Ita/120/2019 Of M/S. Nileshwar Rangekallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. TUESDAY, THE 14 DAY OF MARCH 2023/23RD PHALGUNA, 1944 I.T.A.NO.120 OF 2019AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.9.2017 IN I.T.A.NO.268/COCH/2015 OFI.T.A.TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: M/S. NILESHWAR RANGEKALLU CHETHU VYAVASAYA THOZHILALI SAHAKARANA SANGHAMPALLIKKARA, NILESHWAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 314. BY ADV.SRI.S.ARUN RAJ BY ADV.SMT.C.T.SUJA RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXAAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, CALICUT-673 001. BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSIONON 28.02.2023 ALONG WITH ITA.NO.11/2022, THE COURT ON14.03.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: I.T.A..No.120/2019 & :: 2 :: I.T.A.No.11/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. TUESDAY, THE 14 DAY OF MARCH 2023/23RD PHALGUNA, 1944 I.T.A.NO.11 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.9.2017 IN I.T.A.NO.269/COCH/2015 OF THEI.T.A.TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: M/S.NILESHWAR RANGEKALLU CHETHU THOZHILALI VYAVASAYA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM,PALLIKKARA, NILESHWAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 314 BY ADV.SRI.S.ARUN RAJBY ADV.SMT.C.T.SUJA RESPONDENT/RESPODNENT/REVENUE: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, CALICUT - 673 001. BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSIONON 28.02.2023 ALONG WITH ITA.NO.120/2019, THE COURT ON14.03.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: I.T.A..No.120/2019 & :: 3 :: I.T.A.No.11/2022 'C.R.' J U D G M E N T A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. As both these appeals arise out of a common order of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in relation to theappellant/assessee and involve a common issue relating to theentitlement of the appellant to deduction under Section 80P of theIncome Tax Act [hereinafter referred to as the 'IT Act'], they are takenup for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are asfollows: The appellant/assessee is a Labour Co-operative Societyregistered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The Societywas formed for the financial and social welfare of toddytappers/workers and for tapping and selling toddy within thejurisdiction of Nileshwar. During the financial year 2008-09, theappellant Society got license from the Excise Department for carrying I.T.A..No.120/2019 & :: 4 :: I.T.A.No.11/2022 out the activity for tapping, pooling and marketing of toddy within theExcise range of Nileshwar. The appellant/assessee is a Labour Co-operative Societyregistered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The Societywas formed for the financial and social welfare of toddytappers/workers and for tapping and selling toddy within thejurisdiction of Nileshwar. During the financial year 2008-09, theappellant Society got license from the Excise Department for carrying I.T.A..No.120/2019 & :: 4 :: I.T.A.No.11/2022 out the activity for tapping, pooling and marketing of toddy within theExcise range of Nileshwar. 3. For the assessment year 2009-10, the appellant did not fileany return of income. Believing that the appellant had incomechargeable to tax that had escaped assessment, the Department issueda notice under Section 148 of the IT Act to the appellant on 6.2.2012requiring the appellant to furnish a return of income within 30 days ofreceipt of the notice. The appellant failed to file the return of incomein response to the notice under Section 148. A return was howeverfiled by the appellant on 5.7.2012, which was much beyond the datefor filing of return in terms of Section 139(4) of the IT Act. The returnof income for the assessment year 2009-10 should have been filed onor before 31.3.2011 in terms of Section 139(4) of the IT Act. Since thereturn of income was filed after the expiry of the time allowed underSection 139(4) and much after the due date mentioned in the noticeunder Section 148, the Assessing Officer treated the same as invalidand proceeded to complete the assessment in terms of Section 144 ofthe IT Act after hearing the representative of the appellant andverifying the books of account and other details called for by theDepartment. While completing the assessment, the claim of the I.T.A..No.120/2019 & :: 5 :: I.T.A.No.11/2022 appellant for deduction under Section 80P was disallowed on theground that the claim for deduction had not been made in a validreturn filed by the appellant in terms of the IT Act. It was the stand ofthe Assessing Officer that in view of the provisions of Section 80A(5) ofthe IT Act, the claim for deduction could not be considered. 4. For the assessment year 2010-11 also, the appellant did notfile any return of income voluntarily. A notice under Section 142 (1) ofthe IT Act was therefore issued to it on 3.2.2012 requiring it to furnisha return of income for the assessment year in question. The appellanthowever failed to comply with the terms of the notice, and inasmuchas there was a failure on the part of the appellant in filing return ofincome under Section 139(1) and Section 139(4) and further in termsof the notice issued to it under Section 142(1) of the IT Act,proceedings were initiated for completing the assessment on bestjudgment basis under Section 144 of the IT Act. The assessment wasthereafter completed after hearing the authorised representative ofthe appellant and perusing the books of account and other detailscalled for by the Department. As in the case of the previousassessment year, the assessment for the year 2010-11 was alsocompleted by denying the claim of the appellant for deduction under I.T.A..No.120/2019 & :: 6 :: I.T.A.No.11/2022 I.T.A..No.120/2019 & :: 6 :: I.T.A.No.11/2022 Section 80P of the IT Act, on the ground that in terms of Section80A(5) of the IT Act, the deduction had to be claimed in a valid returnfiled by the assessee, and in the instant case, the appellant/assesseehad not filed a valid return. 5. Against the assessment orders for both the assessment years2009-10 and 2010-11, the appellant preferred appeals before theAppellate Authority. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeals byupholding the stand of the Assessing Authority. In further appealspreferred before the Tribunal, the Tribunal did not specifically go intothe issue of whether or not the belated returns filed by the appellant inboth the assessment years was valid or not, but found that in view ofthe fact that the claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(vi) of theIT Act had already been decided against the assessee by thejurisdictional High Court in the decision reported in Peravoor RangeKallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham andothers v. Commissioner of Income-Tax – [(2016) 380 ITR 34(Ker)], there was no necessity to interfere with the order of the FirstAppellate Authority dismissing the appeals preferred by theappellant/assessee for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. I.T.A..No.120/2019 & :: 7 :: I.T.A.No.11/2022 6. The appellant/assessee has preferred these IT Appeals raising the following substantial questions of law therein: 1.Whether the Tribunal is right in law and facts of the case in notconsidering the issue of rejection of claim under Section 80P bythe Lower authorities as hit by Section 80 A (5) of the Act as theclaim made in a belated return, which issue is now squarelycovered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the HonourableCourt in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.v. CIT and other connected cases reported in (2016) 384 ITR490 (Ker).considering the issue of rejection of claim under Section 80P bythe Lower authorities as hit by Section 80 A (5) of the Act as theclaim made in a belated return, which issue is now squarelycovered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the HonourableCourt in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.v. CIT and other connected cases reported in (2016) 384 ITR490 (Ker). 2. Whether the Tribunal is right in law and facts of the case in notconsidering the issue/fact that both the assessing officer and theCIT (Appeals) has held that the appellant/assessee is not entitled toany deduction under section 80 P of the Act erroneously holdingthat the return filed by the appellant is non-est and invalid and hitby section 80 A (5) of the Act and therefore the appellant is notentitled to any deduction under section 80 P of the Act?considering the issue/fact that both the assessing officer and theCIT (Appeals) has held that the appellant/assessee is not entitled toany deduction under section 80 P of the Act erroneously holdingthat the return filed by the appellant is non-est and invalid and hitby section 80 A (5) of the Act and therefore the appellant is notentitled to any deduction under section 80 P of the Act? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theTribunal is right in holding that the appellant society cannot beconsidered as Co-operative Societies engaged in the collectivedisposal of labour of its members as contemplated under section80P(2) (a) (vi) of the Act and therefore not eligible for deductionunder section 80 P of the Act? Is not such a finding of the Tribunalillegal, arbitrary and perverse?Tribunal is right in holding that the appellant society cannot beconsidered as Co-operative Societies engaged in the collectivedisposal of labour of its members as contemplated under section80P(2) (a) (vi) of the Act and therefore not eligible for deductionunder section 80 P of the Act? Is not such a finding of the Tribunalillegal, arbitrary and perverse? 4. Whether the Tribunal is right in law and facts of the case inupholding the finding of the assessing officer/contention of therevenue that the appellant society having granted registrationunder the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and the Rules asa “Miscellaneous Society” and therefore assessee cannot betreated as a society engaged in collective disposal of labour of itsmembers and therefore is not eligible/entitled for the deductionunder section 80 P (2) (a) (vi) of the Act?upholding the finding of the assessing officer/contention of therevenue that the appellant society having granted registrationunder the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and the Rules asa “Miscellaneous Society” and therefore assessee cannot betreated as a society engaged in collective disposal of labour of itsmembers and therefore is not eligible/entitled for the deductionunder section 80 P (2) (a) (vi) of the Act? 5. Whether the Tribunal was right in law and facts of the case in notconsidering the issue of eligibility of the appellant for deductionunder section 80 P (2) (a) (iii) of the Act?considering the issue of eligibility of the appellant for deductionunder section 80 P (2) (a) (iii) of the Act? 6. Whether, the Tribunal is right in law and facts of the case in not I.T.A..No.120/2019 & :: 8 :: I.T.A.No.11/2022 remanding the matter back to the assessing officer to consider theissue on merits and to consider whether the appellant society fallsin any of the category mentioned under section 80 P (2) (a) andeligible for deduction under 80 P of the Act? Re: Questions of law Nos.3 and 4: 7. These questions of law that have been raised by theappellant/assessee need not detain us for long. By a judgmentreported in Peravoor Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya ThozhilaliSahakarana Sangham [supra], a Division Bench of this Court has, inthe assessee's own case for a previous assessment year, answered theissues in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Followingthe said judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we answer theaforesaid questions of law in favour of the Revenue and against theassessee for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively. Re: Questions of law Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6: 8. These questions of law are taken together since they pertainto the issue of whether the claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the IT Act, that was made by the assessee in returns stated tobe filed on 5.7.2012 for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11can be seen as validly made for the purposes of the IT Act. The I.T.A..No.120/2019 & :: 9 :: I.T.A.No.11/2022 Re: Questions of law Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6: 8. These questions of law are taken together since they pertainto the issue of whether the claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the IT Act, that was made by the assessee in returns stated tobe filed on 5.7.2012 for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11can be seen as validly made for the purposes of the IT Act. The I.T.A..No.120/2019 & :: 9 :: I.T.A.No.11/2022 authorities below hold the view that it cannot. They rely on theprovisions of Section 80A(5) of the IT Act that make it obligatory on anassessee claiming deduction under Section 80P of the IT Act to makethe claim in its return of income, to contend that the return of incomereferred to in Section 80A(5) must necessarily be one that is traceableto the provisions of the IT Act that mandate the filing of a return suchas Section 139(1), Section 139(4), Section 142(1) or Section 148, andsince in the case of the assessee herein, the claim was made in areturn filed beyond the due date for filing returns under the aforesaidprovisions, the return filed had to be seen as invalid and non-est. 9. Per contra, the contentions of Sri.Arun Raj, the learnedcounsel for the appellant/assessee, briefly stated are as follows: ●The return filed by the appellant/assessee on 5.7.2012 forthe assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively cannotbe treated as non-est and invalid. The IT Act does notcontemplate a return filed beyond the dates specified underSections 139(1), 139(4), 142(1) or 148 of the IT Act as non-est orinvalid returns. He refers to the provisions of Sections 139(8),139(9) and Section 234A of the IT Act to demonstrate that underthe said provisions, returns filed beyond the due date specifiedunder Sections 139, 142 and 148 are accepted for the purposes I.T.A..No.120/2019 & :: 10 :: I.T.A.No.11/2022 of limiting the accrual of interest on the tax amounts assessedagainst an assessee. It is pointed out that Section 139(8) andSection 234A treat a return filed after the time specified underSections 139, 142 or 148 as a valid return and interest is chargedonly from the specified date till the date of filing the return. ●Section 148 of the IT Act stipulates that before makingassessment, re-assessment or re-computation, the AssessingOfficer shall serve a notice requiring to furnish within suchperiod as may be specified in the notice, a return of income. Asper Section 142(1) of the IT Act, for making an assessment underthe IT Act, the Assessing Officer may serve notice requiring tofurnish a return of income on a date to be specified in the notice.It is evident from the above provisions that no specificdate/period is stipulated in the statutory provisions and no outertime limit is stipulated thereunder for filing the return. It is theAssessing Officer who has the power to grant time for filingreturn before the completion of the assessment. It followstherefore that a return filed before completing the assessment,which is available for taking cognizance, cannot be treated asinvalid or non-est by the Assessing Officer. Reliance is placed onthe order dated 18.9.2000 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Pune Bench in the case of G.C. Associates v. DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax. ●A plain reading of Section 80A(5) of the IT Act makes itclear that a claim in respect of a deduction inter alia underSection 80P has to be made in a return of income filed in order ●A plain reading of Section 80A(5) of the IT Act makes itclear that a claim in respect of a deduction inter alia underSection 80P has to be made in a return of income filed in order I.T.A..No.120/2019 & :: 11 :: I.T.A.No.11/2022 for such deduction to be allowed. The Section does not make anyspecific reference to any particular provision under which thereturn has to be filed. The Section also does not stipulate anyspecific date by which such return should be filed. It followstherefore that so long as there is a return filed before thecompletion of assessment, the claim for deduction madethereunder can be entertained by the Assessing Officer. At anyrate, since the provisions of Section 80A(5) were amended witheffect from 1.4.2003 only with a view to prevent the assesseesfrom claiming multiple deductions for the same profits undervarious Sections in Chapter VIA, the mere fact that the appellanthad made the claim for deduction in a return filed beyond thetime prescribed under Sections 139, 142 and 148, but well beforethe completion of assessment could not have been used by theAssessing Authority to deny the valid claim for deduction.Reliance is placed on the decision in TheChirakkal Service Co--operative Bank Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax [(2016) 384 ITR 490 (Ker)] in support of the abovecontentions. Reliance is also placed on the judgment dated12.3.2021 of the Bombay High Court in Sesa Goa Limited v.Additional Commissioner of Income Tax [Tax Appeal No.24of 2011] and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Goetze(India) Ltd. v. CIT - [Civil Appeal No.1761 of 2006]. ●Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Courtin The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Othersv. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others - [431ITR 1 (SC)] to contend that if there is any ambiguity while I.T.A..No.120/2019 & :: 12 :: I.T.A.No.11/2022 considering a claim for deduction under Section 80P of the ITAct, the revenue authorities have to read the statutory provisionsin favour of the assessee. It is pointed out that in the instantcase, the revenue authorities have relied on a technicality to denythe benefit of the claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(iii)of the IT Act to the assessee. 10. We have considered the rival submissions of Sri.S.Arun Raj,the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/assessee andSri.Christopher Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel for theIncome Tax Department. 11. On a consideration of the rival submissions and on a perusalof the statutory provisions, we find that a reading of Section 80A(5)and Section 80AC of the IT Act as they stood prior to 1.4.2018, whenthe latter provision was amended by Finance Act 2018, would revealthat the statutory scheme under the IT Act was to admit only suchclaims for deduction under Section 80P of the IT Act as were made bythe assessee in a return of income filed by him. That return can beunder Sections 139(1), 139(4), 142(1) or Section 148, and to be valid,had to be filed within the due date contemplated under thoseprovisions. Under Section 80A(5), the claim for deduction underSection 80P could be made by an assessee in a return filed within the I.T.A..No.120/2019 & :: 13 :: I.T.A.No.11/2022 I.T.A..No.120/2019 & :: 13 :: I.T.A.No.11/2022 time prescribed for filing such returns under any of the aboveprovisions. The amendment to Section 80AC with effect from1.4.2018, however, mandated that for an assessee to get a deductionunder Section 80P of the IT Act, he had to furnish a return of hisincome for such assessment year on or before the due date specified inSection 139(1) of the IT Act. In other words, after 1.4.2018, even ifthe assessee makes his claim for deduction under Section 80P in areturn filed within time under Sections 139(4), 142(1) or Section 148,he will not be allowed the deduction, unless the return in question wasfiled within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1). Thus, it isclear that the statutory scheme permits the allowance of a deductionunder Section 80P of the IT Act only if it is made in a returnrecognised as such under the IT Act, and after 1.4.2018, only if thatreturn is one filed within the time prescribed under Section 139(1) ofthe Act. As the return in these cases, for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, were admittedly filed after the dates prescribed underSections 139(1) and 139(4) or in the notices issued under Section142(1) and Section 148, the returns were indeed non-est and could nothave been acted upon by the Assessing Officer even though they werefiled before the completion of the assessment. I.T.A..No.120/2019 & :: 14 :: I.T.A.No.11/2022 12. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The requirementof making the claim for deduction in a return of income filed by theassessee can be seen as a statutory pre-condition for claiming thebenefit of deduction under the IT Act. It is trite that a provision fordeduction or exemption under a taxing Statute has to be strictlyconstrued against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Thusviewed, a failure on the part of an assessee to comply with the pre-condition for obtaining the deduction cannot be condoned either bythe statutory authorities or by the courts. 13. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid discussion that wemust consider the findings of a Division Bench of this Court in TheChirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. [supra]. The findingstherein, that appear to suggest that a claim for deduction underSection 80P can be entertained even if it is made in a return filedbeyond the time permitted under the IT Act, ignores the perspectivethat sees the requirement of the claim for deduction being made in avalid return as a pre-condition for obtaining the benefit of thestatutory deduction. The said findings also fly in the face of theexpress statutory provisions that requires the claim to be made in areturn filed by the assessee, by which term is meant a valid return I.T.A..No.120/2019 & :: 15 :: I.T.A.No.11/2022 I.T.A..No.120/2019 & :: 15 :: I.T.A.No.11/2022 under the Act, and therefore have necessarily to be seen as perincuriam. We also find that the subsequent amendments to Section80AC by the Finance Act 2018 fortifies the view that we have takenfor, it makes the claim for deduction under Section 80P conditional onfiling a return within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) ofthe IT Act. In other words, the pre-condition for claiming thededuction under Section 80P of the IT Act has now been made morestringent by reducing the time available to an assessee for making theclaim. 14. Before parting with these cases, we must also address thearguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/assessee relying onthe provisions of Section 139(8)/(9) and Section 234A of the IT Act. Areading of the provisions of Section 139(8) and (9) of the IT Act clearlyreveals that even under those provisions, the restrictions placed withregard to the accrual of interest on amounts assessed on an assesseeis with regard to the date of filing of a return within the timeprescribed under the IT Act. Under Section 234A of the IT Act,however, although the provision suggests that even a return filedbeyond the time prescribed under any of the provisions of the IT Actcan have the effect of limiting the accrual of interest on the amounts I.T.A..No.120/2019 & :: 16 :: I.T.A.No.11/2022 assessed against an assessee, we have to see the said provision aspermitting a filing of a belated return for the limited purpose ofconferring a specific benefit of limiting the accrual of interest, on anassessee, and for no other purpose. We cannot accept the contentionof the appellant/assessee that the said provisions which are intendedfor a specific purpose and are not general in nature, have to be seen asmanifesting a statutory scheme that enables the Department to actupon a belated return for allowing the claim of an assessee fordeduction under Section 80P of the IT Act. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the abovequestions of law have to be answered in favour of the Revenue andagainst the assessee, and we do so. Thus, these I.T. Appeals aredisposed by answering the substantial questions of law raised therein,in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/- MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE I.T.A..No.120/2019 & :: 17 :: I.T.A.No.11/2022 APPENDIX OF ITA.NO.120/2019 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED08.03.2013 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICERFOR THE AY 2009-10. ANNEXURE B A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 16.02.2015 PASSEDBY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS),KOZHIKODE FOR THE AY 2009-10. ANNEXURE C A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2017PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN FOR THE AY 2009-10. I.T.A..No.120/2019 & :: 18 :: I.T.A.No.11/2022 APPENDIX OF ITA.NO.11/2022 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: Annexure AA TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED08/03/2013 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICERFOR THE AY 2010-11. Annexure BA TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 16/02/2015 PASSEDBY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)KOZHIKODE FOR THE AY-2010-11. ANNEXURE B A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 16.02.2015 PASSEDBY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS),KOZHIKODE FOR THE AY 2009-10. ANNEXURE C A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2017PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN FOR THE AY 2009-10. I.T.A..No.120/2019 & :: 18 :: I.T.A.No.11/2022 APPENDIX OF ITA.NO.11/2022 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: Annexure AA TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED08/03/2013 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICERFOR THE AY 2010-11. Annexure BA TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 16/02/2015 PASSEDBY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)KOZHIKODE FOR THE AY-2010-11. Annexure CA TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATE 26/09/2017PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN FORT THE AY 2010-11. RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE