ITO, Trichur v. Smt.Mariamma Kurian, Trichur

ITA 214/COCH/2012 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 21421914 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AQEPK0128K
Bench Cochin
Appeal Number ITA 214/COCH/2012
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant ITO, Trichur
Respondent Smt.Mariamma Kurian, Trichur
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-07-2013
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 31-07-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 08-07-2013
Next Hearing Date 08-07-2013
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 16-07-2012
Judgment Text
1 ITA NO. 214/COCH/2012 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.A NO. 214/COCH/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) ITO WD.2(2) VS SMT. MARIAMMA KURIAN WD.2(2) THRISSUR 13/57(1) VALAYIL HOUSE AYYANTHOLE P.O THRISSUR PAN : AQEPK0128K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT. S VIJAYAPRABHA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI JOSE KAPPAN DATE OF HEARING : 08-07-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31-07-2013 O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-I KOCHI DATED 26-04-2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 -06. 2. SMT. VIJAYAPRABHA THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD A PROPERTY ON 31-01-2005 AND DECLARED THE SALE CONSID ERATION AT RS.21 25 000. HOWEVER THE PURCHASER SHRI P.A. NA USHAD FILED THE INCOME-TAX RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 OFFER ING SHORT TERM CAPITAL 2 ITA NO. 214/COCH/2012 GAIN ON RESALE OF THE SAID PROPERTY ON 05-10-2005 T O SHRI P.M. ABUBACKER SHOWING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ACTUAL COST OF A CQUISITION PAID TO THE PRESENT ASSESSEE AT RS.61 20 000 AND ALSO THE CHARG ES OF RS.5 LAKHS PAID TO THE TENANT. IN VIEW OF THIS THE ASSESSING OFFI CER PROPOSED TO ASSESS THE UNDISCLOSED RECEIPT OF RS.39 95 000 RECEIVED FROM S HRI P.A. NAUSHAD FOR SALE OF PROPERTY AS INCOME. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SHE RECEIVED ONLY RS.21 25 000 WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. SHRI P.A. NAUSHAD HAS GIVEN ALL THE DETAILS REGARDING TH E CHEQUE PAYMENT WHICH WAS EXTRACTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. REFERRING TO THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY SHRI P.A. NAUSH AD THE COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 50 OF THE PAPER BOOK THE LD.DR S UBMITTED THAT THE SAID SHRI P.A. NAUSHAD ADMITTED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS PU RCHASED BY HIM FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 61 20 000 AND THE VERY SAME PR OPERTY OF 17 CENTS OF LAND WAS SOLD TO SHRI P.M. ABUBACKER FOR RS.78 20 0 00. THE DETAILS OF PAYMENT ARE DISCLOSED AS PART OF THE AFFIDAVIT. ON EXAMINATION THE VERY SAME SHRI P.A. NAUSHAD ADMITTED THAT HE PURCHASED T HE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE LAND AT RS.3 60 000 PER CENT AND SOLD THE SAME AT RS.4 60 000 PER CENT. THE LD.DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSE ES OWN SON SHRI ALEXANDER P KURIAN CLARIFIED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD BY HIS MOTHER @ RS.3 60 000 PER CENT AND THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION WA S RS.61 20 000. THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY MADE T HE ADDITION WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME. 3 ITA NO. 214/COCH/2012 3. ON THE CONTRARY SHRI JOSE KAPPAN THE LD.REPRES ENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS 80 YEARS O LD LADY AND THE PROPERTY WAS IN FACT SOLD FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.21 25 000 ONLY WHICH WAS IMMEDIATELY DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON TH E DATE OF REGISTRATION ITSELF (COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 77 OF TH E PAPER BOOK). THE PURCHASER IN ORDER TO SAVE THE CAPITAL GAIN TAX MA DE A FALSE CLAIM BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE PURCHASED THE PROPERT Y FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 61 20 000. IN THE AFFIDAVIT SAID TO BE FILED B Y THE PURCHASER SHRI P.A. NAUSHAD (COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 50 OF T HE PAPER BOOK) HE CLAIMED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED FOR RS.61 2 0 000 AND SOLD THE SAME FOR RS.78 20 000. THE SAID SHRI P.A. NAUSHAD FURTHER CLAIMS THAT THE AMOUNT WAS PAID FROM THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM SHRI ABOOBACKER. THE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS ARE AVAILABLE ON PAGE 52 OF THE PAPER BOOK. REFERRING TO THE DETAILS OF THE PAYMENT THE LD.REPRESENTATIV E FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNTS / CASH ARE CLAIMED TO HA VE BEEN WITHDRAWN IN 2003 AND 2004. IT IS NOT KNOWN HOW THE CASH WITHDR AWN IN THE YEARS 2003 AND 2004 WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHA SING THE PROPERTY IN THE YEAR 2005. REFERRING TO THE COPY OF THE SALE D EED DATED 31-01-2005 THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT WHAT WAS WITHD RAWN ON 31-01-2005 AND THE DETAILS OF PAYMENT REFERRED TO IN THE AFFID AVIT OF SHRI P.A. NOUSAD FROM SOUTH INDIAN BANK IS ONLY RS.26 00 000. THE R EST OF THE AMOUNTS WERE WITHDRAWN FROM BANK IN THE YEARS 2003 AND 2004 . ACCORDING TO THE 4 ITA NO. 214/COCH/2012 LD.REPRESENTATIVE THE SALE DEED DATED 31-01-2005 D OES NOT SAY THAT SALE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID IN INSTALMENTS. ACCORDING T O THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE THE SALE DEED REFERS SINGLE PAYMENT BY CASH. REFER RING TO THE STATEMENT OF SHRI P.A. NAUSHAD THE COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE A T PAGE 53 OF THE PAPER BOOK THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT SHRI P.A . NAUSHAD CLAIMS THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE IN CASH AS WELL AS BY CHEQUE. REFERRING TO THE CROSS EXAMINATION OF SHRI P.A. NAUSHAD THE LD.REPR ESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE DEAL WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH SHRI P.A. NOUSADS FRIENDS S/SHRI ABDUL AZE EZ AND AA ABDUL NAZIR. HE ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE ENTIRE PAYMENTS WE RE MADE IN SIX INSTALMENTS. REFERRING TO THE COPY OF THE REGISTER ED SALE DEED THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT T HE LAND WAS SOLD BY MEANS OF TWO REGISTERED SALE DEEDS ONE WAS FOR RS. 8 75 000; AND ANOTHER WAS FOR RS.12 50 000. THE REGISTERED SALE DEEDS DO NOT INDICATE THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN INSTALMENTS. THE SALE DEED C LEARLY INDICATES THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE ON 31-01-2005 IN SINGLE INST ALMENT WHEN THE DOCUMENT WAS REGISTERED. THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERAT ION FOR TWO SALE DEED IS RS.21 25 000. THEREFORE IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID IN SIX INSTALMENTS AS CLAIMED BY SHRI P.A. NAUSHAD. THOUGH SHRI P.A. NAUSHAD CLAIMED THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE THRO UGH CASH AND CHEQUE ON CROSS EXAMINATION HE CLAIMS THAT HE WAS NOT REMEMBERING WHETHER IT WAS PAID BY CASH OR CHEQUE. SHRI P.A. NAUSHAD FURTHER 5 ITA NO. 214/COCH/2012 CLARIFIED THAT AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION OF DOCUM ENTS A SUM OF RS.26 LAKHS WAS PAID BY CHEQUE AND HE WAS NOT SURE HOW THE BALA NCE AMOUNT WAS PAID. WHEN IT WAS POINTED OUT TO SHRI P.A. NAUSHAD THAT RS.26 LAKHS HE WAS REFERRING TO WAS ONLY CASH WITHDRAWAL AND HOW H E CLAIMED THAT IT WAS PAID BY CHEQUE HE SIMPLY SAYS THAT HE IS NOT REMEM BERING. HOWEVER SHRI P.A. NAUSHAD CLAIMS THAT HE ENTRUSTED THE AMOUNT TO S/SHRI ABDUL AZEEZ AND AA ABDUL NAZIR AND THEY WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR MA KING THE PAYMENT. HE WAS NOT EVEN REMEMBERING THE TIME GAP BETWEEN TH E DATE OF AGREEMENT AND DATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE DOCUMENT. THEREFORE ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE THIS STATEMENT OF SHRI P. A. NAUSHAD CLAIMING THAT THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED FOR RS.61 20 000 IS ONLY TO REDUCE HIS CAPITAL GAIN TAX ON SALE OF THE VERY SAME PROPERTY. THEREF ORE THE STATEMENT OF SHRI P.A. NAUSHAD ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATI VE HAS TO BE IGNORED. REFERRING TO THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ABDUL AZEEZ TH E LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SHRI ABDUL AZEEZ ADMITT ED THAT THE DOCUMENT WAS REGISTERED WITHIN FOUR TO SIX MONTHS FROM THE D ATE OF AGREEMENT. WHEN THE AGREEMENT ITSELF WAS MADE JUST BEFORE FOUR TO SIX MONTHS IT IS NOT KNOWN HOW THE AMOUNT SWITHDRAWN IN 2003 AND 2004 AN D COULD HAVE BEEN PAID TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESEN TATIVE THIS CLAIM MADE BY SHRI P.A. NAUSHAD WAS TO REDUCE THE CAPITAL GAIN TAX BY TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN BY HIM FROM THE B ANK ACCOUNT. AT THE BEST THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT HE MIGHT HAVE USED THE AMOUNT 6 ITA NO. 214/COCH/2012 FOR SOME OTHER PURPOSE BUT NOW TO REDUCE THE TAX L IABILITY HE IS CLAIMING THAT IT WAS PAID TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH S/SHRI ABD UL AZEEZ AND AA ABDUL NAZIR. THOUGH SHRI P.A. NAUSHAD CLAIMS THAT THE EN TIRE DEAL WAS THROUGH S/SHRI ABDUL AZEEZ AND AA ABDUL NAZIR DURING THE C OURSE OF CROSS EXAMINATION THEY CLAIM THAT THEY DO NOT KNOW IN WHO SE NAME THE DOCUMENT WAS REGISTERED. REFERRING TO THE STATEMEN T OF SHRI ABDUL NAZIR THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED TH AT SHRI ABDUL NAZIR CLAIMS THAT A SUM OF RS.5 LAKHS WAS GIVEN IN ADVANC E AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.56 20 000 WAS GIVEN IN CASH. THIS STA TEMENT IS CONTRADICTORY TO THE STATEMENTS MADE BY SHRI P.A. N AUSHAD. REFERRING TO THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ABDUL NAZIR THE LD.REPRESENT ATIVE SUBMITTED THAT A SUM OF RS.5 LAKHS WAS PAID TO ASSESSEES SON SHRI A LEXANDER FOR WITHDRAWING THE CIVIL SUIT FILED BY HIM AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. HE CLAIMS THAT THE SAID SUM OF RS.5 LAKHS WAS PAID IN CASH. THERE FORE THE STATEMENT MADE EARLIER THAT A SUM OF RS.26 LAKHS WAS PAID TO THE ASSESEE BY CHEQUE ALSO NOT CORRECT BECAUSE WHAT WAS WITHDRAWN FROM BA NK ON 31-01-2005 IS ONLY RS.26 LAKHS. REFERRING TO THE CROSS EXAMINATI ON OF SHRI ABDUL NAZIR THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT HE CLAIMS THAT THE TIME GAP BETWEEN AGREEMENT AND DATE OF REGISTRATION IS FOUR MONTHS. THEREFORE ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY FOUN D THAT JUST TO SAVE THE CAPITAL GAIN TAX SHRI P.A. NUSHAD FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 CLAIMING THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS 7 ITA NO. 214/COCH/2012 RS.61 20 000. SINCE THERE WAS DISPUTE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEES SON SHRI ALEXANDAR KURIAN AND ASSESSEE THE STATEMENT OF SHR I ALEXANDAR KURIAN CANNOT BE A BASIS FOR TAKING ANY DECISION. FURTHER MORE HE HAS NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE SALE CONSIDERATION. THEREFOR E PLACING RELIANCE ON THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ALEXANDAR KURIAN IS NOT JUSTI FIED. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ONLY DISPUTE IS REGARDING THE SALE CONSIDERATION FOR SALE OF 17 CENTS OF LAND BY MEANS OF TWO DOCUMENTS ON 31-01-2005. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IT WAS RS. 21 25 000 WHEREAS THE DEPARTMENT CLAIMS THAT IT WAS RS.61 20 000. ON E OF THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT NO.825/2005 DATED 31-05-2005 DISCLOSES THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.8 75 000 AND THE OTHER DOCUMENT NO.826/2005 A LSO DATED 31-01- 2005 DISCLOSES THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.12 50 0 00. THEREFORE BOTH THE DOCUMENTS DISCLOSE THE AGGREGATE SALE CONSIDERA TION OF RS.21 25 000. THESE DOCUMENTS DO NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE ADVAN CE PAYMENT OR PAYMENT OF SALE CONSIDERATION BY INSTALMENTS. THER EFORE PRIMA FACIE IT APPEARS THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID ON THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF THE SALE DEED. REFERRING TO THE WITHDRAWALS SAID T O BE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THE DETAILS OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE 52 OF PAPER BOOK AS PART OF THE AFFIDAVIT THE DEPARTMENT CLAIMS THAT T HE TOTAL CONSIDERATION WAS RS.61 20 000 INCLUDING THE AMOUNT PAID TO ASSESSEE S SON SHRI ALEXANDER 8 ITA NO. 214/COCH/2012 KURIAN FOR VACATING THE PREMISES AND WITHDRAWING TH E CIVIL SUIT AGAINST HIS MOTHER. ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEES SON HAS NOT CO ME IN THE PICTURE IN THE COURSE OF THE TRANSACTION AND THE ENTIRE TRANSACTIO N WAS MADE THROUGH SHRI ABDUL AZEEZ. THAT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ENTIRE DE AL WAS COMPLETED WITHIN FOUR TO SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF AGREEMENT. THE REFORE THE TIME GAP BETWEEN THE AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASING THE PROPERTY A ND THE REGISTERED SALE DEEDS IS ONLY FOUR TO SIX MONTHS. WHEN THE TIME GA P FOR EXECUTING THE SALE DEED IS ONLY FOUR TO SIX MONTHS IT IS NOT KNOWN HO W SHRI P.A. NAUSHAD CLAIMS THAT THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN IN THE YEAR 2003 A ND 2004 WAS PAID TO THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS SALE CONSIDERATION. SHRI P.A. NAUSHAD CLAIMS THAT HE WITHDREW RS.10 LAKHS ON 19-11-2003 WHEN SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS NOT IN CONTEMPLATION. THEREFORE THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN ON 19-11-2003 OF RS.10 LAKHS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PAID TO THE ASSESSE E AT ALL. SIMILARLY THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN UPTO 02-07-2004 THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PAID TO THE ASS ESSEE FOR PURCHASING THE PROPERTY. SINCE THESE WITHDRAWALS ARE MADE BEYOND THE PERIOD OF FOUR TO SIX MONTHS AS ADMITTED BY SHRI ABDUL NAZIR AND SHRI ABDUL AZEEZ. THE PURCHASER SHRI P.A. NAUSHAD COULD NOT EVEN SAY THA T HOW RS.26 LAKHS WAS PAID ON 31-01-2005. THE DETAILS AVAILABLE IN T HE BANK ACCOUNT CLEARLY SHOW THAT WHAT WAS WITHDRAWN IS ONLY CASH. BUT THE PURCHASER SHRI P.A. NAUSHAD CLAIMS THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID BY CHEQUE. THIS IS A 9 ITA NO. 214/COCH/2012 CONTRADICTORY STATEMENT WHICH GOES TO DISCREDIT THE STATEMENT MADE BY SHRI P.A. NAUSHAD. 5. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THERE WAS A LITIG ATION GOING ON BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND HER SON. THE PAYMENT OF RS.5 LAKH S WAS SAID TO BE PAID BY THE PURCHASER ONLY FOR WITHDRAWAL OF THE CASE AN D VACATING THE PREMISES. THEREFORE THE STATEMENT MADE BY ASSESSE ES SON IS MOTIVATED BIASED AND ALSO LACKS CONFIDENCE. FURTHERMORE THE ASSESSEES SON HAS NO FIRST HAND INFORMATION ABOUT THE TRANSACTION. T HE ENTIRE TRANSACTION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH SHRI ABDUL AZEEZ AND S HRI ABDUL NAZIR. PROBABLY THE PURCHASER SHRI P.A. NAUSHAD MIGHT HAV E PAID THE MONEY TO SHRI ABDUL NAZIR AND SHRI ABDUL AZEEZ BEING THE PER SONS IN THE REAL ESTATE BUSINESS. THE QUESTION BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS NOT THAT HOW MUCH AMOUNT WAS PAID BY SHRI P.A. NAUSHAD TO SHRI ABDUL AZEEZ A ND SHRI ABDUL NAZIR; BUT THE QUESTION IS HOW MUCH MONEY WAS PAID TO THE ASSESSEE BY SHRI P.A. NAUSHAD TOWARDS THE SALE CONSIDERATION FOR PUR CHASE OF THE PROPERTY? IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL TO SAY THAT ANYTHING OVER AND ABOVE THE CONSIDERATION DISCLOSED IN THE SALE DEED IS PAID TO THE ASSESSEE THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT ON PRESU MPTION THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION. THE AMOUNT SAID TO BE WITHDRAWN FROM 19-11-2013 TO 02-07- 2004 FROM THE BANK AS DISCLOSED IN AFFIDAVIT BY SHR I P.A. NAUSHAD COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE WITH SHRI P.A. NAUSHAD FOR MAKING THE PAYMENT 10 ITA NO. 214/COCH/2012 ON 31-01-2005. KEEPING LAKHS AND LAKHS OF RUPEES I N THE CUSTODY OF INDIVIDUAL IS AGAINST THE NORMAL HUMAN BEHAVIOR. N O NORMAL HUMAN BEING WOULD KEEP LAKHS AND LAKHS OF RUPEES IN HIS HOUSE A FTER WITHDRAWING THE SAME FROM THE BANK. MOREOVER THE TIME GAP BETWEEN THE AGREEMENT AND DATE OF EXECUTION OF SALE DEED IS FOUR TO SIX MONTH S. THEREFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE AMOU NT WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK WAS NOT AVAILABLE FOR MAKING THE PAYMENT ON 31 -01-2005 TOWARDS THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY. THE ADDITION C OULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF SHRI P.A. NAUSHAD IF PROPER ENQUIRY WA S CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. UNFORTUNATELY THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS NOT MADE ANY INVESTIGATION WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM MADE BY SHRI P.A. NAUSHAD. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CO NSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY OBSERVED THAT IN ORDER TO SAVE T HE CAPITAL GAIN TAX SHRI P.A. NAUSHAD CLAIMS THAT SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RS. 61 20 000. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY THE SAM E IS CONFIRMED. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 31 ST JULY 2013. SD/- SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN DT : 31 ST JULY 2013 PK/- 11 ITA NO. 214/COCH/2012 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. THE DR (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH