Ita/139/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) v. M/S. Chandragiri Construction Co., Thekki P.o., Kasargod

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN WEDNESDAY,THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 22ND PHALGUNA,1940 ITA.No. 192 of 2012 THE ORDER IN ITA 832/2008 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCHDATED 29-02-2012 APPELLANT/APPELLANT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), COCHIN. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: M/S. CHANDRAGIRI CONSTRUCTION CO.THEKKIL P.O., KASARAGOD.PIN-671545. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIRSMT.O.A.NURIYASMT.ROSIE ATHULYA JOSEPHSRI.R.SREEJITH THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON13.03.2019, ALONG WITH ITA.134/12 & CON.CASES, THE COURTON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN WEDNESDAY,THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1940 ITA.No. 134 of 2012 THE ORDER IN ITA 857/2008 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH,DATED 29-02-2012 APPELLANT/APPELLANT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)COCHIN BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: M/S. CHANDRAGIRI CONSTRUCTION CO.THEKKIL P.O., KASARAGOD. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIRSMT.O.A.NURIYASMT.ROSIE ATHULYA JOSEPHSRI.R.SREEJITH OTHER PRESENT: SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON13.03.2019, ALONG WITH ITA.192/2012 & CON.CASES, THE COURTON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN WEDNESDAY,THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1940 ITA.No. 139 of 2012 THE ORDER IN ITA 681/2008 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCHDATED 29-02-2012 APPELLANT/APPELLANT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL),COCHIN. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON, SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: M/S. CHANDRAGIRI CONSTRUCTION CO.,THEKKIL P.O., KASARGOD-673001. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIRSMT.O.A.NURIYASMT.ROSIE ATHULYA JOSEPHSRI.R.SREEJITH THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON13.03.2019, ALONG WITH ITA.192/2012 & CON.CASES, THE COURTON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN WEDNESDAY,THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1940 ITA.No. 243 of 2012 THE ORDER IN ITA 861/2008 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCHDATED 29-02-2012 APPELLANT/APPELLANT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL)COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: M.S.CHANDRAGIRI CONSTRUCTION CO.LTD,THEKKIL P.O., KASARAGOD. BY ADVS.SMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATHSMT.C.S.SULEKHA BEEVISMT.ROSIE ATHULYA JOSEPHSRI.R.SREEJITH THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON13.03.2019, ALONG WITH ITA.192/2012 & CON.CASES, THE COURTON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN WEDNESDAY,THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1940 ITA.No. 202 of 2012 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 643/2010 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHINBENCH DATED 27.4.2012 APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), COCHIN BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S: M/S CHANDRAGIRI CONSTRUCTION CO,THEKKIL P.O., KASARAGOD. M/S CHANDRAGIRI CONSTRUCTION CO,THEKKIL P.O., KASARAGOD.PIN 671545. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON13.03.2019, ALONG WITH ITA.192/2012 & CON.CASES, THE COURTON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN WEDNESDAY,THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1940 ITA.No. 202 of 2012 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 643/2010 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHINBENCH DATED 27.4.2012 APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), COCHIN BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S: M/S CHANDRAGIRI CONSTRUCTION CO,THEKKIL P.O., KASARAGOD. M/S CHANDRAGIRI CONSTRUCTION CO,THEKKIL P.O., KASARAGOD.PIN 671545. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON13.03.2019, ALONG WITH ITA.192/2012 & CON.CASES, THE COURTON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN WEDNESDAY,THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1940 ITA.No. 8 of 2013 THE ORDER IN ITA 660/2010 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCHDATED 27-04-2012 APPELLANT/APPELLANT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), COCHINBY ADVS.SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S: M/S.CHANDRAGIRI CONSTRUCTION CO., THEKKIL P.O., KASARAGOD,PIN-671541. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIRSMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATHSMT.O.A.NURIYASMT.ROSIE ATHULYA JOSEPHSRI.R.SREEJITH THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON13.03.2019, ALONG WITH ITA.192/2012 & CON.CASES, THE COURTON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN WEDNESDAY,THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1940 ITA.No. 231 of 2013 THE ORDERIN ITA 107/2010 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCHDATED 12-03-2013 APPELLANT/S: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)COCHIN. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S: M/S.CHANDRAGIRI CONSTRUCTION CO.THEKKIL.P.O., KASARAGODE-671545. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIRSMT.C.S.SULEKHA BEEVISMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATHSMT.T.S.VIKEESHASRI.R.SREEJITH THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON13.03.2019, ALONG WITH ITA.192/2012 & CON.CASES, THE COURTON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -8- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN WEDNESDAY,THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1940 ITA.No. 132 of 2014 THE ORDER IN ITA 470/2013 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCHDATED 13-12-2013 APPELLANT/APPELLANT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S: M/S. CHANDRAGIRI CONSTRUCTIONTHEKKIL P.O., KASARAGOD. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIRKUM.SOUMYA PRAKASHSMT.C.S.SULEKHA BEEVISRI.R.SREEJITH THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON13.03.2019, ALONG WITH ITA.192/2012 & CON.CASES, THE COURTON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN WEDNESDAY,THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1940 ITA.No. 88 of 2014 THE ORDER IN ITA 428/2013 of I.T.A. TRIBUNAL, COCHINBENCH DATED 13-12-2013 APPELLANT/S: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL)COCHIN BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S: M/S. CHANDRAGIRI CONSTRUCTION CO,THEKKIL P.O., KASARGODE BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIRKUM.SOUMYA PRAKASHSMT.C.S.SULEKHA BEEVISRI.JOSE JOSEPH (CHEMPLAYIL)SRI.R.SREEJITH THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON13.03.2019, ALONG WITH ITA.192/2012 & CON.CASES, THE COURTON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -10- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN WEDNESDAY,THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1940 ITA.No. 61 of 2015 THE ORDER IN ITA 428/2013 of I.T.A. TRIBUNAL, COCHINBENCH DATED 13-12-2013 APPELLANT/S: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL)COCHIN BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S: M/S. CHANDRAGIRI CONSTRUCTION CO,THEKKIL P.O., KASARGODE BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIRKUM.SOUMYA PRAKASHSMT.C.S.SULEKHA BEEVISRI.JOSE JOSEPH (CHEMPLAYIL)SRI.R.SREEJITH THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON13.03.2019, ALONG WITH ITA.192/2012 & CON.CASES, THE COURTON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -10- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN WEDNESDAY,THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1940 ITA.No. 61 of 2015 THE ORDER IN ITA 260/2012 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCHDATED 19-09-2014 APPELLANT/APPELLANT: CHANDRAGIRI CONSTRUCTION COP.O.THEKKIL, KASARAGOD.BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIRKUM.SOUMYA PRAKASHSMT.C.S.SULEKHA BEEVISMT.ROSIE ATHULYA JOSEPHSRI.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE I,CALICUT. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAXSRI.P.K.R.MENON, SR.COUNSEL GOI TAXES THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON13.03.2019, ALONG WITH ITA.192/2012 & CON.CASES, THE COURTON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN WEDNESDAY,THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1940 ITA.No. 62 of 2015 THE ORDER IN ITA 261/2012 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCHAPPELLANT/APPELLANT: CHANDRAGIRI CONSTRUCTION CO.P.O.THEKKIL, KASARAGOD BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIRKUM.SOUMYA PRAKASHSMT.C.S.SULEKHA BEEVISMT.ROSIE ATHULYA JOSEPHSRI.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENT/S: THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE I, CALICUT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAXSRI.P.K.R.MENON, SR.COUNSEL GOITAXES THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON13.03.2019, ALONG WITH ITA.192/2012 & CON.CASES, THE COURTON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -12- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN WEDNESDAY,THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1940 ITA.No. 63 of 2015 THE ORDER IN ITA 569/2010 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCHDATED 19-09-2014 APPELLANT/S: CHANDRAGIRI CONSTRUCTION CO.P.O. THEKKIL, KASARAGOD. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIRKUM.SOUMYA PRAKASHSMT.C.S.SULEKHA BEEVISMT.ROSIE ATHULYA JOSEPHSRI.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENT/S: THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE I, CALICUT. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAXSRI.P.K.R.MENON, SR.COUNSEL GOITAXES THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON13.03.2019, ALONG WITH ITA.192/2012 & CON.CASES, THE COURTON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -13- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN WEDNESDAY,THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1940 ITA.No. 70 of 2015 THE ORDER IN ITA 262/2012 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCHDATED 19-09-2014 APPELLANT/APPELLANT:CHANDRAGIRI CONSTRUCTION CO.P.O.THEKKIL, KASARAGOD.BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIRKUM.SOUMYA PRAKASHSMT.C.S.SULEKHA BEEVISMT.ROSIE ATHULYA JOSEPHSRI.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE I, CALICUT. BY ADVS.SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM INCOME TAX DEPARTMENTSRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON13.03.2019, ALONG WITH ITA.192/2012 & CON.CASES, THE COURTON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ITA Nos.192/12 & con.cases ITA Nos.192, 134, 139, 243 & 202/2012, 8 & 231/2013,132 & 88 /2014, 61, 62, 63 & 70/2015 WEDNESDAY,THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1940 ITA.No. 70 of 2015 THE ORDER IN ITA 262/2012 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCHDATED 19-09-2014 APPELLANT/APPELLANT:CHANDRAGIRI CONSTRUCTION CO.P.O.THEKKIL, KASARAGOD.BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIRKUM.SOUMYA PRAKASHSMT.C.S.SULEKHA BEEVISMT.ROSIE ATHULYA JOSEPHSRI.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE I, CALICUT. BY ADVS.SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM INCOME TAX DEPARTMENTSRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON13.03.2019, ALONG WITH ITA.192/2012 & CON.CASES, THE COURTON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ITA Nos.192/12 & con.cases ITA Nos.192, 134, 139, 243 & 202/2012, 8 & 231/2013,132 & 88 /2014, 61, 62, 63 & 70/2015 JUDGMENT K.Vinod Chandran, J. The above appeals are filed by the Revenue and the assessee. The Revenues appeal arise from the assessmentorders and the assessees appeal from imposition of penalty.We would first deal with the assessment appeals, some ofwhich arise from a common order of the Tribunal, which dealswith different issues, one of which is common in almost all theappeals. We, hence, proceed to dispose of the appeals in thefollowing order. 2.ITA No.192 of 2012 arises from the assessmentyear ('AY' for brevity) 2003-04 under Section 143(3) of theIncome Tax Act, 1962. Later, the Commissioner, under Section263, suo motu revised the same and issued some directions,which was considered and additions made by theAssessing Officer ('AO' for brevity).ITA No. 134 of 2012 ITA Nos.192/12 & con.cases arises from the order of the Tribunal from the assessmentmade under Section 143 (3) r/w Section 263. ITA Nos.139 and243 of 2012 arise from the AYs 2004-05 and 2005-06. ITA No. 192/2012 3.The only issue arising in the appeal from theoriginal AY 2003-04 is the agricultural income disallowed bythe AO. The assesseee declared an agricultural income ofRs.24,98,737/-. However, there was no evidence produced inrespect of the yield, sale amount, expenses etc. The AO, hence,allowed the agricultural income only to the extent ofRs.5,00,000/-. The balance Rs.19,98,737/- was treated asincome from other sources. In First Appeal, the Commissionerof Appeals accepted Rs.10,00,000/- as agricultural incomeand the balance as income from other sources. There was aremand made by the Tribunal to the First Appellate Authority.The CIT (Appeals) on remand, by Annexure B order relied onthe order of the Settlement Commission which considered a ITA Nos.192/12 & con.cases block assessment, the last year of which was AY 2001-02. TheSettlement Commission had permitted capitalisation ofRs.89,12,515/-. The amount disallowed as agriculturalincome coming to Rs.14,98,737/- was allowed to be adjustedagainst the accepted cash balance as on 31.3.2001; as allowedby the Settlement Commission. The matter went again beforethe Tribunal and by the common order, a decision wasrendered by one of the members (the Accountant Member).The Judicial Member, however, dissented from the same andfollowed the findings of the Tribunal in an earlier appeal ofthe Department as against the very same assessee for the AY2002-03 in I.T.A.No.831/Cochin/2008. The Third Memberagreed with the judicial member and found that the order ofthe Settlement Commission created certain consequenceswith respect to the subsequent years also, which has to beadhered to in making assessments for the subsequent years. 4.It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for ITA Nos.192/12 & con.cases the Government of India (Taxes) that the Revenue has filed anapplication to declare the order of the Settlement Commissionvoid, before the Commission itself, on grounds of fraud andmisrepresentation and the same is still pending. 4.It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for ITA Nos.192/12 & con.cases the Government of India (Taxes) that the Revenue has filed anapplication to declare the order of the Settlement Commissionvoid, before the Commission itself, on grounds of fraud andmisrepresentation and the same is still pending. 5.In the above circumstances, it can only be said thatthe issue would be regulated by the finding of the SettlementCommission. If the Settlement Commission's order issustained, we find no reason to defer from the order of theTribunal which confirmed the First Appellate Authority'sorder. However, if the Settlement Commission declares itsown order to be void on grounds of fraud andmisrepresentation, necessarily, the amount of Rs.14,98,737/-,which is allowed to be adjusted against the accepted cashbalance as on 31.3.2001, would have to be treated as incomefrom other sources, since no evidence is forthcoming as to theagricultural income derived by the asessee and then the CITAppeal's order dis-allowing 90% would have to be sustained. ITA Nos.192/12 & con.cases In that context no question of law arises in the year since theissue would be reduced to one of estimation. The questionraised hence is answered in the said manner and ITA No.192of 2012 is disposed of. If the Settlement Commission's orderis set aside, then, necessarily, the assessee shall satisfy thedemand of the AO, as modified by the CIT (A).ITA Nos.134, 139 & 243 of 2012 6. Herein, the issue arising are common in nature. Thequestions of law refer to the aspect of retention amountsbeing directed to be treated as amounts accrued on thecompletion of the contract by the AO; as upheld by theAccountant Member, revising the order of the CIT (Appeals).The Judicial Member and the Third Member, however,followed the order of the Tribunal itself in the case of theassessee in ITA No.831/Cochin/2008. Yet another issue whicharose was with respect to the work-in-progress and the billsreceivable, whichwe find from the assessment order and theappellate orders, are with respect to specific amounts sought ITA Nos.192/12 & con.cases for deduction by the assessee and added on by the AO. The issue is on facts and the same has been remanded by theAccountant Member to the AO. However, the Judicial Memberdissented on the question of the bills receivable, since thesame has also been decided in ITA No.831/Cochin/2008. TheThird Member concurred with the Judicial Member. Theremand hence does not survive. The questions of law thusarising in the appeals are re-framed as follows: (i)Whether the retention amounts retained by theawarder under the terms of a contract are to be treated asaccrued in the year of completion of the contract andoffered for taxation by the assessee, especially, since theassessee had been following the Mercantile System ofaccounting? (ii)Whether the additions made on the basis of thework-in-progress and the bills receivable should followthe order of the Settlement Commission or not? ITA Nos.192/12 & con.cases -20- 7.On the first issue (i), we notice that the Tribunalmembers deferred, but, however, the same was not decided onthe basis of the decision of the Settlement Commission. TheTribunal, by majority, followed its own order in the case of theassessee for the AY 2002-03 in ITA No.831/Cochin/2008. 8.The Accountant Member who was one of themembers deciding the question in the AY 2002-03, however,deferred, which practice, we deprecate, since if at all therewas a difference of opinion from the earlier order, it wasappropriate that it be referred to a Larger Bench. In anyevent, the Third Member to whom the issue was referred,concurred with the Judicial Member, who followed the earlierverdict of the Tribunal itself. Earlier order of the Tribunal,though challenged before this Court, was withdrawn on thebasis of litigation policy. Hence, the question is left open. 8.The Accountant Member who was one of themembers deciding the question in the AY 2002-03, however,deferred, which practice, we deprecate, since if at all therewas a difference of opinion from the earlier order, it wasappropriate that it be referred to a Larger Bench. In anyevent, the Third Member to whom the issue was referred,concurred with the Judicial Member, who followed the earlierverdict of the Tribunal itself. Earlier order of the Tribunal,though challenged before this Court, was withdrawn on thebasis of litigation policy. Hence, the question is left open. 9.We see from the records and also a specimencontract produced before the Tribunal that there is a defect ITA Nos.192/12 & con.cases liability period which is reckoned from the completion datefor which period the awarder retains certain amounts for thepurpose of ensuring that there arises no defect in the workexecuted by the awardee. In the earlier order, for the AY2002-03, the Tribunal had relied onM/s.Janatha ContractCompany v. CIT [105 (1) ITR 627] (Ker.),East CoastConstruction (India) Ltd v. CIT [283 ITR 297 (Mad.), CIT v.Ignifluid Boilers (I) Ltd [283 ITR 295] (Mad.) and CIT v. P&CConstructions (P) Ltd [318 ITR 113) (Mad.), to find that theassessee on completion of contract would not have any rightto receive the money as per the specific terms enablingretention of a percentage of the contract amount with theawarder. The Accountant Member has taken a differentopinion on the premise that there is an accrual of the amountson completion of the contract itself. The Accountant Memberfurther observed that the mere fact that the amounts werekept apart for the purpose of curing any defects that may later ITA Nos.192/12 & con.cases occur in the work, cannot be permitted to be exempted fromtaxation, especially when the assessee is following themercantile system. 10.We perfectly agree with the findings of theAccountant Member that 'accrual' and 'receipt' aretwo independent incidents, and their matching orcorrespondence in time in a given case, if so occurring,is purely a matter of coincidence, both immaterial andirrelevant for the purpose of determining the fact of accrual,which has to be on its own terms. However, even applying thesaid principle to the present facts, we do not think that therewas any accrual on the completion of contract. The specificterms of the agreement provided that the amounts due tothe awardee would be retained after completion for aspecific period to ensure that if defects arisein the work executed, the same is rectified with the retainedamounts which would also be the responsibility of theawardee to rectify as per the specific terms. Hence, the We perfectly agree with the findings of the amounts are not set apart by the assessee for an apprehendeddefect. By the specific terms of the contract itself, the awarderis entitled to retain the said amounts so as to rectify anydefects arising in the period in which as per the terms of thecontract the amount is retained. There can be no accrualfound on the completion of contract, since the assessee's rightto such amount would depend on there being no defectsarising in the subsequent period during which the awarder isenabled retention of such amounts. The accrual if at allhappens, occurs only on completion of the retention period.We hence answer the first question of law against the Revenueand in favour of the assessee. 11. As to the work-in-progress and the bills receivable,the Accountant Member had remanded most of the issues forconsideration before the AO. The Judicial Member and theThird Member, however, deferred since there werecertain consequences arising from the order of the Settlement 11. As to the work-in-progress and the bills receivable,the Accountant Member had remanded most of the issues forconsideration before the AO. The Judicial Member and theThird Member, however, deferred since there werecertain consequences arising from the order of the Settlement Commission. Even de hors the Settlement Commission's order,we find that the order of the Accountant Member was only onthe various adjustments made. There arises no question oflaw and the issues revolve around facts. The consequencearising from the order of the Settlement Commission asrecognised by the Judicial Member and the Third Member,necessarily has to be accepted by the Department in makingassessments for the subsequent years, subject, however, tothe Settlement Commission's order being sustained. As ofnow, we would not express anything on that, since the issue ispending before the Settlement Commission itself and is notagitated before us. We, however, answer the question of lawframed by us in favour of the assessee and against theRevenue. If at all the order of the Settlement Commission isset aside, then on this question, the Revenue could file anapplication before the Tribunal for restoring the appeal toconsider questions afresh. Be that as it may, the SettlementCommission's order in existence for the time being has to be ITA Nos.192/12 & con.cases reckoned by the department in making the assessments forthe subsequent years. We, hence, reject the appeals of theRevenue, answering the questions of law in favour of theassessee and against the Revenue, subject to the reservationof the right of the Revenue to approach the Tribunal toconsider the matter afresh if the Settlement Commissionsorder is set at naught. I.T.A.Nos. 202 of 2012, 8 of 2013, 231 of 2013 & 132 of2014 12.The questions arising in all the above appeals are asin the cases dealt with together. The first question onretention amounts has already been answered in favour of theassessee and against the Revenue. We follow the same in thepresent appeals also. The second question, on the Tribunalfollowing the Settlement Commissions order, has also beenaccepted by us and hence that question will also be answeredin favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. We also ITA Nos.192/12 & con.cases made a reservation in so far as the Revenue being permittedto move the Tribunal, if at all the Settlement Commission’sorder is declared void, which we reiterate here. 13. In ITA No.8 of 2013 for the AY 2007-2008 from anorder in a cross appeal, one other issue arises as to whetheron the facts of the case, the Tribunal was correct in allowingloss claimed on account of termination of contract whenarbitration proceedings are pending and have not becomefinal. The assessee entered into a contract and also furnisheda bank guarantee for satisfactory execution of the contract.The contract was cancelled by the awarder and the bankguarantee was encashed. An arbitration proceeding is pendingbetween the awarder and the awardee. The Revenue claimsthat till the arbitration proceedings is concluded the assesseecannot claim the amount as business loss. As of now, theassessee does not have the amounts with it and the bankguarantee has been encashed and it is a loss occurred in thesubject year. If at all in conclusion of the arbitration ITA Nos.192/12 & con.cases proceedings, the assessee receives any amount it could beadjusted in the loss of that year. Hence, we answer the saidquestion of law in favour of the assessee and against theRevenue and uphold the allowance of loss made by theTribunal. We reject the above appeals also with thereservation as above. I.T.A.No.88 of 2014 ITA Nos.192/12 & con.cases proceedings, the assessee receives any amount it could beadjusted in the loss of that year. Hence, we answer the saidquestion of law in favour of the assessee and against theRevenue and uphold the allowance of loss made by theTribunal. We reject the above appeals also with thereservation as above. I.T.A.No.88 of 2014 14.For the AY 2008-2009 there is one other issueraised, of modification made on the disallowance ofexpenditure. The AO disallowed 5% of the expenditure. Whilethe CIT (Appeals), following the order of the Tribunal for theearlier assessment year in the case of the assessee itself,confined the disallowance to 1%. The Tribunal confirmed thesame. We do not find any reason to interfere with that since itgives rise to no question of law. For the AY 2008-2009 there is one other issue I.T.A.Nos.61, 62, 63 & 70 of 2015 15.These are all appeals filed by the assessee againstthe order of the Tribunal, affirming the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The imposition of penaltyrelates to AY's 2002-03 to 2005-06. We notice that penalty hasbeen imposed under Section 271(1)(c) on the additions madeby the AO; both on retention of amounts as also work inprogress and bills receivables. The appeals before theTribunal had been concluded, rejecting the claim of theRevenue and accepting that of the assessee as to theconsequential effect of the order of the SettlementCommission. We have upheld the orders of the Tribunal with areservation as to the consequence of the SettlementCommission's order being declared void. We were of theopinion that if the Settlement Commission's order issustained, then the consequence flowing from that order forthe subsequent years has to be accepted by the Department.In such circumstance, no penalty can be imposed on theassessee for reason of there being no addition possible. Hence,the orders of penalty are to be set aside. We set aside theorders issued by the lower authorities, answering the ITA Nos.192/12 & con.cases question of law in favour of the assessee and against theRevenue. However, we make a reservation, different from thatmade in the quantum appeals, that if at all the SettlementCommission's order is declared void, then necessarily thepenalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) have to bereconsidered by the AO, on the basis of the additionssustained. However, the issue of retention amount being taxedin the year of completion of contract has been held in favourof the assessee by us, independent of the order of theSettlement Commission, which portion would have to be, eventhen reduced. With the above observations, the appeals are allowed. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE V.G.ARUN scl/cms/vku APPENDIX OF ITA 192/2012 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-ATRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 23/3/2006 ANNEXURE-BTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THECOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)DATED 18/4/2008 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)DATED 18/4/2008 ANNEXURE-CCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 29/2/2012APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 29/2/2012 APPENDIX OF ITA 134/2012 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE ACOPY OF ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 23/03/2006.ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 23/03/2006. ANNEXURE BTRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 10/07/2006.OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 10/07/2006. ANNEXURE CTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DATED 09/08/2007.09/08/2007. ANNEXURE DTRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 18/04/2008.OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 18/04/2008. ANNEXURE ETRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION DATED 12/03/2008.COMMISSION DATED 12/03/2008. ANNEXURE E1APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORETHE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION DATED 19/05/2009.THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION DATED 19/05/2009. APPENDIX OF ITA 134/2012 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE ACOPY OF ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 23/03/2006.ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 23/03/2006. ANNEXURE BTRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 10/07/2006.OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 10/07/2006. ANNEXURE CTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DATED 09/08/2007.09/08/2007. ANNEXURE DTRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 18/04/2008.OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 18/04/2008. ANNEXURE ETRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION DATED 12/03/2008.COMMISSION DATED 12/03/2008. ANNEXURE E1APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORETHE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION DATED 19/05/2009.THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION DATED 19/05/2009. ANNEXURE E2SETTLEMENT COMMISSION'S SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 08/02/2010 ADDRESSED TO NOTICE DATED 08/02/2010 ADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSEE. ANNEXURE FTRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED 16/03/2011.MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED 16/03/2011. ANNEXURE F1TRUE COPY OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 14/06/2011.JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 14/06/2011. ANNEXURE GTRUE COPY OF ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (GENERAL) DATED 05/03/2007.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (GENERAL) DATED 05/03/2007. ANNEXURE H TRUE COPY OF ORDER U/S. 143(3) RWS 263 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 30/11/2007.OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 30/11/2007. ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AGAINST THE ORDER U/S. 143(3) RWS 263 DATED 21/05/2008.OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AGAINST THE ORDER U/S. 143(3) RWS 263 DATED 21/05/2008. ANNEXURE J1TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER OF THE ITAT DATED 16/05/2011.MEMBER OF THE ITAT DATED 16/05/2011. ANNEXURE J2TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE JUDICIAL MEMBER OF THE ITAT DATED 27/07/2011.MEMBER OF THE ITAT DATED 27/07/2011. ANNEXURE K1 TRUE COPY OF REFERENCE ORDER OF THE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER OF THE ITAT DATED 08/08/2011.ACCOUNTANT MEMBER OF THE ITAT DATED 08/08/2011. ANNEXURE K2TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE JUDICIAL MEMBER OF THE ITAT DATED 27/07/2011.MEMBER OF THE ITAT DATED 27/07/2011. ANNEXURE LTRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THIRD MEMBER OF THE ITAT DATED FEBRUARY 2012.THE ITAT DATED FEBRUARY 2012. ANNEXURE MTRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE ITAT GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THIRD MEMBER DATED 29/02/2012.EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THIRD MEMBER DATED 29/02/2012. ITA Nos.192/12 & con.cases APPENDIX OF ITA 139/2012 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE ACOPY OF ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 29/12/2006. ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 14/02/2008. ANNEXURE CTRUE COPY OF ORDER OF ITAT DATED 29/02/2012. APPENDIX OF ITA 243/2012 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-ATRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 19/12/2007 ANNEXURE-BTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) DATED 22/5/2008 ANNEXURE-CTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DATED 29/2/2012.29/2/2012. APPENDIX OF ITA 202/2012 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE -ATRUE COPY OF THE ORDER I/S 143(3) OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 31/12/2009.THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 31/12/2009. ANNEXURE-BTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) DATED 27/9/2010COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) DATED 27/9/2010 ANNEXURE-CCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 643/COCH/2010 DATED 27/4/2012 .APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 643/COCH/2010 DATED 27/4/2012 . ITA Nos.192/12 & con.cases -33- APPENDIX OF ITA 8/2013 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE ACOPY OF ORDER i/S. 143(3) OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 31/12/2009.ANNEXURE BTRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 27/09/2010. ANNEXURE CCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.660/COCH/2010 DATED 27/04/2012. APPENDIX OF ITA 231/2013 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-BTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) DATED 27/9/2010COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) DATED 27/9/2010 ANNEXURE-CCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 643/COCH/2010 DATED 27/4/2012 .APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 643/COCH/2010 DATED 27/4/2012 . ITA Nos.192/12 & con.cases -33- APPENDIX OF ITA 8/2013 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE ACOPY OF ORDER i/S. 143(3) OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 31/12/2009.ANNEXURE BTRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 27/09/2010. ANNEXURE CCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.660/COCH/2010 DATED 27/04/2012. APPENDIX OF ITA 231/2013 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE ACOPY OF ORDER U/S. 143(3) DATED 29/12/2008.ANNEXURE BTRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, KOCHI, DATED30/11/2009.ANNEXURE CTRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 12/03/2013. APPENDIX OF ITA 132/2014 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-ATRUE COPY OF ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 21.12.2011. ANNEXURE-B TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 27.3.2013. ANNEXURE-CTRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 13.12.2013. ANNEXURE-DCOPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF AS-7 APPENDIX OF ITA 88/2014 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE ACOPY OF ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 21/12/2011. ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 27/03/2013. ANNEXURE CTRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 13/12/2013. ANNEXURE DCOPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF AS 7. APPENDIX OF ITA 61/2015PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-ATRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 31/3/2010 FOR THE A.Y.2002-03 ISSUED BYTHE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.31/3/2010 FOR THE A.Y.2002-03 ISSUED BYTHE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. ANNEXURE-BTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/7/2012 PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS-I).PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS-I). ANNEXURE-CTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ITA NO. 260/COCH/2012, DATED 19/9/2014 PASSED BY THE ITAT, COCHIN.260/COCH/2012, DATED 19/9/2014 PASSED BY THE ITAT, COCHIN. ANNEXURE-DTRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DATED 3/6/2013 FILED BY THE APPELLANTS COUNSEL FILED BEFORE THE ITAT, COCHIN.3/6/2013 FILED BY THE APPELLANTS COUNSEL FILED BEFORE THE ITAT, COCHIN. APPENDIX OF ITA 62/2015 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE ATRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 31/03/2010 FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.31/03/2010 FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. ANNEXURE BTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/07/2012PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS-I).PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS-I). ANNEXURE CTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ITA NO.261/COCH/2012 DATED 19/09/2014 PASSED BY THE ITAT, COCHIN.NO.261/COCH/2012 DATED 19/09/2014 PASSED BY THE ITAT, COCHIN. ANNEXURE DTRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DATED 03/06/2013 FILED BY THE APPELLANT'S COUNSEL FILED BEFORE THE ITAT, COCHIN.03/06/2013 FILED BY THE APPELLANT'S COUNSEL FILED BEFORE THE ITAT, COCHIN. APPENDIX OF ITA 63/2015 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ITA Nos.192/12 & con.cases ANNEXURE ATRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 31/03/2009 FOR THE A.Y.2004-05 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX.31/03/2009 FOR THE A.Y.2004-05 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX. ANNEXURE BTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/08/2010PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS-I).PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS-I). ANNEXURE CTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ITA NO.569/COCH/2010 DATED 19/09/2014 PASSED BY THE ITAT, COCHIN.NO.569/COCH/2010 DATED 19/09/2014 PASSED BY THE ITAT, COCHIN. ANNEXURE DTRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DATED 03/06/2013 FILED BY THE APPELLANT'S COUNSEL FILED BEFORE THE ITAT, COCHIN.03/06/2013 FILED BY THE APPELLANT'S COUNSEL FILED BEFORE THE ITAT, COCHIN. APPENDIX OF ITA 70/2015 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ITA Nos.192/12 & con.cases ANNEXURE ATRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 31/03/2009 FOR THE A.Y.2004-05 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX.31/03/2009 FOR THE A.Y.2004-05 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX. ANNEXURE BTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/08/2010PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS-I).PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS-I). ANNEXURE CTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ITA NO.569/COCH/2010 DATED 19/09/2014 PASSED BY THE ITAT, COCHIN.NO.569/COCH/2010 DATED 19/09/2014 PASSED BY THE ITAT, COCHIN. ANNEXURE DTRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DATED 03/06/2013 FILED BY THE APPELLANT'S COUNSEL FILED BEFORE THE ITAT, COCHIN.03/06/2013 FILED BY THE APPELLANT'S COUNSEL FILED BEFORE THE ITAT, COCHIN. APPENDIX OF ITA 70/2015 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE ATRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 31/03/2010 FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.31/03/2010 FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. ANNEXURE BTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/07/2012PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS-I).PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS-I). ANNEXURE CTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ITA NO.262/COCH/2012 DATED 19/09/2014 PASSED BY THE ITAT, COCHIN.NO.262/COCH/2012 DATED 19/09/2014 PASSED BY THE ITAT, COCHIN. ANNEXURE DTRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DATED 03/06/2013 FILED BY THE APPELLANT'S COUNSEL FILED BEFORE THE ITAT, COCHIN.03/06/2013 FILED BY THE APPELLANT'S COUNSEL FILED BEFORE THE ITAT, COCHIN.