/2016 6 ANDOORKONAM PANCHAYAT OUTSIDE TRIVANDR UM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND EVEN OUTSIDE THE NOTIFIED AREA BEYOND THE LIMITS OF TRIVANDRUM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION . THE ANDOORKONAM PANCHAYAT WAS NOT A NOTIFIED AREA AS PER THE CB D T NOTIFICATION NO S. 0. 9447 DATED 06 - 01 - 9 4 . THE EXTRACT FROM THE NOTIFICATI ON IS GIVEN BELOW : S.NO NAME OF THE STATE OR UNION TERRITORY NAME OF THE MUNICIPALITY OR CANTONMENT BOARD FALLING IN THE STATE/UNION TERRITORY MENTIONED UNDER COLUMN (3) DETAILS OF AREAS FALLING OUTSIDE THE LOCAL LIMITS OF MUNICIPALITY OR CANTONMENT BOAR D., ETC., MENTIONED UNDER COLUMN (2) 12 KERALA 7.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TRIVANDRUM FOLLOWING AREA UPTO A DISTANCE OF 8 KM OUTSIDE THE MUNICIPAL LIMIT OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: 1 ) AREA COMPRISED IN WARD NUMBERS 2 , 3 AND 7 TO 1 OF CHETTIVILAKOM PANCHAYATH. 2 ) AREAS COMP RISED IN WARD NUMBERS 1,2,4 7 AND 11 OF VATTIYOORKAVU PANCVHAYATH; 3 ) AREAS COMPRISED IN WARD NUMBERS 3 AND 4 OF SREEKARYAM PANCHAYATH; 4 ) AREAS COMPRISED IN WARD NUMBERS 6 AND 9 OF ATTIPRA PANCHAYATH; 5 ) AREAS COMPRISED IN WARD NUMBERS 5,6, & 7 OF ULLOOR PANCHAYAT H; 6 ) AREAS COMPRISED IN WARD NUMBERS 6,7 AND 8 OF NAMON PANCHAYATH. 7 .1 T HE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE NOTED THAT EVEN IF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND TRANSFERRED WAS WITHIN 8 KMS FROM THE OUTSIDE LIMITS OF THE MUNICIPALITY , AS LONG AS THE PANCHAYAT WAS NOT A NOTIFI ED AREA , THEN THE LAND WOULD STILL BE AN AGRICULTURAL LAND AND NOT A CAPITAL ASSET ENTITLING THE A SSESSEE TO EXEMPTION U/S 2(14)(III)(B) OF THE ACT. THE A GRICULTURAL LAND SI TUATED WITHIN 8 KMS OF THE OUTSIDE LIMITS OF A MUNICIPALITY IN A NOTIFIED PANCHAYA T , AS PER NOTIFICATION NO 9447 ITA NO 74/C/2016 7 DATED 06 - 01 - 1994 ALONE WOULD BE A CAPITAL ASSET AND NOT ALL AGRICULTURAL LA ND SITUATED WITHIN 8 KMS OF OUTSIDE LIMITS IN NON NOTIFIED PANCHAYATS . THIS ISSUE IS SQUARE COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MADHUKUMAR N (HUF) REPORTE D IN 23 TAXMANN.COM. 341 (KAR) WHEREIN IN HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: SECTION 2(14) ( III )(B) OF THE AC T COVERS THE SITUATION WHERE THE SUBJECT LAND IS NOT ONLY LOCATED WITHIN THE DISTANCE OF 8 KM FROM THE LOC AL LIMITS, WHICH IS COVERED BY CLAUSE (A) TO SECTION 2(14) (III) OF THE ACT, BUT ALSO REQUIRES THE FULFILLMENT OF THE CONDITION THAT THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT H AS ISSUED A NOTIFICATION UNDER THIS CLAUSE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCLUDING THE AREA UP TO 8 KM FROM T HE MUNICIPAL LIMITS, TO RENDER THE LAND AS A CAPITAL ASSET. 7.2 FOR TAKING THE ABOVE VIEW, R ELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED ON THE ORDER OF THE COCHIN BENCH OF THE T RIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M J. THOMAS ERNAKULAM VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, IN ITA 224/C OCH/2011 (ORDER DATED 6.6.2014) 7.3 FURTHER, THE ACTUAL USER OF THE LAND FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES FOR A CONTINUOUS PERIOD OF TWO YEARS BEFORE THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE LAND IS ALSO NOT A PRECONDITION WHEN THE EXEMPTION IS CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 2(14)(III )(B) OF THE ACT. SUCH PRECONDITION APPLIES ONLY WHEN THE EXEMPTION IS CLAIMED UNDE R 54B OR SECTION 10(37) AND NOT WHEN EX EMPTION IS CLAIMED ON THE GROUND THAT THE LAND TRANSFERRED WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND HENCE NOT A CAPITAL ASSET UNDER 2(14)(III)(B) . TH IS VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE COCHIN BENCH OF THE T RIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MJ.THOMAS ERNAKULAM (SUPRA). THE ORDER OF THE COCHIN BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS SUBSEQUENTLY FOLLOWED IN THE CASE OF ITO VS SHRI KALATH INGAL FAIZAL RAHIMAN. ITA NO 74/C/2016 8 KOZHIKODE IN ITA NO.456/COCH/20 15) ( ORDER DATED 06 - 01 - 2016. ) 7 . 4 THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS ALSO ERRED I N MIS - INTERPRETING THE CLAUSES O F THE C I RCULAR I SSUED BY THE M I N I STRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT DATED 13 . 04.2011 . THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY A DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT M I NISTRY IN THE FIRST PLACE CANNOT BE REL I ED ON TO I GNORE THE SPEC I F I C PROV I SIONS OF THE ACT AND T HE B I NDING DECISION REFERRED ABOVE. EVEN AS PER THE PA R AS R E FERRED TO BY THE CIT(A) , THE CIRCU L AR STATES THAT AGRICULTURAL LAND ARE OF TWO CATEGORIES - RURAL AGR I CULTURA L LAND AND URBAN AG R ICULTURAL LAND . AS PER THE CIRCULAR, RURAL AGRICULTURAL LANDS ARE COMPLETELY EXEMPT FROM THE PURVIEW OF CAPITAL GAINS TAX. AS FAR AS URBAN AGR I CULTURAL LAND IS CONCERNED , THE CIRCULAR CLEARLY STATES THAT THESE ARE AGRICU L TURAL LANDS SIT UATED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF A MUN I CIPAL I TY OR AT A NOTIFIED DISTANCE OF THE I R BO U NDAR I ES . THUS EVEN AS PER THIS C I RCULA R, I T I S CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE URBAN AGR I CULTURAL LANDS ARE THOSE WITHIN A MUNIC I PA L ITY OR W I THIN NOTIFIED AREA OUTS I DE THE LIMITS O F A MUNICIPAL I TY . THUS THE COMMISS I ONER (APPEALS ) HAS MIS - INTERPRETED THE CLAUSES I N THE C I RCULAR . T HE LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A NOTIFIED AREA ; THEREFORE, IT WOULD NOT BE A CAPITAL ASSET. 7 .5 IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID REASONING AND THE JUDICIAL P RONOUNCEMENT, WE HOLD THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND EXEMPT U/S 2(14)(III)(B) OF THE ACT. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 8 SINCE WE HAVE ALLOWED THE MAIN GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SUBSIDIARY ISSUES RAISED IN GROUND NO.4 AS REGARDS COMPU TATION OF CAPITAL GAINS, IS NOT ITA NO 74/C/2016 9 ADJUDICATED. 9 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED, AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 11 TH DAY OF AUG 2016 . SD/ SD/ - ( B P JAIN ) ( GEORGE GEORGE K ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JU DICIAL MEMBER COCHIN: DATED 11 TH AUG 2016 RAJ* COPY TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) ,TRIVANDRUM 4 . CIT, TRIVNDRUM 5 . DR 6 . GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, COCHIN