Prof Gopinath Muthukad, Trivandrum v. ITO, Trivandrum

CO 32/COCH/2009 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2011

Appeal Details

RSA Number 3221923 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AEGPM4230E
Bench Cochin
Appeal Number CO 32/COCH/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant Prof Gopinath Muthukad, Trivandrum
Respondent ITO, Trivandrum
Appeal Type Cross Objection
Pronouncement Date 18-03-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 18-03-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 07-03-2010
Next Hearing Date 07-03-2010
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 29-09-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLAT E TRIBUNAL COCHIN BEN CH COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI N.VIJAYAKUMARAN JM AND SANJAY AR ORA AM I.T.A. NO. 349/COCH/2009 & C.O. 32/COCH/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 I.T.O. WARD-1(4) TRIVANDRUM VS. SHRI GOPINATH MUTHUKAD MUTHUKAD MAGICAL ENTERTAINERS POOJAPPURA TRIVANDRUM. [PAN:AEGPM 4230E] (REVENUE-APPELLANT) (ASSESSEE -RESPONDENT) ( AND VICE VERSA) REVENUE BY SHRI SHRI T.J.VINCENT DR ASSESSEE BY SHRI T.M.SREDHARAN ADV.-AR O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS O BJECTION (C.O.) BY THE ASSESSEE ARISING OUT OF THE ALLOWANCE OF THE ASSESSEES APPE AL BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I TRIVANDRUM (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) AGAINS T THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 ('THE ACT' HEREIN AFTER) DATED 17.12.2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2003-04 VIDE ORDER DATED 1 9.1.2009. 2.1 THE SOLE ISSUE ARISING IN APPEAL; THE ASSESSEE S C.O. BEING ADMITTEDLY SUPPORTIVE IN NATURE I.E. AS CONCEDED TO BY THE LD. AR DURING H EARING IS THE AMOUNT AT WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S. 80RR OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IS A MAGICIAN BY PROFESSION RUNNING A MAGICAL TROUPE BY THE NAME M UTHUKAD MAGICAL ENTERTAINERS BASED AT TRIVANDRUM. FOR THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE HE FI LED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.10.2003 AT A NET INCOME OF ` 3 41 000/-. A SUM OF ` 52.54 LAKHS WAS DISCLOSED FROM MAGICAL SHOWS WHICH INCLUDED ` 14 98 589/- FROM SHOWS HELD ABROAD. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED AND STOOD ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S. 80RR AT THE CLAIMED AMOUNT O F ` 4 49 577/- I.E. AT THE RATE OF 30% ON THE FOREIGN `INCOME VIDE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) DATED 19.12.2005. THE ASSESSMENT ITA.NO. 349/COCH/2009 & CO 32/COCH/2009 2 WAS SUBJECT TO REVISION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT VIDE OR DER DATED 12.3.2007 ON THE BASIS THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80RR HAD TO BE RESTRICTED TO 30% OF THE FOREIGN INCOME AS AGAINST 30% OF THE FOREIGN RECEIPTS BROUGHT INTO INDIA SO THAT TH E ASSESSMENT WAS DEEMED BY THE CIT AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE R EVENUE AND ACCORDINGLY REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO RE-DO THE SAME AFRESH IN A CCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN THE ENSUING PROCEEDINGS THE AO COMPUTED THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80R R ON THE NET INCOME FROM FOREIGN SOURCES I.E. ` 5 08 610/- WORKED OUT BY DEDUCTING THE EXPENSES CL AIMED AGAINST THE FOREIGN RECEIPTS AS ALLOWED IN VIEW OF S. 80RR R. W.S. 80AB OF THE ACT. 2.2 IN APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE IN RESPECT OF I TS FOREIGN RECEIPT OF ` 14.99 LAKHS THE WHOLE OF WHICH WAS RECEIVED IN CONVERTIBLE FOREIGN EXCHANGE THE ENTIRE OF IT WAS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80RR I.E. WITHOUT DEDUCTING THE EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO THE FOREIGN RECEIPT AS THE SAME STOOD INCURRED IN INDIA IN INDIAN CURRENCY. THE PURPOSE OF S. 80RR IS TO ENCOURAGE A ND PROMOTE THE RECEIPT OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE IN THE COUNTRY AND THEREFORE THE EXPENDIT URE INCURRED IN INDIA WOULD BE IRRELEVANT. FURTHER S. 80AB WOULD NOT BE A HINDRA NCE AS THE SAME SPEAKS ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE INCOME AND NOT ITS QUANTUM. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED BY HER ON THE DECISION BY THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANUP JALOTA. AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL. 3.. BEFORE US AT THE VERY OUTSET IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE LD. AR THAT THE REVENUES APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AS THE SAME IS BARRED BY THE LATEST INSTRUCTION OF THE BOARD WHICH REVISES THE THRESHOLD LIMIT OF THE APPEALS TO BE FILED BY IT BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TO ` 3 LAKHS. THE LD. DR RESPONDED BY SUBMITTING THAT F IRSTLY THE REVENUE APPEAL IS FILED IN RESPONSE TO AN AUDIT OBJECTION AND SEC ONDLY THE LATEST CIRCULAR BY THE BOARD STATES THE DATE FROM WHICH THE SAME WOULD BE EFFECT IVE AS 9.2.2011 SO THAT THE SAME WOULD APPLY ONLY TO APPEALS FILED BEFORE THE APPELL ATE TRIBUNAL ON OR AFTER THAT DATE. 4. COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE HE WOULD SUBMI T THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS IN PURSUANCE TO THE ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE ACT WHICH S TOOD ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE SO THAT ITA.NO. 349/COCH/2009 & CO 32/COCH/2009 3 HE COULD NOT POSSIBLY OBJECT TO THE ASSESSMENT FRAM ED IN ACCORDANCE THEREWITH. FURTHER THE LAW IN THE MATTER IS TRITE AND INCOME U/S. 80RR HAS TO BE COMPUTED WITH REFERENCE TO THE INCOME DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN EXERCISE OF H IS PROFESSION FROM AMONG OTHERS A PERSON NOT RESIDENT IN INDIA. FURTHER IF ANY AMBI GUITY PERSISTS WE FIND THE SAME BEYOND DOUBT. THE LD. AR REITERATED THE ASSESSEES CASE AS ENUMERATED PER THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. 5.1 SECTION 80RR TO THE EXTENT RELEVANT REA DS AS UNDER 80RR. WHERE THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF AN INDIVIDUA L RESIDENT IN INDIA BEING AN AUTHOR PLAYWRIGHT ARTIST MUSICIAN ACTOR OR SPO RTSMAN (INCLUDING AN ATHELETE) INCLUDES ANY INCOME DERIVED BY HIM IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS PROFESSION FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF A FOREIGN STATE OR ANY PERSON NOT RE SIDENT IN INDIA THERE SHALL BE ALLOWED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE INDI VIDUAL A DEDUCTION FROM SUCH INCOME OF AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO:- (I).. (II) (III ) THIRTY PER CENT OF SUCH INCOME FOR AN ASSESSMENT YEAR BEGINNING ON THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL 2003; (IV) FIFTEEN PER CENT OF SUCH INC OME FOR AN ASSESSMENT YEAR BEGINNING ON THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL 2004 AS IS BROUGHT INTO INDIA BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN CONVERTIBLE FOREIGN EXCHANGE WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE EN D OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR OR WITHIN SUCH FURTHER PERIOD AS THE COMPETENT AUT HORITY MAY ALLOW IN THIS BEHALF AND NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR BEGINNING ON THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL 2005 AND ANY SUBSEQUENT ASS ESSMENT YEAR. SECTION 80AB IS ALSO RELEVANT AND IS RE PRODUCED:- 80AB. WHERE ANY DEDUCTION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE O R ALLOWED UNDER ANY SECTION INCLUDED IN THIS CHAPTER UNDER THE HEADING C.-DED UCTIONS IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN INCOMES IN RESPECT OF ANY INCOME OF THE NATURE SP ECIFIED IN THAT SECTION WHICH IS INCLUDED IN THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE THEN NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THAT SECTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMP UTING THE DEDUCTION UNDER THAT SECTION THE AMOUNT OF INCOME OF THAT NATURE AS CO MPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT (BEFORE MAKING ANY DEDUCTIO N UNDER THIS CHAPTER) SHALL ALONE BE DEEMED TO BE THE AMOUNT OF INCO ME OF THAT NATURE WHICH IS DERIVED OR RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WHICH IS IN CLUDED IN HIS GROSS TOTAL INCOME. ITA.NO. 349/COCH/2009 & CO 32/COCH/2009 4 5.2 A PLAIN READING OF THE DEDUCTION PROVISION MAKE S IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE DEDUCTION IS:- A) QUA INCOME DERIVED FROM A FOREIGN SOURCE ON EXERCISE O F A DESIGNATED PROFESSION; B) WITH REFERENCE TO SPECIFIED PERCENTAGE WHICH VARIES FOR DIFFERENT YEARS OF SUCH INCOME; WHERE THE SAME IS BROUGHT INTO INDIA BY OR ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE IN CONVERTIBLE FOREIGN EXCHANGE WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME AS EXT ENDED WHERE SO. 5.3 IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE SATISFIES ALL THE CONDITIONS NECESSARY FOR THE ALLOWANCE. THE ONLY DISPUTE REVOLVES AROUND THE QUA NTUM OF THE DEDUCTION WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS FOR BEING WORKED ON THE AMOUNT OF THE GROSS RECEIPT I.E. AS AGAINST INCOME . WE FIND NO BASIS IN LAW FOR THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. THE DEDUCTION IN ALL CASES IS QUA THE INCOME INCLUDED IN THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME AND AT A DEFINED PERCENTAGE THEREOF. THE BRINGING IN OF SUCH INCOME IN INDIA IN CONVERTI BLE FOREIGN EXCHANGE (WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME) REPRESENTS AN ESSENTIAL CONDITION FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF THE DEDUCTION - WHICH THE ASSESSEE SATISFIES - AND IS IN NO WAY DET ERMINATIVE OF THE QUANTUM OF THE DEDUCTION. IN A PARTICULAR CASE THE ASSESSEE MAY BR ING A PART OF HIS INCOME TO INDIA; IN ANOTHER THE SAME MAY BE RECEIVED PARTLY IN INDIAN CURRENCY. IN ALL SUCH CASES THE CONDITION OF SECTION 80RR WOULD STAND SATISFIED ONL Y TO THAT EXTENT AND BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80RR TO THE PROPORTIONATE EXTENT. TH ERE IS IN FACT NO REFERENCE AND NEITHER ANYTHING IN THE LANGUAGE TO INFER AS TO THE `GROSS RECEIPTS AS BEING THE `BASE OR THE `REFERENCE FOR COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION AS BEING C LAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. NO DOUBT IT IS ONLY THE RECEIPT NET OF ANY EXPENSES INCURRED ABRO AD (AS RS. 1.95 LACS IN THE PRESENT CASE) THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE BROUGHT INTO IN DIA IF THE DEDUCTION IS TO BE EXIGIBLE WITH REFERENCE TO THE ENTIRE QUALIFYING INCOME. SEC TION 80AB FURTHER CONTROLS THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION ELIGIBLE UNDER THE VARIOUS SEC TIONS FALLING UNDER PART B OF CHAPTER VIA WHICH DEALS WITH INCOMES OF DIFFERENT NATURES. CLEARLY THEREFORE REFERENCE TO THE WORD `NATURE THEREIN IS MADE IN THAT CONTEXT CLAR IFYING THAT IT IS ONLY THE INCOME OF THE NATURE SPECIFIED IN THE RELEVANT SECTION (AS S. 80R R) AS ACTUALLY INCLUDED IN THE `GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH SHALL FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION THERE-UNDER BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THAT NATURE CHARGED OR R ECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WHICH IS ITA.NO. 349/COCH/2009 & CO 32/COCH/2009 5 INCLUDED IN HIS GROSS TOTAL INCOME. THOUGH WE HAVE FOUND NO AMBIGUITY IN THE LANGUAGE OF S. 80RR THE MATTER STANDS CLARIFIED BEYOND ANY DOUBT BY S.80AB WHICH IS A NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE SO THAT IT WOULD PREVAIL IN CASE OF ANYTHI NG CONTRARY THERETO. HERE IT WOULD ALSO BE PERTINENT TO STATE THAT SECTION 80AB ONLY RESTRICTS THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION AVAILABLE UNDER DIFFERENT SECTIONS THE MODE AND MA NNER OF WHICH STANDS PRESCRIBED BY THE RELEVANT SECTIONS. IT IS OF PARTICULAR RELEVANC E AND OF IMPORT WHERE THE DEDUCTION (U/C VI-A) RELATES TO INCOME WHICH IS SUBJECT TO SET OFF UNDER THE AGGREGATION PROVISION/S SO THAT IT IS ONLY THE REDUCED AMOUNT I.E. AFTER SET OFF AS INCLUDED IN THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME WHICH IS DEFINED IN S. 80B(5) AS THE TOTAL INCOME A S COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT BEFORE MAKING ANY DEDUCTION U NDER CHAPTER VIA ON WHICH THE DEDUCTION WOULD BE EXIGIBLE. IN THE INSTANT CASE I T IS UNDENIABLY ONLY THE NET INCOME OF RS. 5.08 LACS THAT IS INCLUDED IN THE GROSS TOTAL I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AS SUCH IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IS NOT MAINTA INABLE IN LAW I.E. ON AN INDEPENDENT AS WELL AS COMBINED AND HARMONIOUS READING OF SS. 8 0RR AND 80AB EVEN AS WE MAY CLARIFY THAT WE DO NOT FIND MERIT IN THE REVENUES PLEA THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING ACCEPTED THE ORDER U/S. 263 COULD NOT AGITATE THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED IN PURSUANCE THERE-TO IN APPEAL. APPEAL IS A VALUABLE LEGAL RIGHT AND THEREFORE CO ULD BE CIRCUMSCRIBED ONLY BY THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS CONFERRING THE SAME. 5.4 IT MAY ALSO STAND CLARIFIED THAT OUR DECISIO N IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE WELL-SETTLED LAW REGARDING THE INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES AS WE LL AS WITH REFERENCE TO S. 80RR AND 80AB TO SOME OF WHICH WE MAY REFER AS UNDER:- H.H. SIR RAMA VARMA VS. CIT (1984) 205 ITR 433 (SC) N.N. BHAGWATI VS. CIT (2001) 247 ITR 206 (SC) IPCA LABORATORY LTD. VS. CIT (2005) 266 ITR 521 (SC) IN THE CASE LAST MENTIONED THE HONBLE S UPREME COURT SPEAKING IN THE CONTEXT OF 80HHC WHICH SECTION IS AGAIN DESIGNED TO PROMOTE E ARNINGS IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE STIPULATING THE REQUIREMENT TO BRING THE EXPORT TUR NOVER EARNED IN CONVERTIBLE FOREIGN EXCHANGE INTO INDIA (EVEN AS THE DEDUCTION IS UNARG UABLY ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE EXPORT INCOME) HELD THAT THOUGH THE DEDUCTION PROV ISIONS ARE LIABLE TO BE CONSTRUED ITA.NO. 349/COCH/2009 & CO 32/COCH/2009 6 LIBERALLY SO AS TO SUB-SERVE THE INTENDED OBJECTIV E/S THE DEDUCTION IN ALL CASES HAS TO BE ALLOWED ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE LANGUAGE AND IN TERMS OF THE RELEVANT SECTION. THE SAID DECISION IS RELEVANT ON FACTS AS WELL; THE DED UCTION IN THAT CASE BEING CLAIMED AT A HIGHER SUM WITH REFERENCE TO THE PURPORTED OBJECTIV E BY IGNORING THE LOSS ARISING ON A CATEGORY OF EXPORT TRANSACTIONS WHICH THE COURT FO UND AS IMPERMISSIBLE AND CONTRARY TO THE PLAIN TERMS OF THE SECTION. THE LANGUAGE OF TH E STATUTE CANNOT IN ANY CASE BE DISREGARDED ON CONSIDERATION OF POLICY WHICH MUST TO HAVE EFFECT FIND EXPRESSION IN THE CLEAR LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE. IN FACT WITH REFER ENCE TO POLICY OF ENCOURAGEMENT OF EXPORTS IT WOULD SUFFICE TO SAY THAT THE PROVISION OF S. 80RR AS ALSO OTHERS PROVIDING EXEMPTION QUA INCOME EARNED AND BROUGHT IN CONVERTIBLE FOREIGN E XCHANGE IS SUBJECT TO A SUNSET CLAUSE WHEREBY THIS INCENTIVE IS GRADUALL Y WITHDRAWN OVER A PERIOD; THE DEDUCTION FOR THE CURRENT YEAR BEING LIMITED TO 30% . WE MAY BEFORE PARTING WITH THE MATTER ALSO ADD T HAT THOUGH THE ORDER BY THE LD. CIT(A) REFERS TO A DECISION BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENC H THE SAME IS SANS ANY CITATION AND NEITHER WAS THE SAME REFERRED TO BY THE LD. AR DURI NG THE HEARING. AS SUCH WE ARE UNABLE TO CONSIDER THE SAME. REFERENCE TO A DECISION WITH OUT CITATION OR DISCUSSING ITS APPLICABILITY IS OF NO MOMENT AND FOR WHICH REFER ENCE MAY BE MADE TO INTER ALIA THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SAHNEY STEEL & PRESS WORKS V. CIT (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SC). WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 6. COMING TO THE ASSESSEES C.O. WE FIND IT TO BE SUPPORTIVE EVEN AS IT RAISES THE GROUND AS TO THE MAINTAINABILITY OF THE REVENUES A PPEAL IN VIEW OF THE CBDT INSTRUCTION QUA MONETARY LIMIT. THE INSTRUCTION APPLICABLE IS INST RUCTION NO. 5/2008 WHICH IS EFFECTIVE 15/5/2008 SO THAT IT WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO ALL APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON OR AFTER THAT DATE. THE SAME PROVIDES A MONETARY LIMIT OF RS. 2.0 LACS FOR THE FILING OF APPEALS BY THE REVENUE BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL. BEING ISSUED UNDER THE STATUTORY MANDATE OF S. 268A IT IS BINDING ON THE TRIBUNAL. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SAME. IT NOWHERE EXCLUDES THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ON ACCEPTANCE OF A REVENUE AUDIT OBJECTION/S EVEN AS THERE IS NOTHING ON RECO RD TO SHOW THAT IT IS SO IN THE INSTANT CASE. IT ALSO DOES NOT PROVIDE UNLIKE THE PRECEDIN G INSTRUCTIONS IN THE MATTER - WHICH IT SUPERSEDES - EXCEPTION FOR CASES INVOLVING A QUESTI ON OF LAW SO THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL ITA.NO. 349/COCH/2009 & CO 32/COCH/2009 7 WOULD NOT STAND TO BE SAVED ON THAT COUNT. THE MONE TARY LIMIT IS WITH REFERENCE TO THE `TAX EFFECT WHICH TERM STANDS EXPLAINED THEREIN. THE REVENUE EFFECT OF THE PRESENT APPEAL IS RS. 1 70 972/- SO THAT THE TAX-EFFECT IS CLEAR LY BELOW RS. 2.0 LACS MAKING THE INSTRUCTION APPLICABLE THERETO. 7. AS THE INSTANT APPEAL WAS ARGUED AND HEARD ON MERITS WE HAVE CONSIDERED IT INCUMBENT TO DEAL WITH THE SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL I.E. ON MERITS EVEN AS THE SAME HAS TO IN ANY CASE BE DECIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LA W SO THAT WHERE THE REVENUES APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE THERE-UNDER AS IN THE INSTANT CASE IT CANNOT SUSTAIN. THIS IS MORE SO IN THE PRESENT CASE; THE ASSESSEE HAVING PROJECTED THI S AS ONE ITS GRIEVANCES TO THE REVENUES APPEAL. WE HOLD ACCORDINGLY. 8. IN THE RESULT THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISS ED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND THE ASSESSEES C.O. IS ALLOWED. SD/- SD/- (N.VIJAYAKUMARAN) (SANJAY ARORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: ERNAKULAM DATED: 18TH MARCH 2011 GJ COPY TO: 1 SHRI GOPINATH MUTHUKAD MUTHUKAD MAGICAL ENTERTA INERS POOJAPPURA TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1(4) TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I TRIV ANDRUM. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX TRIVANDRUM. 5. D.R. I.T.A.T. COCHIN BENCH COCHIN. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (ASSIST ANT REGISTRAR) ITA.NO. 349/COCH/2009 & CO 32/COCH/2009 8