ACIT, Thrissur V. Shri P.K. Ravindran, Thrissur

ITSSA 161/COCH/2005

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8965 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 15-06-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 06-09-2005
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K THATAI; PAVAN VED CIT DRS
• Assessee Lawyers: T M SREEDHARAN
• Keywords: Gift; Reasonable cause; Competent authority
• Section: 68; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLAT E TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH , COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI N.VIJAYAKUMARAN, JM AND SHRI SANJA Y ARORA,AM I.T(SS)A NO. 161 /COCH/ 2005 BLOCK PERIOD : 1.4.1987 TO 10.3.1998 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RANGE- 2, TRICHUR. VS. SHRI P.K.RAVINDRAN, PALAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.VEMBALLUR,KODUNGALLUR, TRICHUR. . (REVENUE-APPELLANT) (ASSESSEE -RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY SHRI A.K. THATAI & SHRI PAVAN VED, CIT( DRS.) ASSESSEE BY SHRI T.M.SREEDHARAN, ADV. O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS ARISING OUT OF THE O RDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-V, KOCHI (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 25.4.2005 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1987 TO 10.3.1998. VIDE THE SAME, THE LD. CIT( A) HAS DIRECTED THE DELETION OF THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S. 158BFA(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT , 1961(THE ACT HEREINAFTER) BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 26.8.2004. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, WAS SUBJECT TO SEARCH U/S. 132 OF THE ACT AT HIS RESIDENCE ON 10.3.1998. ASSE SSMENT U/S. 158BC WAS COMPLETED ON 29.3.2000 AT AN INCOME OF RS. 8,50,670/- AGAINST TH E RETURNED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 3 LAKHS. THE SAME STOOD REDUCED IN APPEAL TO RS. 7, 15,000/- BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 25.2.2004, WHICH STO OD NOT APPEALED AGAINST BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE REVENUE. AN ADDITION OF RS. 4,15,00 0/-, THUS, CAME TO BE SUSTAINED TO THE ASSESSEES RETURNED INCOME AND, CONSEQUENTLY, THE P ROVISION OF SECTION 158BFA(2) STOOD ATTRACTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O.) LEVIED THE PENALTY AT RS. 2,49,000/-, I.E., AT THE MINIMUM RATE OF ONE HUNDRED PER CENT OF THE AMOUNT OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED WITH REFERENCE TO THE RETURNED UNDISCLOSED INCOME. IN AP PEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE SAME, IT(SS)A NO. 161/COCH./2005 2 OBSERVING THAT THE PRINCIPAL ADDITION SUSTAINED ON ASSESSMENT IS ON ACCOUNT OF A GIFT OF RS. 3 LACS RECEIVED FROM ONE, SHRI TONY TOM OF USA, A N ON-RESIDENT INDIAN (NRI). NO MATERIAL AT THE TIME OF SEARCH IN RELATION TO THE S AID CREDIT STOOD FOUND, EVEN AS THE GIFT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY CHEQUE AND STOOD DEPOSITED I N THE ASSESSEES REGULAR BANK ACCOUNT (SAVINGS BANK A/C # 9019) WITH INDIAN BANK, KODUNGALLUR BRANCH. NO CONFIRMATION LETTER COULD BE SECURED FROM THE CONCE RNED CREDITOR AT THAT RELEVANT TIME DUE TO HIS NON-AVAILABILITY. THERE WAS NOTHING TO SUGGE ST, OR BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE, TO SHOW THAT THE GIFT WAS BOGUS OR REPRESE NTED THE ASSESSEES INCOME. EVEN IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE REVENUE MERELY PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FINDINGS IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, I.E., OF NO CONFIRMATION FR OM THE CREDITOR, AND NO FURTHER MATERIAL STOOD BROUGHT ON RECORD BY IT TO IMPUGN THE ASSESSE ES CASE. FURTHER INVESTIGATION IN THE MATTER AND ADDITIONAL MATERIAL, LEADING TO AN ADVER SE INFERENCE/S, WAS A SINE QUA NON FOR THE LEVY OF PENALTY WHICH IS QUASI CRIMINAL IN NATURE. HE, THEREFORE, DELETED THE PEN ALTY LEVIED. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL. 3.1 BEFORE US, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE FACT THAT THE ADDITION TO THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME STOOD MADE UNDER THE DEEMING PROVISION OF SE CTION 68 (OR SECTION 69/69A) WOULD BY ITSELF NOT LEAD TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE PENALTY U/S. 158BFA(2). THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAD FAILED TO NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE ST OOD ALLOWED AS MANY AS FOUR OPPORTUNITIES BY THE AO DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDI NGS TO OFFER HIS EXPLANATION QUA THE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED, AND WHICH HE FAILED TO AVAIL; HIS ONLY EXPLANATION BEING A BALD ASSERTION OF THE RECEIPT BEING GENUINE AND, FURTHER , OF THE ASSESSEE BEING IN FINANCIAL DIFFICULTY, SO THAT A LENIENT VIEW OF THE MATTER MA Y BE TAKEN. THE SECTION DOES NOT ADMIT OF ANY SUCH CONSIDERATIONS; ITS TERMS BEING PRECISE , SO THAT WHERE ITS CONDITIONS STAND MET, PENALTY THERE-UNDER BECOMES LEVIABLE. IT WOULD BE P ERTINENT TO BEAR IN MIND IN THIS REGARD THAT THESE REPRESENT THE SECOND ROUND OF ASSESSMENT , BEING ONLY CONSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH, SO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO RETURN THE CORRE CT INCOME, FIRSTLY, AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL RETURN, AND THEN AGAIN AFTER SEARCH. 3.2 THE LD. AR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE FO LLOWING CASE LAW: C.NAJEEB VS. DCIT (IN IT(SS)A NO. 17/COCH/2007 DATED APRIL 15, 2008) ; NEMICHAND VS. ACIT, 93 IT(SS)A NO. 161/COCH./2005 3 TTJ (BANG.) 564; DR. HAKEEM S.A. SYED SATHAR VS. ACIT, 123 TTJ (CHENNAI) 573; DY. CIT VS. HEERA CONSTRUCTIONS CO. (P) LTD., 125 TTJ (COCH) (TM) 589; CIT V. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P.) LTD . (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC); AND SREE KRISHNA ELECTRICALS V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR . (2009) 23 VST 249 (SC). THE MAIN THRUST OF HIS AR GUMENTS WAS THAT THE PENALTY U/S. 158BFA(2) IS NOT AUTOMATIC; A ND IN VIEW OF THE WORD MAY AND NOT SHALL OCCURRING IN THE SECTION, CONFERS THE POWER ON THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY NOT TO LEVY THE PENALTY, WHICH IS ALWAYS A SUBJECT MATTER OF JU DICIAL DETERMINATION, SO THAT THE AUTHORITY IS OBLIGED TO CONSIDER ALL THE RELEVANT F ACTS. FURTHER, MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCEPTED THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHO RITY IN QUANTUM, AND NOT APPEALED THERE- AGAINST, AND WHICH WAS DONE ONLY TO PURCHASE PEACE AND SET THE MATTER AT REST, SHOULD NOT GO AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 4.1 WE OBSERVE NEITHER ANY DISPUTE NOR AMBIGUIT Y WITH REGARD TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, SO THAT THE MATTER IN ISSUE IS ESSENTIALLY A QUESTI ON OF APPLICATION OF LAW UNDER THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE SAME WOULD , HOWEVER, REQUIRE US TO, AT FIRST, VISIT THE LAW IN THE MATTER. THIS IS AS THE ASSESSEE-APPE LLANT HAS RAISED CERTAIN LEGAL ISSUES, WHICH WOULD NEED TO BE ADDRESSED AFORTIORI ; THE LEVY OF PENALTY MERITING SUSTENANCE ONLY WHERE IT FALLS WITHIN THE FRAME WORK OF LAW AND STA NDS IMPOSED IN ACCORDANCE THEREWITH. SECTION 158 BFA(2), THOUGH CAST IN ABSOLUTE TERMS, AS ALSO OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT(A), PROVIDES FOR A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAR D TO THE ASSESSEE. AS SUCH, THE CONDITION OF A REASONABLE CAUSE HAS TO BE READ INTO THE SECTION, OR, FOR WHAT PURPOSE THE HEARING. AS SUCH, PENALTY COULD ONLY BE LEVIED ON A PROPER CONSIDERATION OF THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION/S, IF ANY, JUDICIOUSLY DETERMINING THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING SUCH HEARING. EVEN OTHERWISE, IT IS TRITE THAT PENA LTY IS NOT AUTOMATIC AND A SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION OF THE CONDUCT (OF THE EVASION OF TAX) - DULY SUBSTANTIATED WHICH IS WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY SOUGHT TO BE PENALIZED PER THE PENALTY PROVISIONS, BY ACTING AS A DETERRENT FOR FUTURE OR FOR OTHERS, WOULD SAVE PENALTY. SECTION 158BFA(2) SATISFIES THIS TEST BY THE EMPLOYMENT OF THE WORD MAY IN THE PROVISION, AND, AS AFORESAID, EXTENSION OF REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY PER SUB- SECTION (3). EVEN O THERWISE, IT WOULD BE IDLE TO CONTEST THE COMPETENCE OF THE PARLIAMENT OR THE VIRES OF TH E. SECTION, PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE IT(SS)A NO. 161/COCH./2005 4 DECISION BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF P.P. UMMERKUTTY VS. ASSTT. CIT (2005) 279 ITR 213 (KER.), THE HEAD NOTE OF WHICH I T WOULD BE RELEVANT TO REPRODUCE:- SECTION 158BFA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, HAS BE EN INTRODUCED IN CHAPTER XIV-B WHICH DEALS WITH SPECIAL PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSMENT O F SEARCH CASES WITH AN OBJECT TO ACHIEVE. THE SAID PROVISION IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE AN EFFECTIVE DETERRENT AGAINST EVASION OF TAX AND TO PUT A STOP TO THAT PRACTICE WHICH THE LEGISLATURE CONSIDERS TO BE AGAINST THE PUBLIC INTEREST. POWER TO LEVY TAX ON INCOME IS VE STED IN PARLIAMENT AND POWER TO IMPOSE PENALTIES TO VINDICATE THAT PARTICULAR POWER OF IMPOSITION OF TAX IS ALSO ON PARLIAMENT. THE OBJECT AND PURPOSE OF SECTION 158 BFA IS TO PROVIDE PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND PROVIDING A DETERRENT AGA INST TAX EVADERS. IT IS NEITHER OPPRESSIVE NOR VIOLATIVE OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. THIS WOULD INCIDENTALLY ALSO MEET THE ASSESSEES RE LIANCE ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF NEMICHAND VS. ACIT (INV.) (SUPRA), WHICH STATES OF THE INAPPLICABILITY OF TH E SECTION BY READING DOWN THE SAME, INASMUCH AS NO CAUSE OF ACTI ON OR DEFAULT STANDS SPECIFIED THEREIN AND IS SANS ANY CHARGING ELEMENT, SO THAT IT WAS IN EFFECT NOT A VALID LEGISLATION, EVEN AS THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT CASE ALSO FOUND AS A FACT THAT THE APPELLANT-ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED MOST OF THE ASSESSED INCOME, WHICH STOOD ACCEPTED AND NO APPEAL PREFERRED IN RESPECT OF THE EXCESS INCOME ASSESSED. RATHER, THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF DY. CIT VS. HEERA CONSTRUCTIONS CO. (P) LTD. (SUPRA), RELIANCE ON WHICH STANDS PLACED BY THE AS SESSEE, WOULD ITSELF ANSWER THE QUESTION AGAINST THE CONTEN TION SOUGHT TO BE RAISED BY IT WITH REFERENCE THERETO; IT ONLY UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PE NALTY U/S. 158 BFA(2), ALBEIT WITH REFERENCE TO THE EXCESS AMOUNT, I.E., UNDER THE SEC OND PROVISO THERETO, WHERE THE INCOME DETERMINED BY THE AO EXCEEDS THAT RETURNED BY THE A SSESSEE, AS IN THE PRESENT CASE, SO THAT THE PENALTY IS, FIRSTLY, LEVIABLE, AND SECONDL Y, STANDS LEVIED, THUS, ONLY IN TERMS OF THE SAID DECISION. 4.2 THAT THE BONA FIDES OF THE CASE, I.E., A BONA FIDE AND COOPERATIVE CONDUCT, FORMS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT WHILE CONSIDERING THE ISSUE OF LE VY OF PENALTY US/. 158 BFA(2), IS NOWHERE MORE EXPLICIT THAN IN THE FOUR CONDITIONS O F THE FIRST PROVISO THERETO, SATISFACTION OF WHICH SAVES PENALTY. THE SECTION IS CAST IN A NE GATIVE MANNER, SO THAT THE SATISFACTION OF THE SAID CONDITIONS WOULD REMOVE THE BAR FOR THE NON-LEVY OF THE PENALTY. HOWEVER, NO SUCH CONDITIONS, VIZ. PAYMENT OF TAX LEVIED COUPLED WITH THE NON-APPEAL AGAINST THE IT(SS)A NO. 161/COCH./2005 5 ADDITIONS SUSTAINED IN ASSESSMENT, STAND STIPULATED WHERE THE ASSESSED UNDISCLOSED INCOME EXCEEDS THAT RETURNED, SO THAT A PLAIN AND S TRICT READING OF THE SECTION, WHICH OUGHT TO GOVERN ITS READING, WOULD SUGGEST THE LEVY OF PENALTY ON THE EXCESS SO DETERMINED, NEVERTHELESS. THE LIMITS OF THE `EXPLAN ATION/S BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS IMPLICIT IN THE SECTION ITSELF. IT WOULD ALSO BE RELEVANT TO NOTE IN THIS REGARD THAT THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO THIS SECTION IN S. 273B, I.E., THE SEC TION WHICH MANDATES THE GROUND OF A REASONABLE CAUSE AS SAVING PENALTY, FURTHER REINFOR CING THIS UNDERSTANDING. AND, ALL OF WHICH WOULD ONLY GOES TO SHOW THAT THE ONUS ON THE ASSESSEE IN SUCH A CASE FOR THE NON- LEVY OF THE PENALTY IS VERY HEAVY. IT DOES NOT TAKE MUCH STRAIN TO UNDERSTAND THE RATIONALE FOR THE SAME; THE ASSESSEE, ON ASSESSMENT BASED ON SEARCH MATERIAL, HAVING BEEN FOUND TO HAVE UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD WHICH HE HAS, YET AGAIN, FAILED TO RETURN. 4.3 THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ALLUDED TO THE PENAL TY PROCEEDINGS BEING QUASI CRIMINAL IN NATURE, IMPORTING THE CONDITION OF MENS REA IN THE PROCEEDINGS, WHICH HAS, AMONG OTHERS, FOUND FAVOUR WITH THE LD. CIT(A). THE SAME IS OF NO MOMENT IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF, INTER ALIA, P.P. UMMERKUTTY (SUPRA); HEERA CONSTRUCTIONS CO. (P) LTD. (SUPRA), CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 158BFA (2) ON THE SATISFACTION OF THE CRITERION FOR THE LEVY AS SPELLED OUT IN THE SECTION, AND WIT HOUT INSISTENCE ON THE FURTHER ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHARGE BY THE REVENUE OF IT BE ING WILFUL. THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN UNION OF INDIA VS. DHARMENDRA TEXTILES LTD. , 295 ITR 244 (SC) HAS CLARIFIED THAT THE PENALTY ENVISAGED UNDER THE FISCAL LAWS IS A STRICT LIABILITY, CIVIL IN NATURE, AND DOES NOT IN ANY MANNER REQUIRE ESTABLISHMENT OF MENS REA FOR ITS LEVY. THE STATEMENT IN CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM , VOLUME 85, PAGE 580, PARAGRAPH 1023 IS RELEVANT I N THIS REGARD: `A PENALTY IMPOSED FOR A TAX DELINQUENCY IS A CIVIL OBLIGATION, REMEDIAL AND COERCIVE IN ITS NATURE, AND IS FAR DIFFERENT FROM THE PENALTY F OR A CRIME OR A FINE OR FORFEITURE I PROVIDED AS PUNISHMENT FOR THE VIOLATION OF CRIMINA L OR PENAL LAWS. HERE IT NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE INTIMATE KNOW OF ITS AFFAIRS, AND THE INCOME ASSESSED BEING HIGHER THAN THAT RETURNED, TH E PRESUMPTION IN LAW IS ONLY OF THE FAILURE TO RETURN THE SAID EXCESS AS BEING DELIBERA TE, UNLESS SHOWN TO BE OTHERWISE. THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPLANATION TO THIS EFFECT IN THE SECTION, AS EXPLANATION 1 TO S. 271 (1)(C), IS NOT INDICATIVE OF THE ABSENCE OF THIS PRESUMPTION, BUT OF ITS REDUNDANCY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS, BY DEFINITION, ONLY THAT WHICH IS REPRESENTED BY SOME IT(SS)A NO. 161/COCH./2005 6 EVIDENCE FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH AND WHICH HAD NOT BEEN OR WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT.. 4.4 COMING TO THE INSTANT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, WE F IND THE SAME TO BE MARKED BY A COMPLETE ABSENCE OF ANY APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATIO N BY OR ON BEHALF ASSESSEE, SAVE A SOLITARY ONE ON THE YET ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY OF HEAR ING GRANTED TO HIM ON 26.8.2004 DUE TO THE CHANGE OF INCUMBENCY, WHEREAT HIS COUNSEL ONLY PLEADED FOR A LENIENT VIEW IN THE LIGHT OF FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES BEING FACED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE, THUS, HAS NOT OFFERED ANY `EXPLANATION DURING HEARING; RATHER, A BSTAINED FROM THE SAID PROCEEDINGS. WE ARE UNABLE TO APPRECIATE AS TO HOW, IN VIEW THEREOF , WAS THE AO NOT JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING THE PENALTY, GIVEN THE CLEAR MANDATE OF THE SECTION . THAT, TO OUR MIND, WAS THE ONLY ISSUE FOR ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY, AND OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY HIM ON THAT BASIS. TRAVELLING INTO ISSUES, AS, THE IMPORT OF THE ABSENCE OF THE LEGAL FICTION UNDER THE SECTION, AS PRESENT IN S. 271 (1)( C) (WH ICH INCIDENTALLY STANDS DWELT UPON BY US); THE EXTENT OF APPLICABILITY OF FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS; LEVY OF PENALTY QUA ADDITIONS TO THE RETURNED/ADMITTED INCOME ON APPLICATION OF SECTION 68/69A/69B/69C; THE DUTY CAS T ON THE AO FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION BEFORE LEVY OF PENALTY, ETC. WITH WHICH THE LD. CIT (A) HAS BURDENED HIMSELF, AS ALSO ENCUMBERED HIS ORDER WITH, ARE, TO OUR MIND, EXTRAN EOUS TO THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 158BFA(2), THE LANGUAGE OF WHICH ADMITS OF NO UNDER SUCH INFERENCE/S AND/OR OBLIGATIONS. THIS IS MORE SO AS IT IS TRITE, AS ALS O OBSERVED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HEERA CONSTRUCTIONS CO. (P.) LTD . (SUPRA), A PENALTY PROVISION IS TO BE STRICTLY CO NSTRUED AND, SECONDLY, IN THE ABSENCE OF BONA FIDES IN THE ASSESSEES CONDUCT, WHO HAS EXHIBITED COMPLETE RECALCITRANCE. 4.5 WE, NEXT, EXAMINE ANOTHER GROUND ASSUMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN ARRIVING AT HIS DECISION, I.E., TO USE THE PHRASE AS ADOPTED BY HIM , THAT THE AO HAS NOT TRAVELLED AN INCH IN FURTHER INVESTIGATING THE MATTER AND GATHERING M ATERIALS. WE ARE UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE BASIS OF THE IMPOSITION OF THIS OBLIGATION ON T HE AO, GIVEN THE MANDATE OF THE SECTION, AND MORE PARTICULARLY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING IS TO BE ALLOWED TO, AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF, THE ASSESSEE , TO SHOW, AS TO WHY, THE TERMS OF THE IT(SS)A NO. 161/COCH./2005 7 SECTION BEING MET, THE PENALTY THERE-UNDER MAY NOT BE IMPOSED ON IT, AND NOT, AS THE LD. CIT(A)S OBJECTION WOULD AMOUNT TO, ALLOWING AN OPP ORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OR THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO FORTIFY THE REVENUES CASE A GAINST THE ASSESSEE BY UNDERTAKING AN INVESTIGATION EXERCISE OR SPREE. IT IS ONLY WHERE T HE ASSESSEE, WHO IS EVEN OTHERWISE OBLIGED TO PROVE ITS RETURN, FURNISHES AN EXPLANATI ON/S IN THIS REGARD, THAT THE AO, IN VERIFICATION THEREOF, AND TOWARD SATISFYING HIMSELF WITH REGARD TO THE VERACITY OF WHAT IS BEING STATED OR FURNISHED, MAY MAKE FURTHER INVESTI GATION IN THE MATTER. THIS WOULD BE EVEN OTHERWISE INCUMBENT ON HIM TO DO SO AS IN ITS ABSENCE NEITHER CAN HE DETERMINE THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER NOR HOLD THE ASSESSEES EXPLANA TION AS NOT TRUE OR VALID AND, HENCE, UNACCEPTABLE. THAT IS, HE WOULD HAVE NO BASIS FOR N OT ACCEPTING THE SAID EXPLANATION, SO THAT THE SAME, BY IMPLICATION, WOULD HAVE TO BE TAK EN AS ACCEPTED OR BE BINDING ON HIM. SO HOWEVER, THE EXPLANATION SHOULD BE MORE THAN A B ALD STATEMENT, DULY SUBSTANTIATED, FOR IT TO BE ACCORDED THE STATUS OF AN EXPLANATION. AS EXPLAINED BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MOHANAKALA P ., 291 ITR 278 (SC), THE WORDS `OFFERS NO EXPLANATI ON ONLY MEANS OFFERS NO PROPER, REASONABLE OR ACCEPTABLE EX PLANATION. 4.6 LET US EXAMINE THE ASSESSEES CASE IN GREATER DETAIL, WHIC H REMAINS THE SAME AS IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, I.E., THE GIFT IS GENUI NE, HAVING BEEN RECEIVED BY CHEQUE, WHICH STANDS DEPOSITED IN OWN SAVING BANK ACCOUNT M UCH PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SEARCH, AND MERELY BECAUSE THE CONFIRMATION FROM THE DONOR COUL D NOT BE PRODUCED, AND WHICH WAS ONLY FOR THE REASON THAT HE WAS IN USA AT THE RELEV ANT TIME, COULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO IMPLY THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS UN-GENUINE OR BOGUS, AND THE MONIES REPRESENTED THE ASSESSEES OWN MONIES. TOWARD THIS, FIRSTLY, WE WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THE ASSESSEES OBJECTION, LEGAL IN NATURE, THAT NO MATERIAL QUA THIS CREDIT STOOD FOUND DURING OR AS A RESULT OF S EARCH. WE HAVE EXAMINED THE ORDERS BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW I N QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, POSTING THE HEARING SPECIFICALLY WITH A VIEW TO BRINGING ON REC ORD THE ORDER BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS CONFIR MED THAT THE SEARCH REVEALED SOME CAPITAL INVESTMENTS BY THE ASSESSEE, IN EXPLANATION OF WHICH HE FURNISHED A CASH FLOW STATEMENT, WHICH INCLUDED THE CASH WITHDRAWN FROM B ANK AGAINST THE IMPUGNED CREDIT OF RS. 3 LACS. AS SUCH, IT IS DIFFICULT TO SAY THAT TH E SAID CREDIT, WHICH SURFACED ONLY IN IT(SS)A NO. 161/COCH./2005 8 EXPLANATION OF THE ADMITTED CAPITAL INVESTMENT/S, H ITHERTO NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE, I.E., PRIOR TO THE SEARCH, IS NOT, OR CANNOT BE CON SIDERED AS, THE ASSESSEES UNDISCLOSED INCOME. IN FACT, THE ARGUMENT STANDS TO BE REJECTED AT THE THRESHOLD, CONSIDERING THAT THE SAID QUESTION, WHICH IS EVEN OTHERWISE A MATTER OF FACT, WITH THE RELEVANT MATERIAL NOT BEFORE US, HAS BECOME FINAL WITH THE ORDER OF THE F IRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN QUANTUM, ON IT BEING NOT APPEALED AGAINST AND, THUS, ACCEPTED B Y EITHER SIDE, AND STANDS BROUGHT OUT ONLY AS IT STOOD RAISED BY THE LD. AR DURING THE HE ARING AND, FURTHER, TO SEE IF THE ASSESSEE HAS A PRIMA FACIE CASE IN THIS REGARD, AND WHICH WE FIND AS NOT. SEC ONDLY, IN OUR VIEW SUCH EXPLANATIONS, BEING ONLY IN RELATION TO FACTS WHICH HAVE NOTHING UNCERTAIN ABOUT THEM, COULD NOT BE SET UP IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. T HIS IS AS DE HORS ANY FURTHER OR FRESH MATERIAL, I.E., WHICH STANDS HITHERTO NOT CONSIDERE D, IT WOULD ONLY AMOUNT TO REVISITING THE SAID FACTS, FINDINGS QUA WHICH HAVE BECOME FINAL. OF COURSE, IT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT MATTER IF THE ASSESSEE REFURBISHES OR ADVANCES HIS CASE IN SUCH PROCEEDINGS WITH SOME ADDITIONAL MATERIALS. COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE EXPLANATION, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE, OR ANYTHING FOR THAT MATTER , EXCEPT FOR MAKING A BALD STATEMENT OF THE SAID CREDIT AS BEING A GIFT FROM A FRIEND. EVEN THE FULL NAME AND ADDRESS OF HIS CLOSE FRIEND, WHO HAD OSTENSIBLY GIFTED HIM RS. 3.65 LACS OVER THE TWO YEARS, STANDS NOT FURNISHED. THE COPY OF HIS BANK ACCOUNT, OR A CERTI FICATE FROM THE BANK TOWARD LINKING THE SAID CREDIT WITH THE SAID CREDITOR, HAS NOT BEEN AD DUCED. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, IT IS DIFFICULT TO SAY THAT THERE IS SOME PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE SAME FLOWING FROM THE SAID CREDITOR, EVEN WHOSE IDENTITY STANDS, IN VIEW OF TH E SAME, UNPROVED, AND FOR ALL WE KNOW THERE MAY BE NO PERSON BY THAT NAME, OR THAT THE MO NEY MAY NOT HAVE COME FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT IN USA, I.E., EVEN IF THERE IS SUCH A PERSON. THERE IS NO MENTION OF HOW THE SAID PERSON IS HIS FRIEND; HIS PLACE OF RESIDENCE O R NATIVE PLACE IN INDIA; WHEN DID HE COME TO INDIA; WHY EVEN AS MUCH AS A CONFIRMATION IS BEI NG NOT ABLE TO BE OBTAINED FROM HIM, ET. AL. THE ASSESSEE HAS CITED OF THE DONOR BEING I N USA AT THE RELEVANT TIME AS THE REASON FOR THE NON-FURNISHING OF THE CONFIRMATION FROM HIM . WHERE IS HE SUPPOSED TO BE IF NOT IN THE COUNTRY OF HIS RESIDENCE ? WHY COULD HE, EVEN IF ABROAD, NOT REMIT HIS CONFIRM ATION THERE-FROM ?. IN OTHER WORDS, HIS LOCATION, WHICH IS AGAIN UNP ROVED, IS NOT A MATERIAL CONSIDERATION FOR THE SAME. THAT APART, THE NON-AVA ILABILITY OF THE CREDITOR, WHICH AS IT IT(SS)A NO. 161/COCH./2005 9 APPEARS IS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF GIVING HIS CONFI RMATION, COULD BE UNDERSTANDABLE FOR WEEKS OR AT BEST A COUPLE OF MONTHS, WHILE IT EXTEN DS TO YEARS TOGETHER; THE SEARCH HAVING TAKEN PLACE ON 10/3/1998 WHILE THE PENALTY STANDS I MPOSED VIDE ORDER DATED 26/8/2004, WITH THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVING CONCLUDED ON 29/3/2000. EVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ADDUCED THIS CONFIRMATI ON, SO THAT THE PLEA OF NON- AVAILABILITY IS ONLY AN ALIBI. THERE IS, THUS, A CO MPLETE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE CREDIT IN TH E ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT. WITH REGARD TO THE TWO CREDITS, AGGREGATING TO RS. 0.65 LACS DU RING PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO AY 1998- 99, IT IS NOT EVEN CLEAR IF THE SAME STAND RECEIVED BY CHEQUE OR CASH, EVEN THOUGH, IN VIEW OF NON-FURNISHING OF ANY EVIDENCE TOWARD THE SAME, THE MANNER OF RECEIPT OF THE SAME IS RENDERED AS OF NO MOMENT. AGAIN, THE IMPORT OF THE CONTENTION OF THE SAME HAVING BEEN RECEIVED MUCH BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH IS NOT UNDE RSTOOD AS THE DATE OF RECEIPT ONLY FALLS WITHIN THE BLOCK PERIOD. 4.7 FINALLY, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS STATED THAT AS THE ADDITION IS MADE IN PURSUANCE TO THE APPLICATION OF S. 68, ET. AL., WHICH SECTIONS REPRE SENT ONLY THE TECHNICAL RULES OF EVIDENCE, PENALTY ON SUCH ADDITION/S IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN TH E ABSENCE OF A DEFINITE FINDING OF THE IMPUGNED CREDIT BEING BOGUS OR AS ONLY BEING THE AS SESSEES OWN MONIES. BEFORE WE DWELL ON THE LAW IN THE MATTER, IT WOULD BE NECESSA RY TO SHOW THAT TO STATE THE SAID PROPOSITION AS A RULE IS LUDICROUS. A PERSON ON SEA RCH IS FOUND TO BE IN CONTROL AND POSSESSION OF BANK DEPOSITS, INVESTMENTS, ETC., IN HIS NAME, THE SOURCE OF WHICH STAND NEITHER EXPLAINED NOR ARE THE SAME RETURNED. GOING BY THE STATED ARGUMENT, EVEN THOUGH THE SAME COULD, THEREFORE, BE INCLUDED AS HIS INCOM E, AND THOUGH HIS CASE WOULD FALL UNDER THE SECOND PROVISO TO S. 158 BFA(2), HE WOULD NOT BE LIABLE TO ANY PE NALTY IN ITS RESPECT, AS THE ADDITION IS ON ACCOUNT OF THE APPLI CATION OF THE `TECHNICAL RULE OF EVIDENCE. COMING TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE, WE MAY, TO WARD THIS, FIRSTLY, CLARIFY THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING ANY PERSONAL BOOKS OF A CCOUNT, AND THE IMPUGNED SUM BEING CREDITED TO, OR LYING TO THE CREDIT OF, HIS OWN BAN K ACCOUNT, AND FURTHER UTILIZED FOR INVESTMENT IN A FIRM, THE ADDITION IN ITS RESPECT I S ONLY TOWARD UNEXPLAINED SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OR INVESTMENT IN FIRM A ND, THUS, U/S. 69/69A, AND NOT U/S. 68. REFERENCE IN THIS CONTEXT IS DRAWN TO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. JAUHARIMAL GOEL , IT(SS)A NO. 161/COCH./2005 10 147 TAXMAN 448 (ALL.). EVEN OTHERWISE, THERE BEING NO DISPUTE OR AMBIGUITY ON FACTS, THE REFERENCE TO ANOTHER OR IMPROPER SECTION WOULD BE O F NO MOMENT. FURTHER, THE SAID SECTIONS ONLY EMBODY THE SALUTARY PRINCIPLES OF COM MON LAW JURISPRUDENCE, I.E., A PERSON FOUND IN POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF A VALUABLE ARTICL E OR THING, IS, UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE, DEEMED TO BE HIS OWNER. THE SAID SECTIONS ONLY GIVE A STATUTORY RECOGNITION TO THESE WELL ESTABLISHED RULES OF EVIDENCE WHICH ARE EVEN OTHERW ISE APPLICABLE TO TAXATION PROCEEDINGS, EXTENDING IT FURTHER TO DEEM THE VALUE THEREOF AS THE INCOME OF THE CONCERNED PERSON, I.E., UNLESS OF COURSE THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF INVESTMENT (OR THE CREDIT APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT) IS SATISFACTORIL Y EXPLAINED. REFERENCE IN THIS CONTEXT IS DRAWN TO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CHUHARMAL V. CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC). AS EXPLAINED BY THE APEX COURT THEREIN, WHAT ALL THE R EVENUE IS REQUIRED TO SHOW IN SUCH A CASE IS THAT A LEGITIMATE INFERENCE COULD BE DRAWN FROM THE AVAILABLE FACTS THAT THE IMPUGNED INVESTMENT OR MONIES REPRESENT THE ASSESSE ES INCOME, GIVING A WIDE MEANING TO THE EXPRESSION `INCOME, I.E., AS DEFINED AND UN DERSTOOD UNDER THE ACT. TO THE SAME EFFECT IS THE DECISION BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF SUDHAKARAN (C.K.) V. ITO , 279 ITR 533 (KER.). THE APEX COURT HAS IN CASES S UCH AS SREELEKHA BANERJEE V. CIT , 49 ITR 112; CIT V. DURGA PRASAD MORE , 82 ITR 540; SUMATI DAYAL V. CIT , 214 ITR 801, CIT V. MOHANAKALA P . (SUPRA), AMONG OTHERS, CLARIFIED THAT WHEN THE AS SESSEE RECEIVES OR IS THE BENEFICIARY OF SOME AMOUNT, THAT ITSELF IS A PROOF OF THE SAME AS REPRESENTING HIS INCOME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, I.E., UNLES S HE SATISFACTORILY PROVES ITS NATURE AND SOURCE AS BEING NOT SO. THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF CHUHARMAL V. CIT (SUPRA) ARE THAT A SEARCH YIELDED WRIST WATCHES FROM THE ASSESSEES BED ROOM, WHICH WERE SEIZED. THE ASSESSEE OFFERED NO EXPLANATION. THE AO ASSESSED THE VALUE T HEREOF AS HIS INCOME INVOKING S. 69A AND, FURTHER, LEVIED PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INC OME U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE ACTION OF THE AO STOOD CONFIRMED RIGHT UP TO THE HI GH COURT. THE APEX COURT, DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES SPL, CLARIFIED THE LAW IN THE MATTER , DEALING WITH EACH OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN DETAIL. IT HELD THAT THE PETITIONER HAD NOT ADDU CED ANY EVIDENCE, FAR LESS DISCHARGED THE ONUS OF PROVING THAT THE WRIST WATCHES IN QUESTION DID NOT BELONG TO HIM, SO THAT THE HIGH COURT HAD RIGHTLY HELD THE VALUE THEREOF AS HIS INC OME. ON PENALTY, IT WAS HELD THAT EVEN THOUGH THE PROVISION AS TO DEEMED CONCEALMENT OF IN COME, IN TERMS OF THE EXPLANATION TO THE SECTION, WAS NOT IN FORCE FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR , HAVING BEEN BROUGHT ON THE STATUTE WITH IT(SS)A NO. 161/COCH./2005 11 PROSPECTIVE EFFECT, AND EVEN THOUGH THE PROVISION I S PENAL IN NATURE, THE REVENUE HAD UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCHARGED THE ONUS ON IT, I.E., TO SHOW THAT IT IS THE ASSESSEES INCOME. THE FACTS IN THE INSTANT CASE ARE STRIKINGL Y SIMILAR, EVEN AS THE REFERENCE TO THE SAME HAS BEEN MADE TO EXHIBIT EXPLICITLY THE LAW IN THE MATTER. THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND IN SEARCH TO BE TO HAVE MADE CERTAIN CAPITAL INVESTMEN TS AND WHICH ARE FOUND SOURCED FROM A BANK DEPOSIT, QUA THE SOURCE OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO GIVE ANY EXPLANATION, EXCEPT FOR A BALD STATEMENT OF IT BEING A GIFT FROM A FRIEND. THE FOREGOING SHOULD ANSWER THE AFORE-S TATED CONTENTION BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH FOUND THE APPROVAL OF THE LD. CIT(A). BESIDES, WE C ONSIDER OUR DECISION WELL SUPPORTED BY DECISIONS BY THE APEX COURT AND THE JURISDICTION AL HIGH COURT, AS IN THE CASE OF DHARMENDRA TEXTILES LTD. (SUPRA); CIT V. K.P. MADHUSUDHANAN (2001) 246 ITR 218 (KER) [AFFIRMED IN 251 ITR 99 (SC)]; CIT V. SREE KRISHNA TRADING CO . (2002) 253 ITR 645 (KER.). 5. WE, NEXT, TAKE UP THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. TOWARD THIS, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DEAL WITH THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF DY. CIT VS. HEERA CONSTRUCTIONS CO. (P) LTD. (SUPRA) AND NEMICHAND VS. ACIT (INV.) (SUPRA), HAVING BEEN DEALT WITH IN THE COURSE OF THE DISCUSSION ON THE LAW IN THE MATTER V IDE PARA 4.1 OF THIS ORDER. THE THIRD DECISION, I.E., IN THE CASE OF C.NAJEEB VS. DCIT (SUPRA), STANDS PASSED FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF NEMICHAND VS. ACIT (INV.) (SUPRA), RELIANCE ON WHICH STANDS MET PER THE DECISIONS IN T HE CASE OF P.P. UMMERKUTTY (SUPRA) AND HEERA CONSTRUCTIONS CO. (P) LTD. (SUPRA). ALSO, THE COORDINATE BENCH DID NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF DHARMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS LTD. (SC). WITH REGARD TO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF DR. HAKEEM S.A. SYED SATHAR VS. ACIT (SUPRA), AS A BARE READING THEREOF WOULD REVEAL, THE PENALTY US/. 158 BFA(2) STOOD DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN VIEW OF THE ADDITION TO THE RETURNED IN COME AS FINALLY SUSTAINED BEING THE RESULT OF AN ESTIMATION, SO THAT THE FINDING OF CON CEALMENT COULD NOT REST ON ESTIMATION ALONE. IN THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE, THE IMPUGN ED INCOME IS FOUND INVESTED, SO THAT THERE IS NO IOTA OF ANY DOUBT AS TO THE AVAILABILIT Y OF THE MONIES WHICH STAND ASSESSED AS INCOME, WITH THE ASSESSEE FOUND TO BE TOTALLY WANTI NG IN DISCHARGING THE ONUS CAST ON IT TO EXPLAIN THE STATED SOURCE THEREOF. THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF DR. HAKEEM S.A. SYED IT(SS)A NO. 161/COCH./2005 12 SATHAR (SUPRA), THUS, IS ON ITS OWN FACTS, WHILE WE HAVE FOUND THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE TO CORRESPOND WITH THAT IN THE CASE OF CHUHARMAL V. CIT (SUPRA) AND DY. CIT V. SPARK ELECTRO COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS (2006) 98 ITD 237 (MUMBAI) [281 ITR 13 (MUMBAI)(AT)]. ALSO, IN VIEW OF THE FORMER DECISION , THE RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P.) LTD . (2010) 230 CTR (SC) 320 AND SREE KRISHNA ELECTRICALS V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR . (2009) 23 VST 249 (SC) WOULD BE OF LITTLE MOMENT; THERE BEING NO CHANGE IN THE LAW SIN CE. IN THE FIRST CASE, THE HONBLE COURT FOUND THAT THE PENALTY WAS IN RESPECT OF A DISALLOW ANCE, OWING TO AN INCORRECT CLAIM IN LAW BY THE ASSESEE, THE PARTICULARS IN RESPECT OF W HICH STOOD CORRECTLY FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE PER ITS RETURN OF INCOME. AS SUCH, IT COUL D NOT BE SAID THAT THERE WAS FURNISHING OF ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME PER THE RET URN; IT BEING RATHER NOT EVEN THE REVENUES CASE THAT IT WAS SO, WHICH HAD NEVERTHELE SS PROCEEDED TO APPLY EXPLANATION 1 TO THE SECTION, DEEMING CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. IN D OING SO, IT APPLIED THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SREE KRISHNA ELECTRICALS (SUPRA), THE SECOND DECISION RELIED ON BY THE ASSE SEE, SO THAT THE LATTER ALSO YIELDS, AND IS TOWARD, THE SAM E RATIO. IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE AS HOW THESE DECISIONS ARE OF ASSISTANCE TO THE ASSESSEES CASE, WHEREIN THE IMPUGNED AMOUNTS STOOD NOT DISCLOSED AT ALL TO THE REVENUE, AND SURFACED O NLY IN EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESEES ADMITTED INVESTMENTS, HITHERTO UNDISCLOSED, CONSEQU ENT TO THE SEARCH. 6. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, WE FIND THE LEVY OF PENALTY IN THE PRESENT CASE, WHICH STANDS IMPOSED AT THE MINIMUM PERCENTAGE PRESCRIBED BY THE SECTION, AND WITH REFERENCE TO ONLY THE INCOME AS FINALLY ASSESSED IN EXCESS OF THAT RETURNED, AS VALIDLY IMPOSED. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY, SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDE R AND RESTORING THE PENALTY ORDER. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLO WED. SD/- SD/- (N.VIJAYAKUMARAN) (SANJAY ARORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: ERNAKULAM DATED: 14TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 GJ IT(SS)A NO. 161/COCH./2005 13 COPY TO: 1. SHRI P.K.RAVINDRAN, PALAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.V EMBALLUR, KODUNGALLUR, TRICHUR. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1), RANGE-2, TRICHUR. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-V, KOCH I. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TRICHUR. 5. D.R./I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORD ER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR)