M/s.Kottumel Groups, Changanacherry V. The ITO, Thiruvalla

MA 23/COCH/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3894 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 28-09-2018
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A S BINDU
• Assessee Lawyers: IYPE JOHN
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Reasonable cause
• Section: 40A(3)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM & GEORGE GEORGE K., JM M . P . NO . 23/ COCH / 2015 & S .P NO.48/COCH/2015 (ARSG. OUT OF I.T.A. NO. 153/COCH/2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 7 - 08 M/S. KOOTTUMMEL GROUPS, PERUNNA WEST, CHANGANACHERRY. [PAN: VS. THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER , WARD - 3, THIRUVALLA. (ASSESSEE - APPELLANT) (REVENUE - RESPONDENT) A SSESSEE BY SHRI IYPE JOHN, CA REVENUE BY S MT. A.S. BINDU, SR. DR D ATE OF HEARING 26 / 10 /2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29 / 10 /2018 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKING RECALL/RECTIFICATION OF ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 153/COCH/2011 DATED 21/11/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED STAY PETITION IN S.P NO. 48/COCH/2015 SEEKING STAY OF OUTSTANDING DEMAND OF TAX OF RS 15.36,835 AND INTEREST OF RS.4,87,474/- (TOTAL: RS.20,24,309/-). 2. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IN PARA 4.1 THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE CONTENTION THAT TDS WAS COLLECTED AND FORM 16A WAS ISSUED TO THE DISTRIBUTOR. IT WAS M.A. NO. 23//C/2015 & S.P. NO. 48/COCH/2015 2 SUBMITTED THAT AS PER PARA 4.3, THE FINDING OF FACT ENTERED INTO IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 30-06-2011 IS DEALT WITH. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER PARA 4.4, BASED ON THE AGREEMENT, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY A DISTRIBUTOR DOING SERVICE AND WHAT WAS PAID WAS ONLY COMMISSION COVERED BY SECTION 194H. AS SUCH, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT BASED ON THE FINDING OF FACT IN THE ORIGINAL TRIBUNAL ORDER AND THE FACT THAT THE ENTIRE PAYMENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS UNDER SECTION 194H AND COVERED BY FORM 15H, IT WAS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SAID OBSERVATION AND FORM 15H, THE FINDINGS IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 21-11-2014 IS A MISTAKE LIABLE TO BE RECTIFIED. 2.1 THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT AS PER PARA 5.5 REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND THE ASSESSEE CREDITED BROKERAGE OF RS.3,26,303/- AND HANDLING CHARGES OF RS.16,36,175/-. THE TDS CERTIFICATES FILED WAS ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE HANDLING CHARGES OF RS. 16,36,175/- AND THE ASSESSEE DERIVED THE PROFIT ELEMENT OF RS.3,26,303/- AS BROKERAGE, OTHER THAN WHAT COMPANY PAID. IN PARA 5.6, IT WAS ADMITTED THAT THE OBJECT OF THE SECTION WAS ONLY TO CURB THE CIRCULATION OF BLACK MONEY. 2.2 THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT A REFERENCE TO THE OBJECTION TO THE REMAND REPORT WOULD HAVE CONFIRMED THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, INCLUDING RS.3,26,303/- WAS PAID ONLY AS COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE AND COVERED BY FORM 16A AND NOT AS ANY OTHER PAYMENT. AS SUCH, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE OBJECTIONS TO THE REMAND REPORT AND FORM 16A IN M.A. NO. 23//C/2015 & S.P. NO. 48/COCH/2015 3 SUPPORT OF THE ENTIRE RECEIPTS, THE FINDINGS IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DT. 21-11-2014 IS A MISTAKE LIABLE TO BE RECTIFIED. 2.3 THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT AS PER PARA 7 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER, REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE REMAND REPORT AND BASED ON THE REPORT, BROKERAGE CREDITED TO THE P&L ACCOUNT WAS RS.3,26,303/- AND HANDLING CHARGES RECEIVED WAS RS.16,36,175/-. BUT THE TDS CERTIFICATE WAS ONLY ON RS.16,36,175/-. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER PARA 8, THE FINDING ENTERED INTO IS THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE PRODUCT AND PAYMENTS MADE IN CASH FOR THE PURCHASE AND STOCK IN TRADE IS OF THE ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS AND THE PURCHASE IS DEBITED INTO P&L ACCOUNT AND THE AGENCY WAS NOT BORN OUT FROM THE RECORDS. SO, THERE IS DELIBERATE VIOLATION OF SECTION 40A(3). IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE FINDINGS ENTERED IN TO BY THE TRIBUNAL WAS MAINLY BASED ON THE INCORRECT REMAND REPORT SINCE THE OBJECTIONS TO THE REMAND REPORT WERE OMITTED TO BE CONSIDERED. AS SUBMITTED ABOVE, THE ENTIRE RECEIPTS WAS COVERED BY FORM 16A. MOREOVER, THE OBSERVATION THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE PRODUCT AND PAYMENTS MADE IN CASH FOR THE PURCHASE AND STOCK IN TRADE WAS OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS AND THE PURCHASE WAS DEBITED INTO P&L ACCOUNT AND THAT THE AGENCY IS NOT BORN OUT FROM RECORDS', IS ALSO A MISTAKE SINCE AS FOUND BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORIGINAL ORDER DATED 30-06- 2011, 'THE PRODUCTS ARE NOT PHYSICAL PRODUCTS OR GOODS BUT ONLY SERVICE PRODUCTS' (PARA 4.3) IN WHICH FINDING OF FACT CANNOT CHANGE UNLESS ANY NEW M.A. NO. 23//C/2015 & S.P. NO. 48/COCH/2015 4 MATERIAL IS BROUGHT ON RECORD. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT NO NEW MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO CHANGE THIS FINDING OF FACT. 2.4 IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE OBJECTIONS TO THE REMAND REPORT FILED UNDER COVER OF LETTER NO.967/2014 DATED 29-08-2014 WAS NOT CONSIDERED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID OBJECTIONS DETAILED THE WRONG ASSUMPTIONS AND FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT AND OMISSION TO CONSIDER THE SAID OBJECTIONS AND ARRIVING AT A FINDING IS A MISTAKE TO BE RECTIFIED. 2.5 IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE FINDING IN PARA 7 THAT, 'TDS CERTIFICATE ATTACHED TO THE RETURN OF INCOME REFLECTS ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS.16,36,175.92 AS COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE. THE COMPANY HAS ALSO DEDUCTED TAX AT THE RATE APPLICABLE U/S.L94H OF THE IT ACT FROM THE ABOVE ACCOUNT. HAD THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED ONLY THE COMMISSION FROM M/S. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT WOULD HAVE SHOWN ONLY A RECEIPT TO THAT EXTENT BUT IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO DERIVED A PROFIT ELEMENT OF RS,3,26,303.66 AS BROKERAGE OTHER THAN THAT WHAT THE COMPANY HAS PAID TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE ASSESSEE WAS IN RECEIPT OF FUND OTHER THAN WHAT M/S. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. HAD PAID AS BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION' IS A MISTAKE SINCE THE SAID PAYMENT IS ALSO COVERED BY FORM 16A SIMILAR TO THAT OF RS.16,36,175.92. M.A. NO. 23//C/2015 & S.P. NO. 48/COCH/2015 5 2.6 IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE PRODUCT IS AGAINST THE FINDING OF FACT IN THE ORIGINAL TRIBUNAL ORDER AND HENCE A MISTAKE LIABLE TO BE RECTIFIED. 2.7 IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT NON CONSIDERATION OR REFERENCE TO THE SUBMISSION ON THE IMPACT OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 194H AND THE JUDGMENTS IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS A MISTAKE LIABLE TO BE RECTIFIED. IT WAS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT, BASED ON THE ABOVE AND THE DETAILED APPLICATION FILED ON 11-05-2015 AND 31-03-2018, THE ORDER BE RECTIFIED. 3. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.46,39,808/- BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS FOLLOWS: 6 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN APPOINTED AS A DISTRIBUTOR BY M/S. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 26 TH AUGUST, 2003. AS PER THIS DISTRIBUTOR AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSEE GOT DISTRIBUTION RIGHT TO MARKET AND DISTRIBUTE/SELL THE RECHARGE VOUCHERS PROVIDED BY M/S. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. IN THE TERRITORY THROUGH DISTRIBUTORS OWN RETAIL NETWORK SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN THE DISTRIBUTOR AGREEMENT. AS PER THIS AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED VOUCHERS FROM M/S. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND SOLD THEM IN RETAIL. THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO RETAIN THE MARGIN BETWEEN THE RETAIL PRICE OF THE VOUCHERS AND THE PRICE AT WHICH M/S. RELIANCE M.A. NO. 23//C/2015 & S.P. NO. 48/COCH/2015 6 INDUSTRIES LTD. SOLD THE VOUCHERS TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE ASSESSEES PROFIT PERCENTAGE OR COMMISSION IS NOT FIXED AS THE SPECIFIC PERCENTAGE OF THE SALE VALUE. IT IS NOWHERE MENTIONED IN THE DISTRIBUTOR AGREEMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR ANY COMMISSION. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PAY FULL PURCHASE PRICE OF THE PRODUCTS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED. THE ASSESSEE IS THE OWNER OF THE PRODUCT ITSELF AND IT IS NOT HELD AS AN AGENT OF M/S. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. 7. IT IS ALSO BROUGHT ON RECORD VIDE REMAND REPORT THAT IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ATTACHED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THE SALES DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR AT RS.2,32,29,981.82/- AGAINST A PURCHASE OF RS.2,31,69,032.14/- WITHOUT WORKING OUT ANY GROSS PROFIT. THE ASSESSEE HAS DETERMINED THE NET LOSS OF THE BUSINESS AT RS.81,160.14/- IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. IN THE RECEIPT SIDE OF TRADING, PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAS CREDITED BROKERAGE RECEIVED TO THE TUNE OF RS.3,26,303.66/- AND HANDLING CHARGES RECEIVED FROM M/S. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED TO THE TUNE OF RS.16,36,175,92/-. THE TDS CERTIFICATE ATTACHED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME REFLECTS ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS.16,36,175.92/- AS COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE. THE COMPANY HAS ALSO DEDUCTED THE TAX AT THE RATE APPLICABLE U/S. 194H OF THE I.T. ACT FROM THE ABOVE ACCOUNT. HAD THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED ONLY THE COMMISSION FROM M/S. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WOULD HAVE SHOWN ONLY A RECEIPT TO THAT EXTENT. BUT IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO DERIVED A PROFIT ELEMENT OF RS.3,26,303.66/- AS BROKERAGE OTHER THAN WHAT THE COMPANY HAS PAID TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE ASSESSEE WAS IN RECEIPT OF FUND OTHER THAN WHAT M/S. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. HAD PAID AS BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAD BEEN AUDITED BY A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WHICH REFLECTS THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE AS SIMILAR TO THAT OF A NORMAL TRADING CONCERN. 8. FURTHER, THE PAYMENT MADE FOR PURCHASE OF PRODUCTS FROM M/S. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES IS AN EXPENDITURE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3) OF THE I.T. ACT. AS SEEN FROM THE FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD, THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED PRODUCTS FROM M/S. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. AS MENTIONED ABOVE AND IT IS ONLY THE PAYMENT FOR PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASH. THE STOCK OF RECHARGE VOUCHERS IS THE STOCK-IN-TRADE OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS AND THE PURCHASES WERE DEBITED AS EXPENDITURE IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAS RECEIVED ONLY THE M.A. NO. 23//C/2015 & S.P. NO. 48/COCH/2015 7 AMOUNT FROM M/S. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ACTED AS AN AGENT OF M/S. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., IS NOT BORNE OUT OF RECORDS AND MATERIALS BROUGHT ON RECORD HAVE ESTABLISHED THIS FACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS CREDITED THE WHOLE AMOUNT OF THE PURCHASE TO M/S. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND MADE INDIVIDUAL PAYMENT IN CASH IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE ANY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR SUCH PAYMENT AND NO EXPLANATION HAS ALSO BEEN PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY CASH PAYMENT IS MADE IN EXCESS OF RS.20,000/- OTHERWISE THAN BY CROSSED ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR BY ACCOUNT PAYEE DEMAND DRAFT. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS DELIBERATELY MADE THE PAYMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING AN AGENT OF M/S. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE. FURTHER, THE FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT AN AGENT OF M/S. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. BUT ONLY A DISTRIBUTOR WHO HAS PURCHASED PRODUCTS IN ITS NAME FROM M/S. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ENTITLED ONLY FOR THE DIFFERENCE OF PRICE CHARGED BY M/S. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS CUSTOMERS. BEING SO, IN OUR OPINION, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3) IS DIRECTLY APPLICABLE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR MAKING SUCH CASH PAYMENT. 9. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH RULE 6DD OF THE I.T. RULES. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE ANY EXPLANATION FOR MAKING PAYMENT IN CASH FOR PURCHASE OF PRODUCTS FROM M/S. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. IN OUR OPINION, THE DECISION OF THE COCHIN BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF S. RAHUMATHULLA VS. CIT (ASST.) (127 ITD 440) RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AR CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 4.1 NOW THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 20/08/2014 WHICH IS PLACED AT PGS. 55 TO 59 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN OUR OPINION, M.A. NO. 23//C/2015 & S.P. NO. 48/COCH/2015 8 THE TRIBUNAL HAD GONE INTO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND DECIDED THE CASE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 4.2 IT IS ALSO TO BE NOTED THAT WHILE ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION, THE TRIBUNAL TREATED THE ASSESSEE AS A TRADER. THERE WAS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE ACTED AS AN AGENT TO M/S. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. BEING SO, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PRESENT ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE CONSIDERATION OF THE PRESENT ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR WOULD AMOUNT TO REVIEW OF EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR WHICH THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE I.T. ACT. 4.3 IT IS WELL-SETTLED THAT THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT BE SCRUTINIZED SENTENCE BY SENTENCE MERELY TO FIND OUT WHETHER ALL FACTS HAVE BEEN SET OUT IN DETAIL BY THE TRIBUNAL OR WHETHER SOME INCIDENTAL FACT WHICH APPEARS ON THE RECORD HAS NOT BEEN NOTICED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS JUDGMENT. IF THE COURT, ON A FAIR READING OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL FINDS THAT IT HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ALL RELEVANT MATERIAL AND HAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ANY IRRELEVANT MATERIAL IN BASING ITS CONCLUSIONS, THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT LIABLE TO BE INTERFERED WITH, UNLESS OF COURSE, THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE TRIBUNAL ARE PERVERSE. IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE TRIBUNAL TO STATE IN ITS JUDGMENT SPECIFICALLY OR IN EXPRESS WORDS THAT IT HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, OR HAS CONSIDERED THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS, AS IF THAT WERE A MAGIC M.A. NO. 23//C/2015 & S.P. NO. 48/COCH/2015 9 FORMULA; IF THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL SHOWS THAT IT HAS, IN FACT, DONE SO, THERE IS NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL. HENCE, ON THE FACTS, THERE WAS NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND QUESTION WHETHER THERE WAS MATERIAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL TO ARRIVE AT THAT CONCLUSION DID NOT ARISE FROM ITS DECISION. ACCORDINGLY, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 5. THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SP NO. 48/COCH/2015 IS ALSO DISMISSED SINCE THERE IS NO VALID APPEAL PENDING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION AND THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 29 TH OCTOBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE GEORGE K.) (CHANDRA POOJARI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: DATED: 29 TH OCTOBER, 2018 GJ COPY TO: 1. M/S. KOOTTUMMEL GROUPS, PERUNNA WEST, CHANGANACHERRY. 2. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, THIRUVALLA. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS), TIVANDRUM 4. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TRIVANDRUM. 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) I.T.A.T., COCHIN M.A. NO. 23//C/2015 & S.P. NO. 48/COCH/2015 10