DCIT, Cochin V. P.Sreenivasan, Chennai

ITSSA 2/COCH/2006

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7819 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 11 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 03-01-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 12-01-2006
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIJAYAPRABHA
• Assessee Lawyers: DALE P KURIEN
• Keywords: Recovery proceedings

Judgement Text

1 ITSS 214/COCH/2005 ITSS 02/COCH/2006 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) & SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) IT(SS)A NO.214/COCH/2005 & IT(SS)A NO.02/COCH/2006 (BLOCK PERIOD 90-91 TO 99-2000 UPTO 27-03-2000) DY.CIT, CIR.1(3) VS P SREENIVASAN ERNAKULAM FLAT NO.421, ARIHANT MAGESTIC TOWER KOYEMBEDU, CHENNAI 600 107 PAN : NOT AVAILABLE (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MS VIJAYAPRABHA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI DALE P KURIEN DATE OF HEARING : 03-01-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06-01-2012 O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAIN ST TWO INDEPENDENT ORDERS OF CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DELETION OF THE PENALTY LEVIED. 2. LET US TAKE THE QUANTUM APPEAL FIRST. 3. MS. VIJAYAPRABHA, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT A BLO CK ASSESSMENT WAS MADE ON THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM, M/S FILMOSTAV INTERNATIONAL BY AN ORDER DATED 25-03-2002. THE 2 ITSS 214/COCH/2005 ITSS 02/COCH/2006 PARTNERSHIP FIRM, IN FACT, FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE T HE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER ON 25-03- 2002. THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER BY AN ORDER DATED 12-02-2004 DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM ON THE GROUND THAT TH E ADMITTED TAX WAS NOT PAID AS REQUIRED U/S 249(4) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THE ASSE SSEE FIRM HAS NOT FILED ANY FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, THE APPELL ATE ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER BECOMES FINAL. THEREAFTER, ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER. ACCORDING TO TH E LD.DR, ONCE THE ASSESSEE FIRM FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND TH E APPELLATE COMMISSIONER DISMISSED THE APPEAL THERE CANNOT BE ANY FURTHER AP PEAL BY THE PARTNERS INDEPENDENTLY. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR THE APPEALS FILED BY THE PARTNER IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BEFORE THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AS WELL AS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE. 4. REFERRING TO THE MERIT OF THE ORDER, THE LD.DR P OINTED OUT THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID ADVANCE-TAX. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, ME RELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID ADVANCE-TAX IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE WAS NO UNDI SCLOSED INCOME. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI DALE P KURIEN, THE LD.COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NO DOUBT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE FIRM WAS DISM ISSED BY THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER BY AN ORDER DATED 12-02-2004 AND NO FURTHER APPEAL W AS FILED BY THE FIRM. ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM FILED AN APPEAL IN HIS INDIVID UAL CAPACITY BEFORE THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER. IN THE MEAN TIME, THE RECOVERY OFFIC ER INITIATED THE RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS AND ATTACHED THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESS EE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE FILED WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE HIGH COURT FOR DIRECTION T O DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. THE HIGH COURT BY A JUDGMENT DAT ED 23-08-2005, COPY OF WHICH IS 3 ITSS 214/COCH/2005 ITSS 02/COCH/2006 AVAILABLE AT PAGE 11 OF THE PAPER BOOK, DIRECTED THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERIT AND ALSO STAYED THE SALE OF THE ATTACHED PROPERTY TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL BY THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER. IN VI EW OF THE DIRECTION OF THE HIGH COURT, IT MAY NOT BE CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PARTNER OF THE FIRM IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 6. COMING TO THE MERIT OF THE APPEAL, THE LD.COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE ADVANCE-TAX WAS PAID BEFORE THE DATE OF SEA RCH AS REQUIRED UNDER THE INCOME- TAX ACT, THE INCOME RELATABLE TO THAT ADVANCE-TAX, A MOUNTS TO DISCLOSURE, THEREFORE, TO THAT EXTENT THERE CANNOT BE ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME. EVENTHOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AT RS.34,26,260 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAKE THE UNDISCLOS ED INCOME AT RS.13,78,490. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A), T HE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) FOU ND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID ADVANCE-TAX BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH TO THE EXTENT OF RS.4.5 LAKHS; THEREFORE, THE INCOME OF RS.15 LAKHS BEING THE INCOME COVERED BY TH E ADVANCE-TAX PAID CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 29-10-1998 DECLARING LOSS OF RS. 2,69,930. AFTER GIVING REBATE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) HAS TAKEN THE DISCLOSED INCOME AT RS.17,69,930 FOR A.Y. 1999-2000. ACCORDING TO THE LD.COUNSEL, THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) TO TA KE RS.13,78,490 AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS JUSTIFIED. THEREFORE, NO INTERFERENCE MA Y BE MADE. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS AN ADMITTED FA CT THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE ON THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM. THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM IS AN I NDEPENDENTLY ASSESSABLE UNIT. 4 ITSS 214/COCH/2005 ITSS 02/COCH/2006 THEREFORE, WHEN THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE IN THE CASE OF FIRM, IT IS FOR THE FIRM TO FILE AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) AND TO TAKE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT. IN FACT, THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAD FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER ON 25-03-2002 AND THE APPELLAT E COMMISSIONER BY AN ORDER DATED 12-02-2004 HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE PART NERSHIP FIRM. THE LD.DR HAS PRODUCED THE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER ON THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM. IT IS ALSO A N ADMITTED FACT THAT THIS ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER BECAME FINAL AS NO FURTH ER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WAS TAKEN BY THE FIRM. AFTER THAT, ONE OF THE PARTNERS, SHRI P SREENIVASAN HAS FILED ANOTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER ON 01-06-2005 AFTE R THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE FIRM. DURING THE PENDENCY OF THAT APPEAL, I T APPEARS, THAT THE PROPERTY OF THE PARTNER WAS ATTACHED BY THE REVENUE FOR RECOVERY OF THE TAX DUE. THE PARTNER, SHRI P SREENIVASAN FILED A WRIT PETITION CHALLENGING THE R ECOVERY PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. THE HIGH COURT BY AN ORDER DATED 23-08-2005 I N W.P(C) NO.13544 OF 2005 DIRECTED THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER TO DISPOSE OF T HE APPEAL WITHIN SIX WEEKS FROM THE DATE OF PRODUCTION OF THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT. TH E SALE OF THE PROPERTY ATTACHED BY THE DEPARTMENT WAS STAYED, IN THE MEAN TIME. FOR T HE PURPOSE OF CONVENIENCE, WE ARE REPRODUCING BELOW THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT IN THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE PARTNER, SHRI P SREENIVASAN: PETITIONER HAS FILED INCOME-TAX APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT IN THE NAME OF THE FIRM, IN WHICH PETITIONER IS ALLEGED TO BE A PARTNER. THE PETITIONERS CASE IS THAT PETITIONER HAS RESIGNED F ROM THE PARTNERSHIP AND THE SAME WAS INTIMATED TO THE OFFICER. HOWEVER, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED RECOVERY NOTICE AGAINST PETITIONER STATING T HAT PETITIONER IS ALSO PARTNER OF THE FIRM. EVENTHOUGH STANDING COUNSEL F OR INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT HAS FILED COUNTER ON BEHALF OF RESPONDEN TS AND ARGUED THE CASE ON MERITS, I DO NOT THINK AT THIS STAGE THIS CO URT SHOULD CONSIDER THE CASE ON MERITS AS PETITIONER HAS FILED STATUTORY AP PEAL AGAINST ASSESSMENT 5 ITSS 214/COCH/2005 ITSS 02/COCH/2006 BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, NAMELY, COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM. W.P. IS THEREFORE, DISPOSED O F DIRECTING THE CIT(APPEALS), ERNAKULAM TO PERUSE THE RECORDS HEAR T HE PETITIONER AND CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND DISPOSE OF THE APPE AL WITHIN SIX WEEKS FROM THE DATE OF PRODUCTION OF A COPY OF THIS JUDGM ENT. THERE WILL BE STAY AGAINST SALE OF ATTACHED PROPERTIES UNTIL APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF. PETITIONER IS FREE TO RAISE ALL CONTENTIONS BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 8. FROM THE ABOVE JUDGMENT OF THE KERALA HIGH COURT IN WRIT PETITION, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE INDEPENDENT PARTNE R BEFORE THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AFTER THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL OF TH E PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND THE WRIT PETITION WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT AFTER DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL OF THE FIRM BY THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER. IN SPITE OF THAT THE HI GH COURT DIRECTED THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL WITHIN SIX WE EKS AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THEREFORE, IT IS TOO LATE FOR THE DEPARTMENT NOW TO CONTEND BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE INDEPENDENT PARTNER IS NOT MAIN TAINABLE. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE DIRECTION OF THE HIGH COURT IS BIN DING NOT ONLY ON THE DEPARTMENT BUT ALSO ON THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD.DR THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY TH E INDEPENDENT PARTNER IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 9. NOW COMING TO THE MERIT OF THE ORDER OF THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A), ADMITTEDLY, THE SEARCH TOOK PLACE IN THE PREMISES OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM ON 22-03-2000. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 DECLARING LOSS OF RS.2,69,930 ON 29-10-1998 AND THE ADVANCE-TAX OF RS.4,05,000 WAS ALSO ADMITTEDLY PAID BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH. WHEN THE ASSESSEE PAID THE ADVANCE-TAX AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, THE INCOM E RELATABLE TO THAT ADVANCE-TAX HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTM ENT. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO 6 ITSS 214/COCH/2005 ITSS 02/COCH/2006 NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN TREATING THE INCOME TO TH E EXTENT OF RS.15 LAKHS AS INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. 10. THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 1998-99 DECLARING LOSS WAS ALSO WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEPARTMENT. TH E LOSS SUSTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON FOR MAKING THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF THE RETURN ALREADY AVAILAB LE WITH THE DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) TO THAT EXTENT IS JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER RS.17,69,930 LAKHS AS INCOME DIS CLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.13,78,490 WAS DIRECTED BY THE COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) TO BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE INCOME RELATABLE TO THE ADVANCE-TAX AND THE INCOME / LOSS DISCLOSED T O THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH BY FILING REGULAR RETURN OF INCOME CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDE R OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX(A). ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 11. NOW COMING TO THE PENALTY APPEAL, MS. VIJAYAPRA BHA, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) DELETED TH E ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 17,69,930 ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID ADVANCE-TAX AND FILED RETURN OF INCOME BEFORE THE SEARCH, THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 13,78,490 WAS CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. SO TO THAT EXTENT, ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, THE PENALTY IS ATTRACTED. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR MENS REA IS NOT A RELEVANT FACTOR FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVY OF PENALTY IN INCOME -TAX PROCEEDINGS. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A), THE LD.DR SU BMITTED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE PENAL TY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7 ITSS 214/COCH/2005 ITSS 02/COCH/2006 12. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT MENS REA IS ONE OF THE RELEVANT FACTORS FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVY OF PENALTY. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, UNLESS THERE IS A DELIBERATE CON CEALMENT OF INCOME, PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED. 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) DELETED THE PENALTY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DELIBERATEL Y CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE FACT REMAINS IS THAT THE UNDISCLOSED I NCOME WAS COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATIO N AND THE INCOME RELATABLE TO ADVANCE-TAX AND THE INCOME DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN F ILED BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH WAS DELETED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) WHICH W AS CONFIRMED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER. THE REMAINING AMOU NT OF RS.13,78,490 WAS TO BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THEREFORE, THE QUESTION ARI SES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER PENALTY IS LEVIABLE IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT OF RS. 13,78,490? 14. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 158BFA(2) WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: (2) THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSIONER (APP EALS) IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS CHAPTER, MAY DIRECT T HAT A PERSON SHALL PAY BY WAY OF PENALTY A SUM WHICH SHALL NOT BE LESS THA N THE AMOUNT OF TAX LEVIABLE BUT WHICH SHALL NOT EXCEED THREE TIMES THE AMOUNT OF TAX SO LEVIABLE IN RESPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETER MINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 158BC: PROVIDED THAT NO ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY SHALL BE MADE IN RE SPECT OF A PERSON IF (I) SUCH PERSON HAS FURNISHED A RETURN UNDER CLAUSE (A ) OF SECTION 158BC; 8 ITSS 214/COCH/2005 ITSS 02/COCH/2006 (II) THE TAX PAYABLE ON THE BASIS OF SUCH RETURN HAS BE EN PAID OR, IF THE ASSETS SEIZED CONSIST OF MONEY, THE ASSESSEE OFFERS THE MONEY SO SEIZED TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE TAX PAYABLE. (III) EVIDENCE OF TAX PAID IS FURNISHED ALONG WITH THE R ETURN; AND (IV) AN APPEAL IS NOT FILED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT OF T HAT PART OF INCOME WHICH IS SHOWN IN THE RETURN; PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE PRECEDING PROVISO SHALL NOT APPLY WHERE THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETERMINED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IS IN EXCESS OF THE INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETURN AND IN SUCH CASES THE PENALTY SHALL BE IMPOSED ON THAT PORTION OF UNDISCL OSED INCOME DETERMINED WHICH IS IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT OF UNDI SCLOSED INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETURN. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) DISPOSED OFF THE A PPEAL WITHOUT REFERRING TO SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 158BFA(2). THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 158BFA(2) NEEDS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATI ON WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A). ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) IS SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A). THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) SHALL RECONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 158BFA(2) AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTU NITY OF HEARING. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IN IT(SS)A NO.214/COCH/20 05 IS DISMISSED AND APPEAL IN IT(SS)A NO.02/COCH/2006 IS ALLOWED, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 08 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN, DT : 06 TH JANUARY, 2012 PK/- 9 ITSS 214/COCH/2005 ITSS 02/COCH/2006 COPY TO: 1. THE DY.CIT, CIR.1(3), ERNAKULAM 2. P SREENIVASAN, FLAT 421, KOYEMBEDU, CHENNAI 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A)-II, KOCHI 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOCHI 5. THE DR (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CO CHIN BENCH DATE OF DICTATION : 03-01-2012 DATE OF PLACING THE DRAFT ORDER BEFORE THE MEMBER : 04-01-2012 DATE OF PLACING THE PROPOSED ORDER BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER: DATE OF RETURN OF THE ORDER TO PS AFTER APPROVAL : DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : DATE ON WHICH THE FILE ALONG WITH THE ORDER SENT TO BC :