DCIT, Kottayam V. P.V.Bineesh, Vaikkom

ITSSA 69/COCH/2005

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7534 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 03-05-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 16-03-2005
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R SRINIVASAN
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAYAN NAIR
• Keywords: Peak credit

Judgement Text

1 IT(SS)A NO. 52 & 69/COCH/2005 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) AND SHRI B.R. BASKA RAN(AM) I.T(SS)A NO.52/COCH/2005 (BLOCK PERIOD 1990-91 TO 1999-2000 & UPTO 16-12-199 9) SHRI P.V. BINESH VS THE A.C.I.T., CIR.1 PLATHANATHU HOUSE KOTTAYAM ULLALA, THALAYAZHAM VAIKOM PAN : ACQPB5384G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T(SS)A NO.69/COCH/2005 (BLOCK PERIOD 1990-91 TO 1999-2000 & UPTO 16-12-199 9) DY.CIT, CIR.1 VS SHRI P.V. BINESH KOTTAYAM PLATHANATHU HOUSE ULLALA, THALAYAZHAM, VAIKOM (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R SRINIVASAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIJAYAN NAIR DATE OF HEARING : 03-05-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25-05-2012 O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE A RE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A)-IV, KOCHI DATE D 22-11-2004 AND PERTAINS TO BLOCK PERIOD 1990-91 TO 1999-2000 & UPTO 16-12-1999. 2. LET US FIRST TAKE THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN IT(SS )A NO.52/COCH/2005. 2 IT(SS)A NO. 52 & 69/COCH/2005 3. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO EST IMATION OF INTEREST FROM BANK DEPOSIT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. SHRI R SREENIVASAN, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.46,000. THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS INTEREST WAS ALREADY OFFERED IN THE HANDS OF SHRI V.N. THUSHAR BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. THEREFORE, THE VERY SAM E AMOUNT CANNOT BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH I N WHICH PART OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ORDER THIS INCOME WAS CONSIDERED, THE LD .REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY CONSIDERED; H OWEVER, THIS WAS INCLUDED IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 59 OF THE PAPER BOOK, AS PER WHICH THE AMOUNT WAS SHOWN IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH, THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT WHICH IS AV AILABLE AT PAGE 59 OF THE PAPER BOOK AS TO WHETHER IT IS DISCLOSED OR NOT IN THE ASSESSM ENT IN CASE OF SHRI V.N. THUSHAR, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT THAT THE INCOME WAS S HOWN BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ON ACCRETION BASIS. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI VIJAYAN NAIR, THE LD.DR SU BMITTED THAT NO MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE INTEREST RECEI VED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE BANK DEPOSIT WAS ASSESSED IN THE NAME OF SHRI V.N. THUSH AR. IN FACT, THE INTEREST INCOME WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE NAME OF SHRI V.N. THUSHAR IN TH E CASH FLOW STATEMENT FILED BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. THEREFORE, THE COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE DEPOSIT STANDS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO BE THAT THE DEPOSIT IN HIS NAME IS A BENAMI AND THE INTEREST WAS ALREADY ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF SHRI V.B. THUSHAR BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. HOWEVER, A BARE READING OF THE ORDER OF THE SETTLEM ENT COMMISSION AND THE CASH FLOW 3 IT(SS)A NO. 52 & 69/COCH/2005 STATEMENT SAID TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT INDICATE ANYTHING ABOUT THE ASSESSMENT OF INTEREST OF RS. 4,46,504 IN THE NAME OF SHRI V.B. THUSHAR. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY IS CONFIRMED. 7. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO ADDI TION OF PEAK CREDIT OF R.7,81,740. 8. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSES SEE, THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS CONSIDERED BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IN THE CASE OF SHRI V.B. THUSHAR. THEREFORE, NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE. HOWEVER, THE LD.DR POIN TED OUT THAT THE ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION DOES NOT INDICATE ANYTHING AB OUT THE ASSESSMENT OF RS.7,81,740 FROM THE DEPOSITS MADE WITH LORD KRISHNA BANK. IN THE ABSENCE OF REFERENCE ABOUT THE ADDITION OF PEAK CREDIT FROM THE DEPOSITS MADE WITH LORD KRISHNA BANK, ACCORDING TO THE LD DR, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACC EPTED. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE. THE ONLY CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE PEAK CREDIT FOUND WITH LOR D KRISHNA BANK LTD WAS ALSO CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF SHRI V.B. THUSHAR BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD.DR, THERE IS NO REFERENCE ABO UT THIS PEAK CREDIT FOUND WITH LORD KRISHNA BANK IN THE ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISS ION. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHOR ITY. ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 10. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO EST IMATION OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE AND THE AVAILABILITY OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 11. THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT THE ESTIMATION OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES WAS DONE WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL AN D BASIS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE AVAILABILITY OF AG RICULTURAL INCOME WHILE ESTIMATING THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. 4 IT(SS)A NO. 52 & 69/COCH/2005 12. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD.DR, SHRI VIJAYAN NAIR S UBMITTED THAT NO MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO SHOW THE RECEIPT OF AGRICULT URAL INCOME. IT IS NOT KNOWN WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS, IN FACT, CULTIVATING THE LAND OR NOT. NO DETAILS OF CROP OR THE EXTENT OF LAND CULTIVATED WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED THE HOUSEHOLD EXPEN SES ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE, APPEARS TO HAVE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HIS MOTHER WAS STAYING WITH HIM AND THEREFORE, THE INCOME OF HIS MOTHER WAS ALSO AVAILABLE FOR MEETING THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE. H OWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEES MOTHER HAS ALSO INDEPENDENT SOURCE OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DETAILS WIT H REGARD TO THE EXTENT OF LAND AND ITS CULTIVATION. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL TO SUP PORT THE RECEIPT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME BEING USED FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL , THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY ESTIMATED THE EXP ENSES FOR HOUSEHOLD. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LOWER AUT HORITY WHICH IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. 14. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO INC OME DECLARED BY VARIOUS FIRMS UNDER VDIS SCHEME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5,50,000. 15. SHRI R SREENIVASAN, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED INCOME VOLUNTARILY UNDER THE SCHEME FRAMED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN THE NAME OF KARAPURAM WINES, KANICHIKULANGARA, A THULYA LIQUORS, PRINCE LIQUORS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1991-92 TO 1993-94. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE INCOME DECLARED IN THE ABOVE THREE FIRMS SHOULD BE AVAILABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS HE WAS HAVING 50% SHARE. 5 IT(SS)A NO. 52 & 69/COCH/2005 16. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRMS WITHDREW ANY MONEY FROM T HE FIRM. NO RETURN WAS FILED BY THE FIRMS FOR ANY OF THE YEARS WHICH FALLS IN THE BLOCK PERIOD. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED MONEY OUT OF THE INCOME DISCLOSED UNDER VDIS SCHEME NO CREDIT COULD BE GIVEN. 17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM HAVE DECLARED INCOME UNDER VDIS, NO MATERIAL IS AVA ILABLE ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ANY MONEY FROM THE INCOME DIS CLOSED BY THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM IN THE VDIS. IF THE ASSESSEE BEING A PARTNER HAS RECE IVED MONEY FROM THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM, THE SAME MIGHT HAVE BEEN ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF AC COUNT MAINTAINED BY THE PARTNERS IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUC H MATERIAL TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED MONEY FROM PARTNERSHIP FIRM, THIS TRIB UNAL IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITY HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION; THERE FORE, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 18. NOW COMING TO THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL, THE FIRS T GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEME NTS OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LIC OF INDIA. THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS.,3,35,360 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990-91 AND RS . 1,76,330 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991-92. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, THE STATEMENTS SI GNED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNT WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. THE C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE STATEME NT IS ONLY TO BOOST THE INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING HOUSING LOAN FROM LIC HOUS ING FINANCE LTD. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE STATEMENT CANNOT HAVE BEEN P REPARED FOR BOOSTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS THESE STATEMENTS WERE SIGNED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IT SHOULD BE BASED UPON THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) OUGHT NOT HAVE DELETE D THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6 IT(SS)A NO. 52 & 69/COCH/2005 19. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI R SREENIVASAN, THE LD.REP RESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT NO MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COU RSE OF SEARCH OPERATION WITH REGARD TO THE STATEMENT OF INCOME PREPARED FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOUSING LOAN. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE STATEMENT WAS PREPARED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING HOUSING LOAN BY BOOSTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . THEREFORE, THAT CANNOT BE A BASIS FOR MAKING ANY ADDITION. 20. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE RECORD. THE DEPARTMENT CLAIMS THAT THE STATEMENT S IGNED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT SHOWING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. HOWEVER, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED THAT NOTHING WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. THE TWO STA TEMENTS WERE FILED IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT IS NOT KNOWN HOW THE AS SESSEE COULD FILE THE STATEMENT PREPARED FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOUSING LOAN BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. PRIMA FACIE, IT APPEARS, THE STATEMENT MIGHT HAVE BEEN FOUND BY THE DEPARTMENT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. HOWEVER, THE SEIZED RECORDS WERE NOT PRODUCED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE, WITHOUT EXAMINING THE STATEMENT OF INCOM E SAID TO BE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, THIS TRIBUNAL CANNOT EX PRESS ANY OPINION. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS.3,35,360 AND RS .1,76,330 FOR THE YEAR 1991-92 IS SET ASIDE AND REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RECONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE MAT ERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION AND THEREAFTER BRING ON RECORD HOW THE IN COME HAPPENS TO BE THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD. ACCORDINGL Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RECONSIDER THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL F OUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDA NCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 7 IT(SS)A NO. 52 & 69/COCH/2005 21. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO EST IMATION OF INVESTMENT IN THE BUILDING DURING THE BLOCK PERIOD. 22. THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE STATE PWD RATE IS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIRING THE BUILDING BY THE GOVERNMENT. THEREFORE, THE STATE P WD RATE DOES NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, THE CPWD RATE SHOULD BE ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO. THIS ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS HOTEL ALUKKAS IN ITA NO.1588 OF 2009 DATED 09-09-2009. THE KERALA HIGH COURT FOUND THAT THE STATE PWD RATE IS BASED UPON THE LOCAL ACCOMMODATION, THEREFORE, IT IS MORE APPROPRIATE FOR VALUATION OF THE BUILDING IN THE STATE OF KERALA. IN VIEW OF THIS JUDGMENT OF THE KERALA HIGH COURT WE D O NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 23. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO ADD ITION OF RS.1,70,000. THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INC OME ON 31-12-1999 AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN U/S 139(1) OF TH E ACT. THEREFORE, THE INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETURN FILED ON 31-12-1999 BEYOND THE EXPIRY OF THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS TAKEN AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 24. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI R SREENIVASAN, THE LD.REP RESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON 16-12-1999. FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 1999-2000 THE CBDT BY NOTIFICATION, EXTENDED THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING TH E RETURN OF INCOME UPTO 31-12-1999. THEREFORE, THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 31-1 2-1999 IS WITHIN THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME AND AS SUCH THAT PART O F THE INCOME HAS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. WHEN THE BENCH ASKED FOR T HE COPY OF THE SAID NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE CBDT FOR EXTENDING THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT HE WOULD FILE THE SAME IN THE COURSE OF THE DAY. HOWEVER, THE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION WAS NOT FILED BY THE LD.REPRESENTA TIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE. 8 IT(SS)A NO. 52 & 69/COCH/2005 25. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ONLY CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THA T THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 WAS EXTENDED B Y A NOTIFICATION BY THE CBDT. HOWEVER, THE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION WAS NOT FILED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE WOULD MAKE AVAILABLE THE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION SAID TO BE ISSUED BY THE CBDT IN THE COURSE OF THE DAY, THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN FILED. THEREFORE, BEFORE TAKING ANY DECISION ON THIS ISSUE, THE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NEEDS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FIL ED THE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION EVEN THOUGH IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILIN G THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS EXTENDED, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEE DS TO LOOKED INTO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTH ORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL EXAMINE WHETHER THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INC OME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 WAS EXTENDED BY THE CBDT OR NOT IN RESPECT OF INDIV IDUAL ASSESSEES AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE T O FILE THE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION SAID TO BE ISSUED BY THE CBDT FOR EXTENDING THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF INDIVIDUAL ASSESSEES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000. 26. IN THE RESULT, IT(SS)A NO.52/COCH/2005 IS DISMI SSED AND IT(S)A NO.69/COCH/2005 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 25 TH MAY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN, DT : 25 TH MAY, 2012 PK/- 9 IT(SS)A NO. 52 & 69/COCH/2005 COPY TO: 1. SHRI P.V. BINESH, PLATHANATHU HOUSE, ULLALA, THALAY AZHAM, VAIKOM 2. DY.CIT, CIR.1, KOTTAYAM 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A)-IV, KOCHI 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOTTAYAM 5. THE DR (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH