M/s Kerala Transport Co., Calicut V. The ACIT, Calicut

ITA 796/COCH/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6250 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 23-04-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K JOHN
• Assessee Lawyers: V SATHYANARAYANAN
• Section: 40A(3); 263

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. 796/COCH/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 M/S. KERALA TRANSPORT COMPANY, Y.M.C.A. ROAD, KOZHIKODE. [PAN: AADFK 0173H] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), KOZHIKODE. (ASSESSEE -APPELLANT) (REVENUE-RESPONDEN T) ASSESSEE BY SHRI V. SATHYANARAYANAN, CA REVENUE BY SHRI K.K.JOHN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 23/04/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 25/04/2014 O R D E R PER B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE REVISION ORDER DATED 07-11-2013 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT, KOZHI KODE U/S. 263 OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE STATED IN BRI EF. THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM ENGAGED IN TRANSPORT BUSINESS. THE ASSESSMENT IN T HE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143 (3) OF THE ACT ON 16- 12.2011. ON EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD, THE LD. CIT NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OVERLOOKED THE VIOLATIONS OF TDS PROVIS IONS WARRANTING DISALLOWANCE I.T.A. NO.796/COCH/2013 2 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THE FACTS, AS DISCUSSED BY THE LD. CIT, ARE EXTRACTED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF CONVEN IENCE: 2. DETAILED PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH THE RECORDS REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED RS.59,51,91, 636/-, RS.1,45,38,307/- AND RS.58,52,577/- TO THE P&L ACCO UNT BEING EXPENSES UNDER THE HEADS OF LORRY HIRE CHARGES, RENT AND INT EREST ON DEPOSITS RESPECTIVELY. THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE UNDER THESE HE ADS COMES TO RS.61,55,82,520/-. AGAINST THESE PAYMENTS, THE TDS MADE, AS PER CHAPTER XVII, ONLY ON TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.9,95,19,89 4/- I.E. ON LORRY HIRE CHARGES AT RS.9,00,25,165/-, RENT AT RS. 72,00,388/ - AND INTEREST ON DEPOSITS AT RS.72,94,341/-. THUS, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.51,60,62,626/- ( RS.61,55,82,520/- - RS.9,95,19,894/-). OUT OF THIS AMOUNT OF RS.51,60,6 2,626/-, THE ASSESSEE ITSELF DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS. 1,33,54,865 /-** U/S. 40(A)(IA) WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME AS PER THE COMPUTA TION CHART ATTACHED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, LEAVING A BALANCE OF AMO UNT OF RS.50,27,07,761/- (RS.51,60,62,626/- - RS.1,33,54,8 65/-) ON WHICH NO DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASS ESSEE. SINCE NO TDS HAS BEEN MADE, AS SUCH, THE ASSESSEE VIOLATED T HE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XVII (TDS PROVISIONS) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AND THEREFORE, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) ARE CLEARLY ATTRACT ED IN THIS CASE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O.) HAS OVERLOOKED THE VIOLATI ONS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE OF TDS PROVISIONS THEREBY FAILED TO DISALL OW THE EXPENSES CLAIMED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.50,27,07,761/- U/S. 40(A)(IA) . (** DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.14,66, 992/-) 3. AFTER DISCUSSING THE MATTER WITH THE ASSESSEE , THE LD. CIT TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ONLY FAILED TO APPLY HIS MIND ON THE RELEVANT ISSUES BUT HAS ALSO FAILED TO CONDUCT NECESSARY ENQUIRIES AND VERIFICATION IN THIS REGARD. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT O RDER AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE FRESH ASSESSMENT AS PER LAW ON THE POINT OF ISSUES DISCUSSED IN THE REVISION ORDER. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US. I.T.A. NO.796/COCH/2013 3 4. THE LD. COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED THE CLAIM OF LORRY HIRE CHARGE S DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. BY INVITING OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISCUSSED ABOUT THE CLAIM OF LORRY HIRE CHARGES IN THE CONTEXT OF P ROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3) OF THE ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEE ITSELF HAD DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS.14,66,992/- BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, SINCE THERE WAS FAILURE ON ITS PART TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOUR CE ON CERTAIN PAYMENTS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALSO, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER, VIDE HER LETTER DATED 20.10.2011, HAD SOUGHT FOR DETAILS AND LEDGER COPIES OF ALL EXPENSES EXCEEDING RS.5.00 LAKHS AND ALL EXPENSES COVERED U/ S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE SAID LETTER, THE ASSESSEE FUR NISHED THE NECESSARY DETAILS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 14-11- 2011. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED FURTHER DETAILS VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 22- 11-2011. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED A BOUT THE APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER CONSIDER ING THE EXPLANATIONS AND DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS CONVINCED THAT NO FU RTHER ADDITION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE L D. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT WAS WRONG IN OBSERVING THAT THERE WAS LACK OF ENQUI RY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THERE IS FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TO APPLY HIS MIND. I.T.A. NO.796/COCH/2013 4 ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS NOT A CASE OF ABSENCE OF ENQUIRY OR NON- APPLICATION OF MIND AND HENCE THE IMPUGNED REVISION ORDER IS NOT VALID IN LAW. 5. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT IS ENTITLED TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 263 OF THE ACT ONLY IF THERE IS FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE ANY ISSUE AND TO APPLY HIS MIND THEREON. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ONLY MADE NECESSARY E NQUIRIES AND VERIFICATION BUT HAS ALSO APPLIED HIS MIND AND HAS TAKEN A CONSCIENT IOUS DECISION AS NOT TO MAKE ANY ADDITION U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGL Y, THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING THE PROVISION S OF SEC. 263 OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD A.R PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE FOLLO WING CASE LAW:- (A) CIT VS. M/S ANAND FOOD PRODUCTS (2013 TIOL- 936-HC-AP-IT) (B) DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX VS. JYOTI FOUNDATION ( 2013)(357 ITR 388)(DEL) (C) ITO VS. DG HOUSING PROJECTS LTD (2012)(343 I TR 329)(DEL) 6. THE LD. AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT HIMSE LF SHOULD HAVE EXAMINED THE ISSUE BEFORE AND AFTER SATISFYING HIMSELF THAT THERE WAS ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE I NTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, THE LD. CIT SHOULD HAVE SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT SHOULD HAVE ADDRESSED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESS EE BEFORE PASSING THE REVISION ORDER. IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROPOSITION, THE LD A.R PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE ALLAHABAD BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF PYARE LAL JAISWAL VS. CIT (2014)(146 ITD 555). HE SUBMITTED THAT, IN THE INS TANT CASE, THE LD. CIT HAS SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE C ONTENTIONS URGED BY THE I.T.A. NO.796/COCH/2013 5 ASSESSEE AND ON THAT COUNT ALSO, THE IMPUGNED REVIS ION ORDER IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 7. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER DID NOT DISCUSS ANYTHING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ABOUT THE DISALLOWANCE REQUIRED TO BE MADE U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE FURNISHED THE DETAILS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT IS NOT CLE AR AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED THOSE DETAILS AND APPLIED HIS MIND THEREON BEFORE COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ADDITION IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE MADE U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. IN ANY CASE, THE MIND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND HENCE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS R ENDERED ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERU SED THE RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT DISCUSS ANYTHING ABOUT TH E DISALLOWANCE TO BE MADE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT I S WELL SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WOULD BE RENDERED ERRONEO US AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, IF THERE IS LACK OF ENQUI RY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ANY OF THE ISSUES HAVING TAX IMPACT. FO R THIS PROPOSITION, A GAINFUL REFERENCE MAY BE MADE TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE SU PREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. VS. CIT (243 ITR 83). WE FE EL IT PERTINENT TO REFER TO THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GRASIM I.T.A. NO.796/COCH/2013 6 INDUSTRIES LTD. V CIT (321 ITR 92), WHEREIN THE COU RT HAS DISCUSSED ABOUT THE SCOPE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 AS UNDER: SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 EMPOWERS TH E COMMISSIONER TO CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORD OF ANY PROCEED INGS UNDER THE ACT AND, IF HE CONSIDERS THAT ANY ORDER PASSED THEREIN, BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, TO PASS AN ORDER UPON HEARING THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER AN ENQUIRY AS IS NECESSARY, ENHANCING OR MODIFYING THE ASSESSMENT OR CANCELING THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTING A FRESH ASSE SSMENT. THE KEY WORDS THAT ARE USED BY SECTION 263 ARE THAT THE ORD ER MUST BE CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSIONER TO BE ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THIS PROVISION HAS BEEN INTERPRETED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN SEVERAL JUDGMEN TS TO WHICH IT IS NOW NECESSARY TO TURN. IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LT D. V. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE PROVISI ON CANNOT BE INVOKED TO CORRECT EACH AND EVERY TYPE OF MISTAKE O R ERROR COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IT IS ONLY WHEN AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS THAT THE SECTION WILL BE ATTRACTED. THE SUPREME CO URT HELD THAT AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACT OR AN INCORRECT APPLIC ATION OF LAW WILL SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ORDER BEING ERRONE OUS. AN ORDER PASSED IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JU STICE OR WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND, WOULD BE AN ORDER FALL ING IN THAT CATEGORY. THE EXPRESSION PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF TH E REVENUE, THE SUPREME COURT HELD, IT IS OF WIDE IMP ORT AND IS NOT CONFINED TO A LOSS OF TAX. WHAT IS PREJUDICIAL TO T HE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE IS EXPLAINED IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT (HEAD NOTE) : THE PHRASE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE RE VENUE HAS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF A N ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN AN INCOME-TAX OFFICE R ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULT ED IN LOSS OF REVENUE, OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE IN COME-TAX OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THE PRINCIPLE WHICH HAS BEEN LAID DOWN IN MALABAR I NDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) HAS BEEN FOLLOWED AND EXPLAI NED IN A I.T.A. NO.796/COCH/2013 7 SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V . MAX INDIA LTD. [2007] 295 ITR 282. THERE MAY NOT BE ANY DISPUTE THAT THE REVISION PROC EEDING SHALL NOT LIE ON THE ISSUES ON WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN A P LAUSIBLE VIEW AFTER EXAMINING AND APPLYING HIS MIND ON IT. IF THE AO DID NOT MAK E ANY ENQUIRY ON ANY OF THE PERTINENT ISSUE, IT WILL RESULT IN LACK OF APPLICAT ION OF MIND. 9. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID CALL FOR DETAILS RELATING TO THE ITEMS COVERED BY SEC. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ITS ELF HAS DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS.14,66,992/- U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT WHILE COMPU TING THE RETURNED INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OF FICER CONSIDERED THE SAID DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF ALONG WITH THE DETAILS THAT WERE CALLED FOR DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND WAS SATISFIED WITH THE SAME. HENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT DISCUSS ANYTHING ABOUT THE ENQUIRIES MADE BY HIM IN THIS REGARD IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT A CASE OF TO TAL LACK OF ENQUIRY, WARRANTING REVISION ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT. 10. NOW THE QUESTION THAT ARISES IS WHETHER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WOULD BE RENDERED ERRONEOUS, IF THERE IS NO DISCUSSION IN TH E BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ABOUT THE ISSUES THAT WERE SOUGHT TO BE REVISED BY THE LD CIT. WE NOTICE THAT THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF TOYOTO MOTOR CORPORATION (306 ITR I.T.A. NO.796/COCH/2013 8 49), HAS HELD THAT THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO AR E QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AND A DECISION TAKEN BY THE AO IN THIS REGARD MUST BE SUPPORTED BY REASONS. IN THE CASE BEFORE THE DELHI HIGH COURT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED A CRYPTIC ORDER DROPPING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASON AND HENCE THE SAID ORDER WAS REVISED BY THE LD CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE REVISION ORDER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND COULD SUCCEE D. THE DEPARTMENT CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, WHICH UPHELD THE REVISION ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE. THE SAID ORDER OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS BEEN APP ROVED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOYOTO MOTOR CORPORATI ON (306 ITR 52) WITH THE OBSERVATION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD PASS A REASONED ORDER. THESE DECISIONS CLEARLY BRING OUT THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER SHOULD BE PASSED WITH OR CONTAIN PROPER REASONS ON VARIOUS ISSUES. IN THE I NSTANT CASE, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CALLED FOR DETAILS RELATING T O THE ITEMS COVERED BY SEC. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT YET, AS SUBMITTED BY LD D.R, I T IS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID APPLY HIS MIND ON THE DETAILS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE S AME, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT FOR ANYBODY TO COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE CLAIM AFTER APPLYING HIS MIND. THE ASSESSEE HAS FA ILED TO FURNISH ANY OTHER MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID APP LY HIS MIND ON THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY HIM AND TOOK A VIEW ABOUT THE DISALLOW ANCE TO BE MADE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. I.T.A. NO.796/COCH/2013 9 11. THE VARIOUS ISSUES POINTED OUT BY LD CIT WOUL D HAVE IMPLICATION ON THE TAX COMPUTATION IF THEY ARE DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSE E, IN WHICH CASE THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER WOULD BECOME PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. 12. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSIONS, IN OU R VIEW, THE REVISION ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT IS SUSTAINABLE AS THE SAME IS IN A CCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY ON 25 -04-2014. SD/- SD/- (N.R.S.GANESAN) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE PLACE: KOCHI DATED: 25TH APRIL, 2014 GJ COPY TO: 1. M/S. KERALA TRANSPORT COMPANY, Y.M.C.A. ROAD, KO ZHIKODE-673 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), KOZHIKODE. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOZHIKODE. 4. D.R., I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 5. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) I.T.A.T, COCHIN