Palakkaran Bankers & Chit Funds, Kottayam V. The DCIT, Kottayam

ITSSA 3/COCH/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1691 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 09-02-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 23-12-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K P GOPAKUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: R KRISHNA IYER
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Income from undisclosed sources; Loose papers; Block assessment
• Section: 273B; 132

Judgement Text

IT(SS)A NO. 03/COCH/2014 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI B P JAIN, AM & GEORGE GEORGE.K, JM IT(SS)A NO.03/COCH/2014 (ASST YEAR ) M/S. PALAKKARAN BANKERS & CHIT FUNDS, KOLLAPPALLY, PALA, KOTTAYAM. THE DY COMMR OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, KOTTAYAM. ( ASSESSEE -APPELLANT) VS (REVENUE -RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AAGFP 0767R] ASSESSEE BY SHRI R. KRISHNA IYER, CA REVENUE BY SH K P GOPAKUMAR, SR DR DATE OF HEARING 09-02- 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 02-03-2016 ORDER PER B P JAIN, AM: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARISES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-V, KOCHI DATED 24-09-2014 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD ENDING 28-06- 2001. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S A PARTNERSHIP FIRM CONSISTING OF THREE PARTNERS AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MONEY LENDING AND CHIT FUND BUSINESS. ON 28 TH JUNE, 2001, A SEARCH U/S. 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. SUBSEQUE NTLY NOTICE U/S. 158BC WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 16/11/2001. ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY ONE OF THE PARTNERS U/S. 132(4) OF THE ACT AND THE MATERIAL SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, VIDE ORDER DATED 27/06/2003 DETERMINED IT(SS)A NO. 03/COCH/2014 2 THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AT RS.31,00,724/-. THE ASSES SING OFFICER OBSERVED FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SE ARCH THAT IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT. IT W AS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ENTRIES RECORDED WERE 1/100 TH OF THE REAL FIGURES. TO DETERMINE THE ADDITION, TH E AO MULTIPLIED THE FIGURES BY 100 AND ARRIVED AT THE ADDITION OF RS.37,51,374/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED BUSINESS. 3. SIMILARLY, FOR GOLD LOAN BUSINESS, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.6,28,850/- WITH RESPECT TO UNACCOUNTED GOLD LOAN S. FURTHER, ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT GIVEN U/S. 132(4) AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T SEIZED, THE UNDISCLOSED GOLD INTEREST INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.6,26,145/ -. 4. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE QUANTUM ADDITION B EFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 02.08.2005 CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED BEFORE THE ITAT. HOWEVER, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED FOR NON PR OSECUTION VIDE ORDER DATED 14/07/2010. IT(SS)A NO. 03/COCH/2014 3 6. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT ON 27/03/2003. THE SAME WERE REVIVED VIDE NOTICE DATED 01/11/2010. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VID E ORDER DATED 30/03/2011 IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS.18,60,043/- U/S. 158BF(2) OF THE ACT. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE STATEMENT OF THE PAR TNER OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH THAT THERE WAS A CLEAR CASE OF SUPPRESSION OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE PENALTY ORDER DATE D 30-03-2011 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATE D 24/09/2014 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND OBSERVED THAT THE LANGUA GE OF SECTION 158BFA(2) MAKES IT OBLIGATORY UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO I MPOSE PENALTY ON THE PORTION OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETERMINED. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS CHALLENGED THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ) WHO CONFIRMED THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. THE LD. AR HAS ARGUED THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED ON THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE DELETED AS THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD EARNED UNACCOUNTED INCOME EXCEPT FOR THE STATEMENT MADE BY ONE OF THE PARTNERS. THE LD. AR FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEE N MADE ON AN ESTIMATION BASIS AND THEREFORE, PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED. IT(SS)A NO. 03/COCH/2014 4 9. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND HAS REBUTTED TH E SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. AR. HE RELIED UPON THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER AND THE LD. CIT(A) TO SUPPORT HIS SUBMISSIONS. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND PERUSE D THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 158BFA(2) IS NOT AUTOMATIC. T HE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DODSAL LTD. (2008) 218 CTR 4 30 HELD THAT SECTION 158BFA(2) PROVIDES A DISCRETION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE LEVY OF PENALTY AND WHAT IS TO BE EXAMINED IS WHETHER THERE EXISTS APPROPRIATE REASONS FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. THE FACT THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED IN TH E QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS WOULD NOT BY ITSELF BE THE BASIS FOR SUSTAINING THE PENALTY U/S. 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT. 11. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RELIED UPON THE S TATEMENT OF ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FURTHER RELIED UPON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE C ASE OF THE ASSESSEE. APART FROM THAT, THERE IS NO CLINCHING EVIDENCE TO DEMONS TRATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENTS APART FROM WHAT IS DEC LARED BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN WITH RESPECT TO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SEIZED DU RING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, A IT(SS)A NO. 03/COCH/2014 5 BARE PERUSAL OF THE SAME WOULD NOT SHOW THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD REPRESENTED 1/100 TH OF THE REAL INCOME EARNED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ONLY DEDUCED THAT THE ENTRIES HAD BEEN REPRESENTED IN THE AFORESAID M ANNER. THERE IS NO OTHER EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE GOLD LOANS AND OTHER A DVANCES WERE 100 TIMES THE ACCOUNTED INCOME. NONE OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM THE LOANS HAD BEEN ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN EXAMINED. IT IS N OT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE UNACCOUNTED CASH BALANCE WAS RECOV ERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH FROM THE PREMISE OF THE ASSESSEE, SO AS T O SUGGEST THE EARNING OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME. ALSO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY DOCUMENT PERTAINING TO LOAN TRANSACTION WHICH WAS E XECUTED FOR A HIGHER AMOUNT THAN WHAT IS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD COMPUTED THE ADDITION ON LUMPSUM BASIS RATHER T HAN MAKING SEPARATE ADDITIONS FOR EACH YEAR. 12. AS REGARDS THE INTEREST INCOME IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RELIED UPON THE STATEMENT MADE BY ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF T HE ASSESSEE AND THE ADDITION IS NOT MADE ON THE BASIS OF CONCRETE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WERE ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATION. THERE IS NO INDEPENDENT DE TERMINATION OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. MERELY BECAUSE THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSE SSEE WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING IT(SS)A NO. 03/COCH/2014 6 OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO THE MATERIALS SEIZED, PENAL TY CANNOT BE LEVIED IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT CASE, THAT TOO WHEN THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATION. 13. IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SHRI CHANDRAKANT KASH INATH KELE IN I.T.A. NO. 804/PN/2013 DATED 13/03/2015 ACT, THE ITAT, PUNE DE LETED PENALTY U/S. 158BFA WHEREIN THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE ON ESTIMATION BASIS . THE BENCH OBSERVED AS UNDER: 9. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE FACT THAT THE AD DITION HAS BEEN SUSTAINED IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS CANNOT IPSO FACTO BE A BASIS FOR SUSTAINING PENALTY U/S 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT, WHOSE APPLICATION IS NOT MANDATORY AS HELD BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DODSAL LTD . (SUPRA). THE MANNER IN WHICH THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE COURSE OF T HE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN HOUSE PROPERTY OF RS.11,71,687/- HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT ON AN ESTIMATE BASIS. IN SO FAR AS THE REFERENCE MADE BY THE REVENUE TO THE LOOSE PAPERS FOUND OF RS.9.99 LAKHS IS CONCERNED, IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT THE ADDITION HAS NOT BEEN MADE WITH REFERENCE TO THE SAID LOOSE PAPERS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH. OSTENSIBLY, REVENUE HAS JUSTIFIED THE ADDITION IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATION AND SO FAR AS THE ESTIMATION IS CONCERNED, EVEN THE DVO HAS ESTIMATED THE INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY NEAR ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNT AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS. THE CIT(A) IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS ESTIMATED THE VALUE OF INVESTMENT AT RS.30 LAKHS AS AGAINST RS.40 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR VIEW, THE CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY APPRECIATED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND HELD THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN HOUSE PROPERTY OF RS.11,71,687/- WAS ON ESTIMATION BASIS AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF ANY CONCRETE EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH TOWARDS INCURRENCE OF UNACCOUNTED EXPENDITURE QUA THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY. THEREFORE, HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESEN T CASE, WE AFFIRM THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE PENALTY WITH R ESPECT TO THE ADDITION OF RS.11,71,687/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN HOUSE PROPERTY. 10. WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEX PLAINED MARRIAGE EXPENDITURE OF RS.1,96,335/-, IN THIS REGARD THE RE LEVANT FACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS. IT(SS)A NO. 03/COCH/2014 7 THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS REVEALED THAT IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH CERTAIN LOOSE PAPERS WERE FOUND WHICH INDICATED MAR RIAGE EXPENSES AND ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE EXPENDITURE AT RS.12,00,000/-. ON THE OTHER HAND, ASSESSEE HAD SHO WN AN EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF MARRIAGE AT RS.5,26,712/- AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.6,73,228/-. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ESTIMATION OF TOTAL MARRIAGE EXPENDITURE WAS SCALED DOWN TO RS.7,34,047/- AS AGAINST RS.12,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AND AS A CONSEQUENCE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED MARRIAGE EXPENDI TURE CAME TO RS.1,96,335/-. ON THE AFORESAID RESULTANT ADDITION, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IMPOSED PENALTY U/S 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT. THE EXPEN DITURE HAS BEEN ESTIMATED FOR MARRIAGE OF TWO DAUGHTERS OF THE ASSE SSEE. THE CIT(A) HAS REPRODUCED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN PARA 6.2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE BASIS OF WHICH HE HAS INFERRED THAT TH E ADDITION OF RS.1,96,335/- HAS BEEN MADE ON ESTIMATE BASIS ONLY. 11. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CASE SETUP BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS THOROUGHLY EXAMINED IT AND HIS INFERENCE THAT ADDITION IS BASED ON ESTIMATE BASIS IS A REASONED O NE. BEFORE US, NO COGENT MATERIAL OR REASONING HAS BEEN ADVANCED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE TO SAY THAT ANY DOCUMENT OR EVIDENCE WAS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH WOULD INDICATE CLINCHINGLY INCURREN CE OF UNACCOUNTED EXPENDITURE ON MARRIAGE OF ASSESSEES DAUGHTERS. ME RELY BECAUSE, ASSESSEES EXPLANATION WITH RESPECT TO THE LOOSE PA PERS WAS REJECTED IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS AND THE MARRIAGE EXPENSES ESTIM ATED CANNOT BE A GROUND TO LEVY PENALTY U/S 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. THEREFORE, ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ASPECT IS ALSO HEREBY AFFIRMED. 12. THUS, WE FIND NO REASONS TO INTERFERE WITH THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) WHICH IS HEREBY AFFIRMED AND ACCORDINGLY, REVENUE FAILS I N ITS APPEAL. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. 14. IN THE CASE OF CHAMPAKLAL J. KHAMAR VS. ACIT IN IT(SS)A NO. 340/AHD/2011 DATED 18/06/2014, THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD OBSERVED AS U NDER: IT(SS)A NO. 03/COCH/2014 8 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ON THE BASIS OF SUBMISSIONS MADE AND THE MATERIAL ON R ECORD, THE FACTUAL POSITION THAT EMERGES IS THAT SEARCH U/S. 132 WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF ASSESSEE AND CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND SEIZE D. CONSEQUENT TO SEARCH OPERATIONS BLOCK ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AND THE T OTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS DETERMINED BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS.11,79,901/-. TH E ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DELETED BY CIT(A). AGAINST TH E ORDER OF CIT(A), REVENUE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE ITAT. HONBLE ITAT CONFIRME D THE ADDITION ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3,77,338 AS AGAINST THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.11,79,901/- AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON PERUSING THE ORDER OF TR IBUNAL, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CASH AND INVESTMENT IN ARTIC LES WERE SUSTAINED ON ESTIMATED BASIS. WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITION ON AC COUNT OF INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY IT IS SEEN THAT ASSESSEE HAD STATED TO HAVE RECEIVE D THE JEWELLERY FROM HER SISTER IN NAIROBI BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORTING DECLAR ATION FILED BEFORE CUSTOMS/IMMIGRATION, ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 190 GMS. OF JEWELLERY WAS SUSTAINED. IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE UNTRUE. 8. IN THE CASE OF MAHENDRA VYAS (SUPRA), THE COORD INATE BENCH HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 8. WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSION OF REVENUE THAT PENALTY U/S. 158BFA IS MANDATORY IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SATYENDRA KUMAR DOSI (2009) 315 ITR 172 WHERE THE H ONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 158BFA(2) IS DISCRET IONARY AND NOT MANDATORY. 9. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BECHARBHAI PARMAR (SUPRA) THE HONBLE GUJ. HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: SUB-SECTION(2) OF SECTION 158BFA MAKES IT CLEAR TH AT IT IS WELL WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE FRAMING T HE ASSESSMENT FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD, WHETHER OR NOT TO IMPOSE ANY PENALTY OR NOT . THE WORDS, MAY DIRECT HAVE TO BE GIVEN ITS NORMAL MEANING, LEAVING DISCRE TION TO THE OFFICER. IN ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIAL REASON THE WORD MAY CANNOT BE READ AS SHALL. THE CONTENTION OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE THAT ONLY UPON SATIS FACTION OF THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (2) THAT THE AS SESSEE, IN CASE OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT CAN BE SPARED OF THE PENALTY CANNOT BE A CCEPTED. IT IS, OF COURSE, TRUE THAT UPON SATISFYING SUCH CONDITIONS, THAT IN ASSESSEE WOULD GET IMMUNITY FROM PENALTY. NEVERTHELESS, THIS IS NOT A THING AS TO SUGGEST THAT IN NO OTHER CASE, OR ON NO OTHER GROUND THE AO MAY AT HIS DISCR ETION, NOT IMPOSE PENALTY THE MOMENT ADDITIONS UNDER CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 158BC ARE SUSTAINED. IN OTHER WORDS, THE PENALTY U/S. 158BFA(2) IS NOT MANDATORY IN NATURE. IT IS TRUE THAT IT(SS)A NO. 03/COCH/2014 9 SECTION 273B WHICH PROVIDES THAT PENALTY SHALL NOT BE IMPOSED IN CERTAIN CASES ON THE ASSESSEE PROVING THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE C AUSE FOR FAILURE TO PAY TAX REFERS TO SEVERAL PROVISIONS SUCH AS SECTIONS 271, 271A ETC., MAKES NO MENTION OF SECTION 158BFA(2). THIS STILL DOES NOT MEAN THAT PENALTY U/S. 158BFA(2) IS MANDATORY. 9. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS MORE SO I N VIEW OF THE FACT THAT ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN UPHELD ON ESTIMATION BASIS AND IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH CITED HEREINABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIE W THAT NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. WE ACCORDINGLY DIRECT THE AO TO D ELETE THE PENALTY. 10. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. 15. IN VIEW THEREOF, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO CANCEL THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S. 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS REVERSED. ACCORDINGLY, ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING I.E 2 ND MARCH, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( GEORGE GEORGE.K) (B P JAIN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE : COCHIN DATED: 2 ND MARCH, 2016 GJ COPY TO: 1. M/S. PALAKKARAN BANKERS & CHIT FUNDS, KO LLAPPALLY, PALA, KOTTAYAM.KOLLAPPALLY, PALA, KOTTAY AM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE COMMISSIDONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-V, KOCH I. IT(SS)A NO. 03/COCH/2014 10 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOTTAYAM. 5. DR/ITAT, COCHIN. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, COCHIN 1.DATE OF DICTATION : 29/02/20156 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED 01/03/2016 BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER OTHER MEMBER: 3.DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR . PS/PS: 01/03/2016 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER : 01/03/2016 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. PS/PS : 02/03/2016 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO BENCH CLERK: 02/0 3/2016 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO HEAD CLERK: 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO ASSISTANT REGISTR AR 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER: