ITO, Trivandrum V. Shri Xavi Mano Mathew, Trivandrum

ITA 743/COCH/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61478 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 29-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 17-06-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIJAYAPRABHA
• Assessee Lawyers: T M SREEDHARANSR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Business income; Additional evidence; Capital receipt
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.743/COCH/2008 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) AND SHRI B.R. BASKARA N(AM) I.T.A NO. 743/COCH/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) ITO, WD.1(3) VS SHRI XAVI MANO MATHEW TRIVANDRUM PANACHIKAL HOUSE, TAGORE NAGAR TAGORE NAGAR, TND-10, VAZHUTHACAUD, TRIVANDRUM-14 PAN : AEWPM3853M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT. VIJAYAPRABHA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI TM SREEDHARAN, SR.COUNSEL DATE OF HEARING : 29-03-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27-04-2012 O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-1, TRIVANDRUM DA TED 25-02-2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO DEL ETION OF ADDITION OF 1,72,41,683 TOWARDS THE CREDIT FOUND IN SB ACCOUNT NO.9077 WITH CANARA BANK. 2 ITA NO.743/COCH/2008 3. SMT. VIJAYAPRABHA, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT DURI NG THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE TOTAL CREDIT IN SB ACCOUNT NO.9077 WITH CANARA BANK WAS RS. 4,48,35,601. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE FOR THE CREDIT FOUND IN THE S.B. ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FI LED ANY EXPLANATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER CALLING FOR THE DETAILS FR OM THE BANK FOUND THAT THE CREDIT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,72,41,683 COULD NOT BE VERIFI ED AND EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE TH E ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. HOWEVER, ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASON DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTAT IVE, WHEN THE CREDIT WAS FOUND IN THE ACCOUNT IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN TH E SOURCE FOR SUCH CREDIT. THEREFORE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER FOR RE- EXAMINATION. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI T.M. SREEDHARAN, THE LD.SE NIOR COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE MAY NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTI ON FOR REMITTING THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-EXAM INATION. HOWEVER, THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS NOT GIVEN ANY DETAILS AS TO HOW HE CAME TO KNOW THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT E XPLAIN THE CREDIT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,72,41,683. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPR ESENTATIVE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROPER REASONING, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A) FELT THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT BE SUSTAINE D. 3 ITA NO.743/COCH/2008 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GON E THROUGH THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A). THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) SIMPLY DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASONS. IF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER COULD NOT GIVE ANY REASON FOR MAKING ANY ADDITION IT IS FOR THE COMMISSIONER OF IN COME-TAX(A) TO EXAMINE THE SAME AND GIVE REASONS AS TO WHY THE ADDITION COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REA SON FOR MAKING ADDITION THAT WOULD NOT EMPOWER THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) TO DELETE THE ADDITION. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) HAS ALL THE POWERS AS THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE ENQUIRY AND FIND OUT WHETHER THE ASS ESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE FOR THE CREDIT FOUND IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. WI THOUT DOING SO, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) DELETED THE ADDITION M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE OPINIO N THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RE- EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN FACT, BOTH T HE LD. DR AND THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL PRAYED FOR REMANDING THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-EXAMINATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF LOWE R AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUE OF ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CREDIT FOU ND IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERI AL THAT MAY BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDAN CE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO DISA LLOWANCE OF RS. 3,74,372 BEING EXPENDITURE ON TELE SERIAL. 4 ITA NO.743/COCH/2008 7. WE HEARD THE LD.DR AND THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND T HAT NO INCOME WAS CREDITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BE FORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) THAT THE EXPENSES ARE MAINLY ADMINISTR ATIVE EXPENSES FOR RUNNING THE BUSINESS. FROM THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORIT IES IT IS NOT KNOWN WHETHER THE ASSESSEE COMMENCED THE TELEMATIC PRODUCTION AS CLAIMED. ONCE THE BUSINESS IS COMMENCED, THE EXPENDITURE HAS TO BE AL LOWED IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE EARNED INCOME OR NOT. HO WEVER, THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE COMMISSIONER OF IN COME-TAX(A) ARE SILENT ON THIS ASPECT. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RE- EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, TH E ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUE OF EXPENDITURE TO THE E XTENT OF RS. 3,74,372 ON TELEMATIC PRODUCTION IS REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE THE SAME IN THE L IGHT OF MATERIAL THAT MAY BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRES H IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE. 8. THE NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS. 30 LAKHS WHICH WAS FOUND IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH ING VYSYA BANK. 9. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE LD.DR IS THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A). THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX(A), WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN CONTRAVENTION OF RULE 46A OF I.T.RULES, 1962. THEREFORE, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-EXAMINATION. WE HEARD, THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL, SHRI T.M. SREEDHARAN ALSO. 5 ITA NO.743/COCH/2008 10. ADMITTEDLY TWO CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINT AINED WITH ING VYSYA BANK AMOUNTING TO RS.30 LAKHS AND ANOTHER CREDIT OF RS.99,770 IN SOUTH INDIAN BANK ACCOUNT WAS FOUND. THE ASSESSEE, FOR THE FIRST TIME, HAS PRODUCED THE CERTIFICATE FROM ING VYSYA BANK BEFORE THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME-TAX(A). IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PRODUCED THE CER TIFICATE FROM KSFDC. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) WITHOUT VERIFYING WHET HER THE RECEIPT WAS A CAPITAL RECEIPT OR REVENUE RECEIPT HAS DELETED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF R.30 LAKHS. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE CER TIFICATES FILED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) FOR THE FIRST TIME WAS ADMITTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) IN CONTRAVENTION OF RU LE 46A OF THE IT RULES. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) IS EXPECTED TO GIVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICE R TO EXAMINE THE CERTIFICATE SAID TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, IT IS ALSO NECESSARY TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CAPI TAL IN NATURE OR REVENUE IN NATURE. SINCE THE LOWER AUTHORITY HAS NOT EXAMINED THIS ASPECT, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RE-EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SE T ASIDE AND THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF RS.30 LAKHS IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL EXAMINE THE SAME IN THE LIG HT OF MATERIAL THAT MAY BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRES H AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE. 11. THE NEXT ADDITION IS WITH REGARD TO CREDIT FOUN D IN SOUTH INDIAN BANK HOME LOAN ACCOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,29,975. 6 ITA NO.743/COCH/2008 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.DR AND THE LD.SENIOR COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE, FOR THE FIRST TIME HAS PRODUCED A COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH CANARA BANK TO PROVE THAT THE AMOUNT WAS TRANSFERRED FROM SB ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH CANARA BANK TO HOUSING LOAN ACCOUNT. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A), AFTER EXAMINING THE COPY OF THE ACCOU NT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALLOWED THE CLAIM WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WHEN THE ASSESSEE FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) IT IS FOR THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) TO GIVE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE SAID TO B E FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) IS IN CONTRAVENTION OF RULE 46A OF IT RULE. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORIT Y IS SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF RS.1,29,975 BEING THE CREDIT APPEARING IN THE HOME LOAN ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH SOUTH INDIAN BANK IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE THE SAME IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL THAT MAY BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE. 13. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO ADD ITION OF RS.1 LAKH. 14. SMT. VIJAYAPRABHA, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS AGRICU LTURAL INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1 LAKH. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) FOUND T HAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SO MUCH OF BUSINESS INCOME, THERE WAS NO REA SON FOR THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A WRONG DECLARATION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. TH IS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE OPINION THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE AGRICULTURAL INCOME, IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE SAME BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THERE IS NO QUESTION OF 7 ITA NO.743/COCH/2008 PRESUMPTION IN THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) HAS ALSO REFERRED TO A CERTIFICATE SAID TO BE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER. IT IS NOT KNOWN WHAT THE CERTIFICATE WHICH IS SAID TO BE ISSUE D BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER CONTAINS. THE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY TH E VILLAGE OFFICER IS NOT FILED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. FROM THE ORDER OF THE LOWER A UTHORITY, IT APPEARS THAT THE VILLAGE OFFICERS CERTIFICATE WAS FILED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) FOR THE FIRST TIME. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAD NO OCCASION TO VERIFY THE SAME. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE OPINION T HAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY THE ISSUE IS SET ASIDE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING O FFICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE THE SAME IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL THAT MAY BE PRODUCED BY TH E ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER HEARING T HE ASSESSEE. 15. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO ADD ITION OF RS. 1,22,76,113 TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CREDITS IN SOUTHERN FIELD VENTU RE PVT LTD. 16. SMT. VIJAYAPRABHA, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.2,12,80,577 AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT IN BUSINESS CONCERN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASS ESEE WAS CREDITED WITH RS.2,87,25,863 DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. OUT OF THIS CREDIT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE CREDIT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,64,49,750 AS EXPLAINED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND TH AT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE CREDIT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,22,76,113. THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) SIMPLY DELETED THE ADD ITION ON THE GROUND THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED FOR ANY EXPLANAT ION NOR THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN 8 ITA NO.743/COCH/2008 ANY EXPLANATION AT ALL IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT TH E ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN THE CREDIT FOUND IN SOUTHERN FILED VENTURE PVT LTD. 17. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI T.M. SREEDHARAN, THE LD.S ENIOR COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,64,49,750. THEREFORE, IT MAY NOT BE CORREC T TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EXPLANATION. ACCORDING TO THE LD .SENIOR COUNSEL THE ASSESSING OFFICER MERELY ESTIMATED THE DISALLOWANCE ON ESTIMA TE BASIS. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,22,76,113 ON ES TIMATION WAS DELETED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A). 18. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SI DE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THER E WAS A CREDIT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,87,25,863 IN THE ACC OUNT OF SOUTHERN FIELD VENTURE PVT LTD. THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,64,49,750. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CREDI T TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,22,76,113. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE THE LOWER AUTHORITY WAS THAT THESE CREDITS WERE TRANSFERS FROM VARIOUS ACCO UNTS. HOWEVER, THE DETAILS OF SUCH TRANSFER APPEARS TO BE FILED BEFORE THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A). THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO OCCASION TO EXAMINE THE SAME. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS TO EXAMINE THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO TRANSFER O F AMOUNTS FROM ONE ACCOUNT TO ANOTHER. ACCORDINGLY THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHOR ITY IS SET AIDE AND THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF RS.1,22,76,133 IS REMITTED BACK TO THE F ILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-EXAMINATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXAMI NE THE SAME IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL THAT MAY BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND D ECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE. 9 ITA NO.743/COCH/2008 19. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO ADD ITION OF RS.90,04,464 WITH REGARD TO CREDIT FOUND IN SOUTHERN HOSPITALITIES PV T LTD. 20. WE HEARD SMT. VIJAYAPRABHA, THE LD.DR AND SHRI T.M. SREEDHARAN, LD.SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE ORDER OF THE CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE DETAILS OF T HE SOURCE OF CREDIT BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) FOR THE FIRST TIME. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO OCCASION TO EXAMINE THE SAME. THEREFORE, THERE IS CLEAR CONTRAVENTION OF RULE 46A OF IT RULES. IN OTHER WORDS, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) ACCEPTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PROVIDED IN RULE 46A OF IT RULES. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO RE-EXAMINE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUT HORITY ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE THE SAME IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL THAT MA Y BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE. 21. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 27 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN, DT : 27 TH APRIL, 2012 PK/- 10 ITA NO.743/COCH/2008 COPY TO: 1. ITO, WD.1(3), TRIVANDRUM 2. SHRI XAVI MANO MATHEW, PANACHIKAL HOUSE, TAGORE NAGA R, TND-10, VAZHUTHACAUD, TRIVANDRUM-14 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A)-I, TRIVANDRUM 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TRIVANDRUM 5. THE DR (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH