ACIT, Cochin V. M/s. Devshi Bhanji Khona, Cochin

ITA 788/COCH/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73922 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 24-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 13-12-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LATHA V KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: K P PAULSON
• Section: 194C

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. 788/COCH/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), KOCHI. VS. M/S. DEVSHI BHANJI KHONA, 103, M/S. D.B. KHONA, SUBRAMANIAN ROAD, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI-682 003. [PAN: AABFD 7497B] (REVENUE -APPELLANT) (ASSESSEE-RESPONDEN T) REVENUE BY SMT. LATHA V. KUMAR, JR. DR ASSESSEE BY SHRI K.P. PAULSON, FCA DATE OF HEARING 24/03/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28/03/2014 O R D E R PER B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 30-09-2013 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-II, KOCHI AND IT RELATES T O THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08. 2. THE REVENUE IS ASSAILING THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 17,29,026/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER BY ESTIMATING PROFIT FROM THE RECEIPTS CLAIMED AS REIMBURSEMENTS RECEIVE D FROM THE CUSTOMERS. 3. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE STATED IN BR IEF. THE ASSESSEE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, IS WORKING AS A LICENSED CUSTOM H OUSE AGENT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED ITS GROSS RECEIPTS AS RS.36,7 4,165/- IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS I.T.A. NO.788 /COCH/2013 2 ACCOUNT, WHILE THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF RECEIPTS WAS SHOWN AT RS.1,78,44,096/- IN THE TDS CERTIFICATES. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THA T THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF RS.1,41,69,928/- REPRESENTS THE AMOUNT INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF ITS CLIENTS, WHICH WERE REIMBURSED BY THEM SUBSEQUENTLY . THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS NOT CREDITED THE RECEIPTS RELATING TO R EIMBURSEMENTS IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND THEY WERE ROUTED THROUGH THE CONCE RNED CUSTOMER ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CUSTOMERS H AVE DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE ENTIRE PAYMENTS MADE TO IT, I.E., ON THE F EE CHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE PLUS REIMBURSEMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED T HE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE SUPPORTING VOUCHERS/BILLS FOR AMOUNTS BILLED TO THE CUSTOMERS TOWARD THE EXPENSES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COULD PRODUCE EVID ENCE ONLY FOR FREIGHT PAYMENTS AND SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS GIVEN ALL THE SU PPORTING VOUCHERS TO THEIR CLIENTS ALONG WITH THE BILLS. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED IT DOES NOT HAVE THE ORIGINALS WITH IT EXCEPT THE COPY OF THOSE BILL S. THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED THE BILL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOTICE D THAT ABOUT 24 ITEMS OF VARIOUS TYPES OF CHARGES ARE MENTIONED THEREIN. TH E AO HAS LISTED OUT SOME OF THE ITEMS AS UNDER:- (1) SHIPPING BILL (2) CESS (3) IGTPL FEE AS PER BILL ATTACHED (4) STUFFING CHARGES (5) TALLY WAGES (6) DOCUMENTATION FEE TO SHIPPING CO (7) FREIGHT AS PER BILL ATTACHED (8) CONTAINER TRANSPORT CHARGES (9) SUNDRIES (10) GSP CERTIFICATE (11) E.P. COPY (12) OUR HANDLING CHARGES (13) SERVICE TAX THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK THE VIEW THAT SOME OF TH E CHARGES LIKE BILLING CHARGES, DOCUMENTATION CHARGES, TALLY CHARGES, SUNDRIES ETC. ARE NOT EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF ITS CLIENTS, BUT THEY REP RESENT AMOUNT COLLECTED BY THE I.T.A. NO.788 /COCH/2013 3 ASSESSEE FOR THE DUTIES PERFORMED FOR THE CUSTOMERS . HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE EARNED SOME AMOUNT OF PROFIT FROM THE REIMBURSEMENT AMOUNTS. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ALSO NOTICED THAT THE HANDLING CHARGES BILLED BY THE ASSESSEE RANGED FROM RS. 500 TO RS. 1750. SIMILARLY, VARIOUS AMOUNTS BILLED BY THE ASSESSEE R ANGED FROM RS.250/- TO RS.1150/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTICED THAT THERE WERE VARIATION IN THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF TRANSACTIONS RECORDED BY THE AS SESSEE IN THE ACCOUNT OF THREE OF ITS CLIENTS VIS--VIS THAT RECORDED BY THE M. FURTHER, THE AO ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PAY INTEREST ON THE LOANS TAKEN BY THE FAMILY MEMBERS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK TH E VIEW THAT THE CREDITORS SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED BENEFIT OUTSIDE THE BOOKS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS MET THEM THROUGH THE INCOME EARNED FROM EXPENSES INCURRED ON BEHALF OF THE CLIENTS. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEN PROCEEDED TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME. THE AO ESTIMATED THE PROFIT UNDER TWO METHODS. THE AO NOT ICED THAT THE ASSESSEE, IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR, HAD DECLARED 30.28% OF THE AGGREGATE RECEIPTS SHOWN IN THE TDS CERTIFICATES AS ITS GROSS RECEIPTS IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. BY APPLYING THE SAME PERCENTAGE ON AGGREGATE RECEIP TS SHOWN IN TDS CERTIFICATES OF THE INSTANT YEAR, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WORKED OUT THE GROSS RECEIPTS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DECLARED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN THE P&L ACCOUNT AT RS. 54,03,091/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN A SU M OF RS. 36,74,165/- ONLY IN ITS P&L ACCOUNT, THE AO CONSIDERED THE DIFFERENCE R S.17,29,026/- BETWEEN THE TWO FIGURES CITED ABOVE AS THE INCOME EARNED OUT OF REIMBURSEMENTS. 5. UNDER SECOND METHOD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPT ED THE RATE OF PROFIT AT 15% AND APPLIED THE SAME ON THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF REIMBURSEMENTS, I.E., ON RS.1,41,69,928/- AND THUS ESTIMATED THE INCOME AT R S. 21,25,489/-. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CHOSE TO ADOPT THE INCOME ARR IVED AT UNDER THE FIRST METHOD, I.E., RS. 17,29,026/- AS THE INCOME EARNED OUT OF REIMBURSEMENTS. I.T.A. NO.788 /COCH/2013 4 ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE SAME T O THE TOTAL INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. CIT(A) DIS APPROVED BOTH THE METHODOLOGIES ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO E STIMATE THE INCOME WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 6.4 FURTHER, IN ESTIMATION OF SUCH PROFITS THE MET HODS ADOPTED ARE ALSO NOT REASONABLE AND ARE WITHOUT ANY BASIS. PROFIT F OR AN YEAR CAN NOT BE ESTIMATED ON THE BASIS OF PERCENTAGE INCOME BASED O N LAST YEARS TDS CERTIFICATES. ONE YEARS REIMBURSABLE AMOUNTS CAN N OT BE COMPARED WITH ANOTHER YEARS REIMBURSABLE AMOUNTS AS THEY WOULD D EPEND ON THAT PARTICULAR YEARS VOLUME OF BUSINESS AND NATURE OF ASSIGNMENTS. HENCE ADOPTION OF SUCH METHOD IS ERRONEOUS AND IS NOT BA SED ON ANY REASONABLE LOGIC. ALSO APPLYING PERCENTAGE ON REIM BURSABLE AMOUNTS AS PROFIT FOR THE YEAR HAS NO BASIS WHEN ASSESSEE HAS RECONCILED SUCH AMOUNTS AND WHEN SUCH REIMBURSEMENTS ARE MADE ON CO ST TO COST BASIS. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO EXAMINED SAMPLE BILLS, SUPPORTI NG RECONCILED STATEMENT AND ACCEPTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT EXPEN SES WERE REIMBURSED TO THE ASSESSEE ON COST TO COST BASIS. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD . CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT TH ERE IS SOME PROFIT MARGIN IN THE REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE F ROM ITS CLIENTS. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. THE LD D.R STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASS ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SU BSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM THAT THERE WAS NO PROFIT MARGIN ON THE REIMBURSEMENTS RE CEIVED FROM ITS CUSTOMERS. THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PROD UCE BILLS RELATING TO THE EXPENSES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED ON BEHALF OF ITS CUSTOMERS. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN ESTIMATING THE PROFIT PORTION FROM OUT OF REIMBURSEMENTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A. NO.788 /COCH/2013 5 8. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT IT IS THE USUAL TRADE PRACTICE OF CUSTOM HOUSE AGENTS TO INCUR EXPENSES ON BEHALF OF THEIR CUSTOMERS AND THEN CLAIM REIMBURSEMENTS ON ACTUAL BASIS. THE LD A.R F URTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS DEBITING THE ACCOUNT OF THE CONCERNED C USTOMER WHEN IT INCURS EXPENSES ON THEIR BEHALF. WHEN THE AMOUNT IS REIMB URSED, THE ACCOUNT OF CONCERNED CUSTOMER IS CREDITED. THE LD A.R SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE IS GETTING REIMBURSEMENTS ON COST TO COST BASIS FROM I TS CUSTOMERS. THE LD A.R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO BASIS OR MATERIA L AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUPPORT HIS VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS LO DGING CLAIM WITH ITS CUSTOMERS AT A HIGHER FIGURE THAN THAT WAS INCURRED. THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE TO VARIOUS GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES ON BEHALF OF THE CUSTOMERS AND HENCE THE POSSIBILITY OF IMPUTING THE PROFIT ELEMENT IS NIL IN MOST OF THE ITEMS. THE LD A.R EXPLAINED THE DETAILS OF VARIOUS EXPENSES AS UNDER:- SL. NO. VARIOUS CHARGES IN BILL PAID TO VARIOUS AUT HORITIES 1. SHIPPING BILL PAID TO CUSTOMS 2. CESS PAID TO CUSTOMS 3. IGTPL FEES PAID TO INDIRA GANDHI TERMINAL (P) LT D. 4. STUFFING CHARGES PAID TO CFS (CONTAINER FREIGHT STATION) 5. TALLY WAGES PAID TO CCHAA (COCHIN CUSTOM HOUSE A GENTS ASSOCIATION) WHO OPERATES THE POOL OF TALLY CLERKS) 6. DOCUMENTATION FEES PAID TO SHIPPING COMPANIES. 7. FREIGHT OCEAN FREIGHT PAID TO SHIPPING COMPANIES 8. CONTAINER TRANSPORT CHARGES PAID TO SAJIMON TRANSPORTS ETC. 9. SUNDRIES SUNDRY OUT OF POCKET EXPENSES INCURRED ON BEHALF OF PRINCIPALS. 10. GSP CERTIFICATE PAID TO EXPORT/INSPECTION AGENCY FOR GSP (GENERALISED SYSTEM OF PERFORMERS) CERTIFICATE. 11. E.P. COPY PAID TO CUSTOMERS FOR EP (EXPORT PROMOTI ON) COPY 12. OUR HANDLING CHARGES OWN INC OME 13. SERVICE TAX ON OWN INCOME THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FOL LOWING THE VERY SAME SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOR EXPENSES AND ALSO ACCOUNTI NG FOR THE REIMBURSEMENTS FOR THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER I.T.A. NO.788 /COCH/2013 6 WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ENTERTAINING PRESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOME PROFIT MARGIN ON THE AMOUNT OF REIMBURSEMENTS. THE LD A.R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CUSTOMERS HAVE DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE U/S 194C OF THE ACT ON THE ENTIRE AMOUNT PAID TO THE ASSESSEE, SINCE THE PROVISIONS O F SEC. 194C MANDATES DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON ANY SUM PAID UNDER A CONTRACT. THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE VIEW ENTERTAINED BY THE CUSTOMER S FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE CANNOT DETERMINE THE TAXABILITY OF INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CARE FULLY PERUSED THE RECORD. THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY DOUBT THAT THE MERE REIMBUR SEMENT OF EXPENSES ON ACTUAL BASIS WOULD NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY INCOME ASSE SSABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, IT HAS BEEN I NCURRING SUCH TYPE OF EXPENSES ON BEHALF OF ITS CUSTOMERS FOR THE PAST SE VERAL YEARS AND THIS IS THE SYSTEM ADOPTED BY ALL THE PERSONS ENGAGED IN CUSTOM CLEARING AGENCY BUSINESS. BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE ACCOUNTIN G METHODOLOGY ADOPTED BY IT FOR ACCOUNTING THE EXPENSES AND ALSO FOR RECEIPT OF MONEY FROM THE CUSTOMERS. ACCORDING TO LD D.R, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH A NY MATERIALS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM THAT IT INCURRED EXPENSES ON BEHALF OF IT S CUSTOMERS AND GOT REIMBURSEMENT OF THE SAME FROM THEM. BEFORE US, T HE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ORIGINAL COPIES OF BILLS ARE SUBMITTED TO THE C ONCERNED CUSTOMERS AND THE ASSESSEE MAY BE HAVING ONLY COPIES OF BILLS. IT AP PEARS THAT THIS PRACTICAL POSITION IN CONDUCTING THE BUSINESS HAS NOT BEEN AP PRECIATED BY THE AO. 10. THE ASSESSEE HAS TABULATED THE NATURE OF EX PENSES, WHICH IS EXTRACTED BY US IN AN EARLIER PARAGRAPH. THERE SHOULD NOT BE AN Y DOUBT THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF IMPUTING PROFIT ON THE PAYMENTS MADE TO GOVERNMENT OR GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES IS PRACTICALLY NIL. WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS ESTIMATED INCOME ON SUCH KIND OF PAYMENTS MADE / REIMBURSEMENTS RECEIVE D, WHICH MEANS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ANALYSED THE NATURE OF EX PENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF THE CUSTOMERS. IN RESPECT OF OTHER ITEMS OF EXPENSES ALSO, I.T.A. NO.788 /COCH/2013 7 THERE WILL NOT BE ANY PROFIT ELEMENT, IF THE REIMBU RSEMENTS ARE RECEIVED ON COST TO COST BASIS. WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURN ISHED A RECONCILIATION STATEMENT BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) AND THE FIRST APPELL ATE AUTHORITY HAS DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF SAMPLE BILLS AND THE RECON CILIATION STATEMENTS FURNISHED TO HIM BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER HIS COMME NTS ON IT. IN OUR VIEW, PROPER ANALYSIS AND EXAMINATION OF VARIOUS ITEMS OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE BILLS RAISED ON THE CUSTOMERS WOUL D BRING OUT CORRECT PICTURE OF THE POSITION. WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED THE INCOME ON AD-HOC BASIS WITHOUT ANALYZING THE NATURE OF VARIOU S TYPES OF REIMBURSEMENTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, WE HAVE ALREADY NOTICED THAT THE METHODOLOGY ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EST IMATE THE INCOME WAS FOUND TO BE FAULTY BY THE LD CIT(A). WE ALSO NOTICE THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE FIRST APPELLAT E AUTHORITY ON THAT POINT. WE HAVE ALREADY EXTRACTED THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS MA DE BY LD CIT(A) AND WE AGREE WITH THE SAME. 11. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSIONS, WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO ANALYSE THE NATURE OF REIMBU RSEMENTS RECEIVED AND CATEGORISE THEM INTO TWO CATEGORIES, VIZ., THOSE IT EMS WHERE THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY TO IMPUTE PROFIT AND THOSE ITEMS WHERE THERE IS A POSSIBILITY TO IMPUTE THE PROFIT. IN RESPECT OF THE LATTER CATEGORY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO FIND OUT AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HEREIN HAS RECE IVED REIMBURSEMENTS ON COST TO COST BASIS OR NOT. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECE IVED THE REIMBURSEMENTS ON ACTUAL COST BASIS, THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN O UR VIEW, WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IN DETERMINING INCOME ELEMENT ON SOME EQUITABLE BASIS. HENCE, IN OUR VIEW, THIS ISSUE REQUIRES FRESH EXAMINATION AT THE END OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF T HIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE SAME TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIREC TION TO EXAMINE THE RECEIPT PERTAINING TO THE REIMBURSEMENTS IN THE LIGHT OF TH E DISCUSSIONS MADE SUPRA AND I.T.A. NO.788 /COCH/2013 8 TAKE APPROPRIATE DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LA W. HOWEVER, AS SUBMITTED BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE IN A POSITION TO FURNISH THE ORIGINAL COPIES OF VARIOUS BILLS, SINCE THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE CONCERNED CUSTOMERS. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY KEEP IN MIND THE A BOVE SAID PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUITABLY MODIFY HIS METHOD OF E XAMINATION. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS (INCLUDING COP IES OF VARIOUS BILLS) THAT MAY BE CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE. 12. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY ON 28-03-2014. SD/- SD/- (N.R.S.GANESAN) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: KOCHI DATED: 28TH MARCH, 2014 GJ COPY TO: 1. M/S. DEVSHI BHANJI KHONA, 103, M/S. D.B. KHONA, SUBRAMANIAN ROAD, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI-682 003. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -3(1), KOCHI. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-II, KOCH I. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOCHI. 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) I.T.A.T, COCHIN