THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,COCHIN vs. SHRI.KISHORE KUMAR SHAMJI,COCHIN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1940 ITA.No.297 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 341(Coch)/1999 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DTD.8.5.2003- ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 APPELLANT:APPELLANT : THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH SC FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT:RESPONDENT : KISHOR KUMAR SHAMJI, PROP.KISHOR SPICES CO., COCHIN-682 002. BY ADVS. SRI.MANOJ KUMAR.M SRI.R.KISHORE KUMAR (MATTANCHERRY) SRI.R.MOHANDAS SRI.R.MURALIDHAR THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.11.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.1185/2009, ITA.787/2009, ITA.834/2009, ITA.859/2009, ITA.1189/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

I.T.A.Nos.297,787,834, 859, 1185 & 1189/2009 ..2.. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1940 ITA.No.787 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 105/Coch/04 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 01-07-2005 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 APPELLANT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE K.GEORGE, SC FOR IT SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S: KISHORKUMAR SHAMJI, PROP.KISHOR SPICES COMPANY, JEW TOWN, COCHIN-682 002. BY ADVS. SRI.MANOJ KUMAR.M SRI.R.KISHORE KUMAR (MATTANCHERRY) SRI.R.MOHANDAS SRI.R.MURALIDHAR THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.11.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.1185/2009, ITA.834/2009, ITA.859/2009, ITA.1189/2009, ITA.297/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

I.T.A.Nos.297,787,834, 859, 1185 & 1189/2009 ..3.. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1940 ITA.No.834 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 103/Coch/2004 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DTD.1.7.2005 APPELLANT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT: KISHORKUMAR SHAMJI, PROP.KISHOR SPICES COMPANY, JEW TOWN, COCHIN-682 002. BY ADVS. SRI.MANOJ KUMAR.M SRI.R.KISHORE KUMAR (MATTANCHERRY) SRI.R.MOHANDAS SRI.R.MURALIDHAR THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.11.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.1185/2009, ITA.787/2009, ITA.859/2009, ITA.1189/2009, ITA.297/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

I.T.A.Nos.297,787,834, 859, 1185 & 1189/2009 ..4.. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1940 ITA.No.859 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 104/Coch/2004 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 01-07-2005 APPELLANT/S: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S: KISHORKUMAR SHAMJI, PROP.KISHOR SPICES COMPANY, JEW TOWN, COCHIN-682 002. BY ADVS. SRI.MANOJ KUMAR.M SRI.R.KISHORE KUMAR (MATTANCHERRY) SRI.R.MOHANDAS SRI.R.MURALIDHAR THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.11.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.1185/2009, ITA.787/2009, ITA.834/2009, ITA.1189/2009, ITA.297/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

I.T.A.Nos.297,787,834, 859, 1185 & 1189/2009 ..5.. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1940 ITA.No. 1185 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 102/Coch/2004 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 01-07-2005 APPELLANT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT: KISHORKUMAR SHAMJI, PROP.KISHOR SPICES COMPANY, JEW TOWN, COCHIN-682 002. BY ADVS. SRI.MANOJ KUMAR.M SRI.R.KISHORE KUMAR (MATTANCHERRY) SRI.R.MOHANDAS SRI.R.MURALIDHAR THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.11.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.787/2009, ITA.834/2009, ITA.859/2009, ITA.1189/2009, ITA.297/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

I.T.A.Nos.297,787,834, 859, 1185 & 1189/2009 ..6.. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1940 ITA.No.1189 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 101/Coch/2004 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 01-07-2005 APPELLANT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH SC FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S: KISHORKUMAR SHAMJI, PROP.KISHOR SPICES COMPANY, JEW TOWN, COCHIN-682 002. BY ADVS. SRI.MANOJ KUMAR.M SRI.R.KISHORE KUMAR (MATTANCHERRY) SRI.R.MOHANDAS SRI.R.MURALIDHAR THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.11.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.1185/2009, ITA.787/2009, ITA.834/2009, ITA.859/2009, ITA.297/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

I.T.A.Nos.297,787,834, 859, 1185 & 1189/2009 ..7.. JUDGMENT P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. Same assessee is the respondent in all these appeals preferred by the Revenue, in respect of the different assessment years running from 1996-1997 to 2001-2002. The assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority in respect of the year 1996-97 mulcting a higher liability upon the assessee was interdicted by the first Appellate Authority; which came to be confirmed by the Tribunal as well. The assessment in respect of the year 1996-1997 is the subject matter of consideration in I.T.A.No.297/2009; whereas in the other matters, the common order passed by the Tribunal in respect of the different assessment years 1997-1998 to 2001- 2002 is put to challenge. 2. The substantial questions of law suggested by the appellants in the Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act are in the following terms:- “On the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the following substantial questions of law arise for decision of the Honourable Court.

I.T.A.Nos.297,787,834, 859, 1185 & 1189/2009 ..8.. 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in observing that 'it is to be seen that the availing of loan from banks and giving of advances to M/s Sport Spices Co. are - integral part of carrying on of the assessee's export business" and is not finding unsupported by any material solely based on the submission of counsel which is not proof? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that "In such circumstances, the estimation made by the assessing officer towards interest and thereafter excluding 90% on estimate in availing benefit u/s.80HHC are not at all called for “and is not the above finding and also in view of the use of words "In such circumstances" unsupported by materials and based on the ipsi dixit of the Tribunal? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, if the finding challenged in the first question is perverse is not the finding challenged in the second question and based only on "In such circumstances" equally fallacious and perverse? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in confirming the order of the CIT(A) on the impugned issue?” 3. Though the appeals stand admitted, no specific substantial question of law was ever framed by this Court in any of these Appeals, but for ordering notice and hence it is reasonably presumed that it is in respect of the substantial questions of law suggested by the appellant.

I.T.A.Nos.297,787,834, 859, 1185 & 1189/2009 ..9.. 4. Heard Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/Income Tax Department at length. 5. The crux of the factual matrix as revealed from I.T.A.No.297/2009 (which is treated as the lead case) is that the assessee is engaged in the export of various Hill produces; such as pepper, ginger, etc. There is a sister concern as well, which is being run by his wife, under the name and style as ‘Spot Spices Company’. According to the assessee, the said sister concern was entrusted with the task of procuring the materials for export. It is stated that the assessee had borrowed loans from different corners including the Union Bank of India and part of the said amount was given to the sister concern run by the wife for procuring the materials and storing the same, as procuring agent. It was only on obtaining export orders, that the assessee chose to enter it as part of their records, virtually showing that the material was purchased by the assessee after procuring the export orders. This was facilitated through the transactions between the

I.T.A.Nos.297,787,834, 859, 1185 & 1189/2009 ..10.. petitioner’s establishment and the sister concern run by the wife of the assessee, effecting the sale as required in favour of the assessee. 6. The modus operandi was doubted by the Assessing Officer noting that, though the assessee had charged interest for more than 1½ decades till 1995-1996 from the sister concern run by his wife, the said practice was put to an end all of a sudden, despite the fact that the assessee had to pay interest to the Banks/the financial institutions. It was also found that a huge sum of Rs.62,25,676/- was paid by the assessee to the sister concern of his wife without charging any interest. Met with the situation, explanation was sought for from the assessee; when the position was sought to be clarified by the assessee simply stating that the sister concern had requested not to charge any interest and hence it was not charged. The said version was found as not a satisfactory explanation by the Assessing Officer who passed Annexure-A assessment order holding that there was a conscious attempt to reduce the profit and to avoid the tax. In the said

I.T.A.Nos.297,787,834, 859, 1185 & 1189/2009 ..11.. circumstance, interest in respect of the transactions was worked out as Rs.17,10,503/-, which was subjected to tax, mulcting the liability upon the assessee, as per ‘Annexure-A’ order. 7. The assessment order was challenged in appeal filed by the assessee, before the Commissioner of Appeals. After considering the merit, the Appellate Authority passed Annexure-B order holding that the course pursued by the Assessing Officer was not at all correct or sustainable. It is also held that the amount advanced by the assessee to the sister concern was not from the interest bearing funds, as reflected from the records and further that there was an agreement between the assessee and the sister concern not to charge any interest in respect of the transaction involving the lending of money by the assessee to the sister concern for procuring the materials. It was accordingly that Annexure-A order passed by the Assessing Authority in this regard was set aside deleting the addition of the sum of Rs.17,10,503/- as part of the income and thus allowing the appeal in part as mentioned therein.

I.T.A.Nos.297,787,834, 859, 1185 & 1189/2009 ..12.. 8. This made the Revenue to feel aggrieved, who approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, by way of further appeals. The Tribunal considered the issue and passed a common order in respect of the assessment years 1995- 1996 and 1996-1997, virtually holding that there was nothing to deprecate the course pursued by the assessee or the order passed by the Appellate Authority and that the transaction was part of the business expediency. Annexure-B order passed by the lower Appellate Authority came to be affirmed, which is sought to be challenged before this Court. 9. Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel for the Department submits that the Appellate Authority as well as the Tribunal was not justified in arriving at a finding in favour of the assessee, as the attempt to evade tax was quite evident. It is stated that there was no agreement at all between the assessee and the sister concern run by his wife, not to charge any interest and that the inference made by the said Authority/Tribunal to have the issue decided in favour of the assessee was only on the basis of a submission made by

I.T.A.Nos.297,787,834, 859, 1185 & 1189/2009 ..13.. the learned counsel appearing for the assessee during the course of hearing. This is stated as discernible from paragraphs 13 and 21 of Annexure-C order. It is pointed out that the attempt of the assessee was only to reduce the extent of profit and in turn, to evade the tax. The learned Standing Counsel further points out that the assessee, admittedly, was charging interest from the sister concern run by the wife in the year 1995-1996 and the sudden change of the procedure/course was only to make unlawful gain, by availing the benefit of Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The benefit under the said provision will be available only in a circumstance when the materials intended to be exported are purchased on the basis of an export order in hand. If the assessee had procured the materials well in advance, he will not be entitled to get the said benefit and it was in the said circumstance, that the said materials were sought to be procured through the sister concern of his wife, who was running an establishment as M/s.Spot Spices Company, keep it with them with access for the same at any time, showing the

I.T.A.Nos.297,787,834, 859, 1185 & 1189/2009 ..14.. sale transaction in favour of the assessee after getting the purchase order for export. In such exercise, the assessee sought to reduce the extent of profit, by not charging interest from the wife/sister concern (based on the alleged agreement not to charge any interest) and in turn showing a wider gap. 10. The course pursued by the assessee was discussed by the Appellate Authority with reference to the case dealt with in Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar Vs. Shiv Prakash Janak Raj & Co. Pvt. Ltd. & others [222 ITR 583], rendered by the Apex Court, to the effect that as there was an agreement between the appellant and the sister concern during the account period itself, no interest stood accrued to the appellant. Reliance was also sought to be placed on the verdict passed by the Allahabad High Court reported in Jwala Prasad Radha Krishna Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [198 ITR 415] to the effect that, merely because interest was paid in some years, it would not justify the inference that there was some agreement between the parties for payment of interest. The discussion as

I.T.A.Nos.297,787,834, 859, 1185 & 1189/2009 ..15.. contained in ‘paragraph 7’ of the order under challenge before the Tribunal is relevant and hence the same is extracted below:- “7. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned representative and verified the facts. The main ground on which the Assessing Officer has estimated interest and added to the income was that the appellant has advanced interest bearing funds to the sister concern. Further it was the case of the Assessing Officer that interest was charged till the assessment year 1995-96 and there is no reason for not charging interest during this assessment year. But on examination of the facts, it reveals that the appellant had not advanced amounts to M/s.Spot Spices Company out of borrowed funds. It is found that the appellant had obtained a Shipping Loan amounting to Rs.2,35,20,000.00 during the accounting period against which the appellant held stock of Black Pepper worth Rs.3,48,65,985.00. Since the entire amount of loan was utilised for storing black pepper, I hold that the Assessing Officer is not correct in concluding that the amount advanced to sister concern was out of interest bearing funds. Further, it reveals that the sister concern has requested the appellant not to charge interest on the advance during the accounting period itself. In view of the request, the appellant has agreed not to charge interest during the accounting period. As there was an agreement between the appellant and his sister concern during the accounting period itself, no interest accrued to the appellant, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in [222 ITR 583]. It is also noticed that the appellant had not accounted any interest receipts in its accounts and M/s.Spot Spices Company has also not claimed any interest payable from its accounts. As the appellant had enough stock against the loans obtained from the bank, there was no diversion of interest bearing funds for non business purpose. Even the amount advanced

I.T.A.Nos.297,787,834, 859, 1185 & 1189/2009 ..16.. to the sister concern was only for purchasing and storing export quality black pepper. The advance was also made out of own funds of the appellant. Further, it is only a trade advance. When the appellant has not charged interest for commercial expediency, the Assessing Officer is not correct in concluding that interest has accrued to the appellant. The decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in [198 ITR 415] also supports the case of the appellant that merely because interest was paid in some years, it cannot justify the inference that there was some agreement between the parties for payment of interest. There was actually an agreement for not charging interest during the accounting period. For the above reasons, I hold that the Assessing Officer is not correct in charging interest and adding it to the income of the appellant.

The

addition

amounting

to Rs.17,10,503/- is deleted.” 11. It is the correctness of the above finding and reasoning, that was examined by the Tribunal in the course of second appeal, leading to ‘Annexure-C’ verdict. The case of the Revenue has been discussed in ‘paragraph 9’, followed by the case sought to be projected by the assessee in the subsequent paragraphs and finally, coming to a conclusion in ‘paragraph 21’ in the following terms:- “21. Next we will consider the appeal filed by the *assessee (*apparently a mistake which should have been Revenue as correctly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel) for the assessment year 1996-97 in ITA No. 341(Coch)/99. The assessee has not charged any interest for the advances/loan made during the previous year to his associate concern, M/s.Spot spices Company. There is no

I.T.A.Nos.297,787,834, 859, 1185 & 1189/2009 ..17.. written contract for advancing of money or for charging any interest thereon. The assessee is an exporter in pepper. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned Sr.Counsel, the assessee had to avail the benefit of export, as provided in section 5(3) of the C.S.T.Act, 1956. That benefit would be available to the assessee as an exporter only if the export order preceded the procurement of the exported commodity. Therefore it was in the business interests of the assessee to see that the assessee is having immediate access to the procurement of right quantity of Pepper immediately after he obtained the export order. Therefore it is understandable that the assessee had made arrangements with his associate concern, namely M/s.Spot Spices Company to procure pepper from the market and make it readily available to the assessee as and when required. It is for this purpose that the assessee had advanced money to M/s.Spot Spices Company and therefore those advances need to be considered as advances made by the assessee for carrying on his export business. As held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in 74-ITR-723 and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in 178-CTR-65, borrowed funds could be applied for business purposes, including giving interest-free advances to suppliers of goods. Therefore, there is no justification in the finding of the assessing officer that interest amount need to be estimated against the advances made by the assessee to Spot Spices Company for the reason that the assessee had availed loans from Banks and other Institutions. It is to be seen that the availing of loan from Banks and giving of advances to M/s.Spot Spices Co. are integral part of carrying on of the assessee's export business. In such circumstances, the estimation made by the assessing officer towards interest and thereafter excluding 90% on estimate in availing benefit u/s 80HHC are not at all called for. Therefore, the order of the CIT (Appeals) on that point is to be confirmed.”

I.T.A.Nos.297,787,834, 859, 1185 & 1189/2009 ..18.. The above finding and reasoning are well-based and within the four walls of law. 12. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, however, brought to our notice three judgments-one rendered by the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, P&H, J&K, H.P. and U.T. of Chandigarh Vs. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co.Ltd. [103 ITR 66] and the remaining two by Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court as well as the Delhi High Court respectively [Sushila Devi Rampuria Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (137 ITR 272) and Siddho Mal & Sons Vs. Income Tax Officer (122 ITR 839)]. The submission made by the learned Standing Counsel is with reference to the circumstances involving the “business expediency/commercial expediency”, which in fact depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition therein, but the question is, how the same would come to the rescue of the Revenue in the present case.

I.T.A.Nos.297,787,834, 859, 1185 & 1189/2009 ..19.. 13. In view of the specific discussion made by the Appellate Authority in Annexure-B order as to the factual position (with reference to the relevant records) and the affirmation given by the Tribunal in Annexure-C, it remains more a ‘question of fact’ and does not involve any question of law; much less any substantial question of law, to be dealt with under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. In the said circumstance, we are of the view that, these appeals are not matters which require interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, the Appeals stand dismissed as devoid of any merit. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE Sd/-

N.ANIL KUMAR, JUDGE skj

I.T.A.Nos.297,787,834, 859, 1185 & 1189/2009 ..20.. APPENDIX IN I.T.A.No.297/2009 PETITIONER’S ANNEXURE: ANNEXURE A COPY OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) DTD.27.10.98 FOR THE A.Y. 1996-97 ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ANNEXURE B COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.7.4.99 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOCHI. ANNEXURE C COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.8.5.2003 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN ITA. Nos.341 & 362 (Coch)/99 A.Ys.1996-97 & 1995-96. APPENDIX IN I.T.A.No.787/2009 PETITIONER’S ANNEXURE: ANNEXURE A COPY OF ORDER U/S.154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DTD.25.3.2003 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. ANNEXURE B COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.12.9.2003 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ANNEXURE C COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.1.7.2005 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN IN ITA.105/Coch/04. APPENDIX IN I.T.A.No.834/2009 PETITIONER’S ANNEXURE: ANNEXURE A COPY OF ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DTD.9.1.2002 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000. ANNEXURE B COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.12.9.2003 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ANNEXURE C COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.1.7.2005 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN IN ITA.103/Coch/04.

I.T.A.Nos.297,787,834, 859, 1185 & 1189/2009 ..21.. APPENDIX IN I.T.A.No.859/2009 PETITIONER’S ANNEXURE: ANNEXURE A COPY OF ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DTD.9.1.2002 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. ANNEXURE B COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.12.9.2003 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ANNEXURE C COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.1.7.2005 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN IN ITA.104/Coch/04. APPENDIX IN I.T.A.No.1185/2009 PETITIONER’S ANNEXURE: ANNEXURE A COPY OF ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DTD.7.11.2000 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. ANNEXURE B COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.12.9.2003 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ANNEXURE C COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.1.7.2005 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN IN ITA.102/Coch/04. APPENDIX IN I.T.A.No.1189/2009 PETITIONER’S ANNEXURE: ANNEXURE A COPY OF ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DTD.24.11.2000 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98. ANNEXURE B COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.12.9.2003 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ANNEXURE C COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.1.7.2005 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN IN ITA.101/Coch/04.