Ita/106/2016 Of E.shamsudeen v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI TUESDAY, THE 26 DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1943 ITA NO. 90 OF 2016 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 362/2015 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/S: E.SHAMSUDEENKONCHERIL VEGETABLES, EDAPALLYKOTTA, KOLLAM. BY ADVS.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIARSRI.P.BENNY THOMASSRI.K.JOHN MATHAISRI.JOSON MANAVALANSRI.KURYAN THOMASSRI.RAJA KANNAN RESPONDENT/S: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCR BUILDINGS, IS PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682 018. SR ADV. P.K.R MENON AND SC JOSE JOSEPH FOR THE RESPONDENTS THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.10.2021, ALONGWITH ITA.91/2016, 96/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJITUESDAY, THE 26 DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1943 ITA NO. 91 OF 2016 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 420/2015 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHINBENCH, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/S: E.SHAMSUDEENKONCHERIL VEGETABLES, EDAPALLYKOTTA,KOLLAM. BY ADVS.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIARSRI.P.BENNY THOMASSRI.K.JOHN MATHAISRI.JOSON MANAVALANSRI.KURYAN THOMASSRI.RAJA KANNAN RESPONDENT/S: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCR BUILDINGS, IS PRESS ROAD,ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682018. SR ADV. P.K.R MENON AND SC JOSE JOSEPH FOR THE RESPONDENTS THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON26.10.2021, ALONG WITH ITA.90/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ONTHE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ITA No. 90 of 2016 & Con.cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJITUESDAY, THE 26 DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1943 ITA NO. 96 OF 2016 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 419/2015 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHINBENCH, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/S: E.SHAMSUDHEEN, KONCHERIL VEGETABLES, EDAPPALLYKOTA, KOLLAM. BY ADVS.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIARSRI.P.BENNY THOMASSRI.K.JOHN MATHAISRI.JOSON MANAVALANSRI.KURYAN THOMASSRI.RAJA KANNAN RESPONDENT/S: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C R BUILDINGS, I S PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 018 SR ADV. P.K.R MENON AND SC JOSE JOSEPH FOR THE RESPONDENTS THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON26.10.2021, ALONG WITH ITA.90/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ONTHE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -4- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJITUESDAY, THE 26 DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1943 ITA NO. 105 OF 2016 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 417/2015 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHINBENCH, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/S: E.SHAMSUDEENKONCHERIL VEGETABLES, EDAPALLYKOTTA, KOLLAM. BY ADVS.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIARSRI.P.BENNY THOMASSRI.K.JOHN MATHAISRI.JOSON MANAVALANSRI.KURYAN THOMASSRI.RAJA KANNAN RESPONDENT/S: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C.R.BUILDINGS, I.S PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI- 682 018. SR ADV. P.K.R MENON AND SC JOSE JOSEPH FOR THE RESPONDENTS THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.10.2021,ALONG WITH ITA.90/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAMEDAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ITA No. 90 of 2016 & Con.cases -5- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJITUESDAY, THE 26 DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1943 ITA NO. 106 OF 2016 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 418/2015 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHINBENCH, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/S: E.SHAMSUDEENKONCHERIL VEGETABLES, EDAPALLYKOTTA, KOLLAM RESPONDENT/S: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C.R.BUILDINGS, I.S PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI- 682 018. SR ADV. P.K.R MENON AND SC JOSE JOSEPH FOR THE RESPONDENTS THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.10.2021,ALONG WITH ITA.90/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAMEDAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ITA No. 90 of 2016 & Con.cases -5- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJITUESDAY, THE 26 DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1943 ITA NO. 106 OF 2016 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 418/2015 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHINBENCH, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/S: E.SHAMSUDEENKONCHERIL VEGETABLES, EDAPALLYKOTTA, KOLLAM BY ADVS.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIARSRI.P.BENNY THOMASSRI.K.JOHN MATHAISRI.JOSON MANAVALANSRI.KURYAN THOMASSRI.RAJA KANNAN RESPONDENT/S: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXC.R. BUILDINGS,IS PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI- 682 018 SR ADV. P.K.R MENON AND SC JOSE JOSEPH FOR THE RESPONDENTS THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON26.10.2021, ALONG WITH ITA.90/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ONTHE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ITA No. 90 of 2016 & Con.cases J U D G M E N T [ITA Nos.90/2016, 91/2016, 96/2016, 105/2016, 106/2016] S.V.Bhatti,J. Heard learned counsel Mr.Kuryan Thomas for the appellantand learned Senior counsel Mr.P.K.R. Menon for the respondent. 2.E.Shamsudeen/Assessee is the appellant. TheCommissioner of Income Tax, Ernakulam/Revenue is therespondent. The assessee being aggrieved by the common orderdated 01.02.2016 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CochinBench, filed the appeals before this Court under Section 260 A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). The details of theorders and the appeals therefrom are stated thus: -7- 2.2The questions of law raised in one of the appeals, areexcerpted hereunder: I.T.A No.90 of 2016 “i. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, theAppellate Tribunal was justified in holding that Section 143(2)notice is not required to be issued in the case of anassessment under Section 153A of the Act? ii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, theAppellate Tribunal ought to have held that the assessmentcompleted under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) isillegal and void ab initio, since notice under Section 143(2),based on which the assessment was initiated, was issuedbeyond the time limit stipulated under the proviso to Section143(2), and hence time-barred? iii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, theAppellate tribunal was justified in relying on the decision inAshok Chaddha CIT, reported in (2011) 337 ITR 399 (Delhi);which was rendered in a clearly distinguishable set of factsand not applicable to the case of the appellant? iv. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, ought not the the Appellate Tribunal, erred in interpreting Section153A and Section 143, more particularly, when the assessingauthority completed the assessment by resorting to Section143, vis-à-vis Section 153A of the Act? v. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, oughtnot the Tribunal erred in passing the order, based ondecisions, not supplied at the time of final hearing, andthereby the appellant was denied an effective opportunity todistinguish the said decisions, relied on for passing theimpugned order? vi. Is not the finding of fact by the Appellate Tribunalerroneous and perverse, in the light of the factual and legalaspects involved?” 3.On 02.08.2006 search under Section 132 of the Act was iv. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, ought not the the Appellate Tribunal, erred in interpreting Section153A and Section 143, more particularly, when the assessingauthority completed the assessment by resorting to Section143, vis-à-vis Section 153A of the Act? v. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, oughtnot the Tribunal erred in passing the order, based ondecisions, not supplied at the time of final hearing, andthereby the appellant was denied an effective opportunity todistinguish the said decisions, relied on for passing theimpugned order? vi. Is not the finding of fact by the Appellate Tribunalerroneous and perverse, in the light of the factual and legalaspects involved?” 3.On 02.08.2006 search under Section 132 of the Act was carried out at the business premises and the residence of theassessee. On 14.02.2007 notice under Section 153A of the Actwas issued covering block assessment years 2001-02 to 2006-07.On 16.03.2007 the assessee filed return for the block assessmentyears referred to above. On 30.05.2008 notice under Section143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. The revenueaccepted the return filed by the assessee for the assessment year2002-03. Hence the said return is not the subject matter offurther proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax orthe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. ITA No. 90 of 2016 & Con.cases 3.1The Assessing Officer through the assessment order inAnnexure-A determined the net total income of the assessee andthe balance tax payable by the assessee for each one of theassessment years. The assessee being aggrieved by theassessment order in Annexure-A, filed appeal before theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (for short, 'CIT(A)'), andCIT(A) allowed the appeals filed by the assessee in Annexure-Border. The CIT(A) while allowing the appeals filed by theassessee, held that the notice dated 30.05.2008 was issued underSection 143(2), beyond the statutory period prescribed in theproviso to Section 143(2) of the Act. The Revenue filed appeal,assailing the order in Annexure-B before the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal) which resulted inAnneuxre- E order dated 01.02.2016. The Tribunal relied on thejudgment reported in Ashok Chaddha v. Income Tax Officer[1]and also the view taken by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(Lucknow Bench) and allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue. ITA No. 90 of 2016 & Con.cases -10- The effect of the above consideration is that the infraction nowpointed out by reference to the proviso to Section 143(2) isunavailable to search assessment initiated under Section 153A ofthe Act. It is contextual to refer at this stage of our judgmentthat the view taken by the judgment in Ashok Chaddha case wastaken in the reported cases in Tarsem Singla v. DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax[2] and Commissioner of IncomeTax v. Promy Kuriakose[3]. The matter could have been restedwithout further consideration by merely referring to the viewtaken in the aforementioned judgments and dismissing theappeals. 4. Mr.Kuryan Thomas argues that Section 153A(1)contains a non-obstante clause and expressly excludes Sections139, 147, 149, 159, 151, and 153 of the Act. The exclusion isconfined to the Sections referred to above and shall not beunderstood as excluding all other provisions of the Act. Hence 2[2016] 385 ITR 138 (P&H)3[2016] 386 ITR 597( Ker.)3[2016] 386 ITR 597( Ker.) ITA No. 90 of 2016 & Con.cases -11- 4. Mr.Kuryan Thomas argues that Section 153A(1)contains a non-obstante clause and expressly excludes Sections139, 147, 149, 159, 151, and 153 of the Act. The exclusion isconfined to the Sections referred to above and shall not beunderstood as excluding all other provisions of the Act. Hence 2[2016] 385 ITR 138 (P&H)3[2016] 386 ITR 597( Ker.)3[2016] 386 ITR 597( Ker.) ITA No. 90 of 2016 & Con.cases -11- in an assessment under Section 153A, which is again on accountof the search under Section 132, all provisions meant forassessment of escaped income would be applicable. Theexplanation appended to Section 153A is yet another indicator insupport of the above argument that the notice ought to havebeen issued within the stipulated period, which could be either,six months or twelve months, however, either way the issuednotice is beyond twelve months and therefore, the assessmentproceedings are illegal. He argues that the return dated16.03.2007 is a return furnished under Section 139 and in theassessment initiated thereon notices under Section 143(2) oughtto have been issued within the timeline stipulated by the proviso.5.Learned Senior counsel Mr.P.K.R Menon argues thatSection 153A deals with the assessment in case of the search orrequisition. Section 153A juxtaposed with the timeline stipulatedin Section 143(2) of the Act has been considered by the reportedjudgments (supra). He argues that the distinction now sought to ITA No. 90 of 2016 & Con.cases be introduced by the assessee is unsustainable inasmuch asassuming that an explanation is in the nature of clearing up theambiguity in the main provision or explanation can't add to andwiden the scope of the main section. Still, to advance thepresent contention, the explanation is read in such a manner bythe assessee, ignoring the words in explanation (i) namely “saveas otherwise provided in this Section” and therefore theapplicability of Sections 153B, 153C, all other provision of the Actwould apply. Therefore, the constitution placed by the assesseeon explanation to Section 153A ignores what is explicitly savedby the very explanation. No meaning much less a meaningavailable from a plain reading of Section 153A is arrived at byignoring the words “save as otherwise provided in this Section”.According to learned counsel, Ashok Chaddha case has laid downthe correct principles of constitution of Section 153A of the Actand the questions are squarely covered against the assessee bythe judgments in Ashok Chaddha, Tarsem Singla and Promy ITA No. 90 of 2016 & Con.cases Kuriakose cases (supra). 5.1. The learned Senior counsel concludes his arguments that Section 153A as has been held by the decisions referred toabove, is an assessment pursuant to search and requisition underSection 132, the procedure is completely dealt with by Section153A and therefore the argument by referring to the explanationis untenable and unavailable. He prays for dismissing theappeals. 6.We have referred to the arguments advanced onbehalf of the assessee and it could briefly be stated that the veryargument of the assessee that the explanation to a statutoryprovision may fulfill the purpose of clearing up the ambiguity orcan't add to or widen the scope of the main section, thereby theprocedure in the assessment under Section 153A is as otherwiseprovided in this Section is not a complete legal argument, byapplying explanation to Section 153A of the Act. The argumentof assessee as pointed out by Mr.P.K.R Menon ignores the ITA No. 90 of 2016 & Con.cases -14- presence of the words “save as otherwise provided in thisSection i.e., Section 153A”. The plain reading of explanationleads to the very same conclusion as reached in the reportedcasesinTarsem Singla and Promy Kuriakose (supra). Theexplanation, in the final analysis of the scheme of Section 153A,does not in any manner expand the meaning, including therequirement of Section 143 (2) of the Act. ITA No. 90 of 2016 & Con.cases -14- presence of the words “save as otherwise provided in thisSection i.e., Section 153A”. The plain reading of explanationleads to the very same conclusion as reached in the reportedcasesinTarsem Singla and Promy Kuriakose (supra). Theexplanation, in the final analysis of the scheme of Section 153A,does not in any manner expand the meaning, including therequirement of Section 143 (2) of the Act. For the above reasons and discussions, the questions areanswered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue.Income Tax Appeals fail, dismissed accordingly. Sd/-S.V.BHATTIJUDGE Sd/-BASANT BALAJIJUDGE APPENDIX OF ITA 90/2016 APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 30.12.2008 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM (WHO ASSUMED THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY POST SEARCH CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. ANNEXURE BTHE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 20.3.2015 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IV, KOCHI. ANNEXURE CTHE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 5.8.2015 FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST ANNEXURE-B ORDER. ANNEXURE DTHE TRUE COPY OF THE CROSS OBJECTION DATED 7.9.2015 FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGAINST ANNEXURE-B ORDER. ANNEXURE E THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 1.2.2016 ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN. ITA No. 90 of 2016 & Con.cases APPENDIX OF ITA 91/2016 APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 30.12.2008 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM (WHO ASSUMED THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY POST SEARCH CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ANNEXURE BTHE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 20.03.2015 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -IV, KOCHI.20.03.2015 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -IV, KOCHI. ANNEXURE CTHE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 05.08.2015 FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST ANNEXURE-B ORDER. ANNEXURE DTHE TRUE COPY OF THE CROSS OBJECTION DATED 07.09.2015 FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGAINST ANNEXURE B ORDER.07.09.2015 FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGAINST ANNEXURE B ORDER. ANNEXURE E THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 01.02.2016 ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN. APPENDIX OF ITA 96/2016 APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 30.12.2008 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM (WHO ASSUMED THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY POST SEARCH CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ANNEXURE BTHE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 20.03.2015 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -IV, KOCHI.20.03.2015 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -IV, KOCHI. ANNEXURE CTHE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 05.08.2015 FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST ANNEXURE-B ORDER.DATED 05.08.2015 FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST ANNEXURE-B ORDER. ANNEXURE DTHE TRUE COPY OF THE CROSS OBJECTION DATED 07.09.2015 FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGAINST ANNEXURE B ORDER.07.09.2015 FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGAINST ANNEXURE B ORDER. ANNEXURE E THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 01.02.2016 ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN. APPENDIX OF ITA 105/2016 APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 30.12.2008 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM (WHO ASSUMED THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY POST SEARCH CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. ANNEXURE DTHE TRUE COPY OF THE CROSS OBJECTION DATED 07.09.2015 FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGAINST ANNEXURE B ORDER.07.09.2015 FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGAINST ANNEXURE B ORDER. ANNEXURE E THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 01.02.2016 ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN. APPENDIX OF ITA 105/2016 APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 30.12.2008 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM (WHO ASSUMED THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY POST SEARCH CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. ANNEXURE BTHE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 20.3.2015 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IV, KOCHI. ANNEXURE CTHE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 5.8.2015 FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST ANNEXURE - B ORDER. ANNEXURE DTHE TRUE COPY OF THE CROSS OBJECTION DATED 7.9.2015 FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGAINST ANNEXURE-B ORDER. ANNEXURE E THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 1.2.2016 ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN. APPENDIX OF ITA 106/2016 APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE ATHE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 30.12.2008 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM (WHO ASSUMED THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY POST SEARCH CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. ANNEXURE BTHE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 20.3.2015 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IV, KOCHI.20.3.2015 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IV, KOCHI. ANNEXURE CTHE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 5.8.2015 FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST ANNEXURE-B ORDER.DATED 5.8.2015 FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST ANNEXURE-B ORDER. ANNEXURE DTHE THE TRUE COPY OF THE CROSS OBJECTION DATED7.9.2015 FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGAINST ANNEXURE-B ORDER.7.9.2015 FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGAINST ANNEXURE-B ORDER. ANNEXURE E THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 1.2.2016 ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN.1.2.2016 ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN.