Ita/201/2002 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Cochin v. M/S.harrisons Malayalam Ltd.,Cochin

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON FRIDAY ,THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITA.No. 87 of 2002 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 839/COCH/1995 ofI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 21-09-2001 APPELLANT/S:/APPELLANT/REVENUE: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,COCHIN BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH SC FOR IT RESPONDENT/S:/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE: M/S.HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD., COCHIN-3. BY ADVS.SRI.JOSON MANAVALANSRI.K.JOHN MATHAISRI.KURYAN THOMASSRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIARSRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAMSRI.P.GOPINATHSRI RAJA KANNAN THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.11.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.102/2002, ITA.108/2002 AND ITA.201/2002, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON FRIDAY ,THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITA.No. 102 of 2002 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 612/COCH/1992 ofI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 21-09-2001 APPELLANT/S:/APPELLANT/REVENUE: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR IT RESPONDENT/S:/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE: M/S.HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD., COCHIN BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIRSRI.JOSON MANAVALANSRI.K.JOHN MATHAISRI.KURYAN THOMASSRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIARSRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAMSRI.P.GOPINATHSRI.RAJA KANNAN THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.11.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.201/2002, ITA.108/2002 AND ITA.87/2002, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -3- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON FRIDAY ,THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITA.No. 108 of 2002 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 841/COCH/1995 ofI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 21.9.2001 APPELLANT/S:/APPELLANT/REVENUE: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON(SR.),SR.COUNSEL FOR ITSRI.JOSE JOSEPH SC FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S:/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE: M/S. HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD., COCHIN. BY ADVS.SRI.JOSON MANAVALANSRI.K.JOHN MATHAISRI.KURYAN THOMASSRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIARSRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAMSRI.P.GOPINATHSRI.RAJA KANNAN THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.11.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.201/2002, ITA.102/2002 AND ITA.87/2002, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -4- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON FRIDAY ,THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITA.No. 201 of 2002 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 840/COCH/1995 ofI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 21-09-2001 APPELLANT/S:/APPELLANT/REVENUE: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR IT RESPONDENT/S:/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE: M/S.HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD., COCHIN - 3. BY ADVS.SRI.JOSON MANAVALANSRI.K.JOHN MATHAISRI.KURYAN THOMASSRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIARSRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAMSRI.P.GOPINATHSRI.RAJA KANNAN THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.11.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.108/2002, ITA.102/2002 AND ITA.87/2002, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.R. ITA Nos.87, 102, 108 and 201 of 2002 J U D G M E N T K.Vinod Chandran, J. The four appeals arise from the very sameperiod spanning 27 months, due to the peculiar factsand circumstances of two companies having beenamalgamated. APPELLANT/S:/APPELLANT/REVENUE: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR IT RESPONDENT/S:/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE: M/S.HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD., COCHIN - 3. BY ADVS.SRI.JOSON MANAVALANSRI.K.JOHN MATHAISRI.KURYAN THOMASSRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIARSRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAMSRI.P.GOPINATHSRI.RAJA KANNAN THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.11.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.108/2002, ITA.102/2002 AND ITA.87/2002, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.R. ITA Nos.87, 102, 108 and 201 of 2002 J U D G M E N T K.Vinod Chandran, J. The four appeals arise from the very sameperiod spanning 27 months, due to the peculiar factsand circumstances of two companies having beenamalgamated. 2.We would first notice the backgroundfacts arising in the above cases and would deal withthe documents as produced in ITA No.108/2002. Therewere two Companies incorporated under the EnglishCompanies Act; M/s.Harrisons & Crossfield (I) Ltd.(HCL) and M/s.Malayalam Plantations (I) Ltd. (MPL).HCL was amalgamated with MPL w.e.f. 01.01.1983. Thescheme of amalgamation, which had the approval ofthis Court, is produced as Annexure-D. While HCL wasfollowing the calendar year for the purpose of incometax assessment, MPL was following the financial year.Hence, when the two Companies got amalgamated, MPLapplied for change of previous year relevant to theassessment year by Annexure-E and the change was ITAs.87,102, 108 & 201/2002 permitted by Annexure-F. The application is seenfiled by HCL itself. The 18 months comprised between01.01.1983 and 30.06.1984 was, by Annexure-F,permitted to be the previous year of the assessmentyear 1985-86, since, 30.06.1984 was the date on whichMPL closed its accounts. When the assessment wasmade for the assessment year 1985-86, the previousyear had a total of 27 months from 01.01.1983 to31.03.1985. The assessment is seen at Annexure-G. 3.A claim was made under Section 80HHC ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’, for brevity), whichwas allowed. Later, a rectification was made underSection 154 by the Assessing Officer (AO), which isthe subject of challenge in ITA No.102/2002. Therectification was on the premise that M/s.HarrisonsMalayalam Limited, the new company formed, cannot besaid to have a previous year to the previous yearrelevant for the assessment year 1985-86. In suchcircumstances, there could be no claim made undersub-Clause (b) of Section 80HHC(1) of the Act, sincethere is no previous year to the relevant previousyear. The rectification went on the premise thatM/s.Harrisons Malayalam Limited is a new Companywhich does not have a previous year to claim benefit under sub-Clause (b) of Section 80HHC(1) of the Act.Section 154 order dated 12.02.1992, which went up inappeal and second appeal, eventually has reached thisCourt in ITA No.102/2002. 4.Subsequently, a re-assessment underSection 147 was attempted by the AO by issuance of anotice under Section 148. Section 148 notice wasissued on 30.03.1993, after the rectification underSection 154. The notice under Section 148 was issuedon the premise that HCL did not have any assessmentfor the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85 and theAO had allowed the change of previous year andpermitted closure of the books on 30.06.1983 withoutbeing aware of any amalgamation. The AO found thatthe income of HCL in the three years has to beassessed at the hands of M/s.Harrisons MalayalamLimited and hence, computed the income for the threeseparate assessment years of 1983-84, 1984-85 and1985-86. The first year comprising of a previousyear of three months and two other years comprisingof a previous year of 12 months each. The assesseefiled appeals from the orders under Section 147,which was overturned by the Commissioner of IncomeTax. The first appellate authority found that there can be no re-assessment under Section 147, since theentire facts were within the knowledge of the AO, whoalso completed the assessment resorting to scrutinyunder Section 143(3) of the Act. The first appellateauthority also found that the assessment completedfor the year 1985-86 was comprised of a relevantprevious year of 27 months. The first appellateauthority was of the opinion that the re-assessmentattempted to be made, would not come within the scopeof Section 147. The Tribunal upheld the order of theCommissioner (Appeals) against which the Revenue hasfiled the three other Income Tax Appeals underSection 260A of the Act. 5.We have heard Sri.Jose Joseph, learnedStanding Counsel, Government of India (Taxes) andSri.Raja Kannan, learned counsel appearing for therespondent-assessee. 6.Sri.Jose Joseph would argue relying onthe decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in(1990) 186 ITR 278 [Saraswati Industrial SyndicateLtd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Haryana, HimachalPradesh and Delhi III]. On facts, it is pointed outthat the two Companies, HCL and MPL amalgamated and a new Company was formed by Name M/s.HarrisonsMalayalam Limited. M/s.Harrisons Malayalam Limitedbeing a new Company could not have claimed anybenefit under sub-Clause (b) of Section 80HHC(1) ofthe Act, since the new Company did not have aprevious year. Assessment year 1985-86 was the firstyear of inception of the new Company M/s.HarrisonsMalayalam Limited. In such circumstances, therecould be only claim of 1% of the deduction of theexport turnover of the new Company for the relevantprevious year of the assessment year 1985-86 and noclaim could be made of 5% differential turnover ofthe previous year and the previous year to theprevious year as there being no previous year to theprevious year. This is in support of therectification under Section 154 of the Act. Thelearned Standing Counsel would also contend that, ifat all, the rectification is not upheld, then theassessments under Section 147 could be upheld, sinceotherwise, the benefit claimed by the new Companywould be excessive in nature. 7.Sri.Raja Kannan, learned counsel for therespondent-assessee would, however, point out thatthe rectification and the re-assessment proceedings are both taken on a wrong premise and on themisconception that on amalgamation a new Company wasformed called M/s.Harrisons Malayalam Limited. Thelearned Counsel alertly points out the scheme ofamalgamation which indicates that HCL got amalgamatedinto MPL. HCL is shown as the transferor Company andMPL as the transferee Company. Even going by thedecision of the Honourable Supreme Court cited by thelearned Standing Counsel for the Revenue, it issubmitted that MPL exists even after the amalgamationand it also has a previous year to the previous yearrelevant to the assessment year 1985-86. The learnedcounsel would first contend that the re-assessmentsunder Section 147 cannot be sustained, since theentire facts were in the knowledge of the AO at thetime when Annexure-G order was passed for theassessment year 1985-86 comprising of the previousyear of 27 months between 01.01.1983 to 30.03.1985.The Commissioner’s order finding no re-assessmentpossible under Section 147, has to be upheld, is thecontention, since it is on a mere change of opinion. 8.On the rectification, the learnedCounsel would take us through the figures atAnnexure-G and point out that what has been claimed 8.On the rectification, the learnedCounsel would take us through the figures atAnnexure-G and point out that what has been claimed under Section 80HHC is only the export turnover ofMPL for the assessment year 1985-86 relevant to theprevious year of 27 months. In computing the 1%deduction available under sub-Clause (a) of Section80HHC(1) of the Act, the export turnover of MPL afteramalgamation was claimed, wherein the business of HCLwas treated as the trading division of MPL.Similarly, when claiming 5% deduction, the totalexport turnover of MPL for the 27 months was takenand the export turnover of MPL for its previous yearto the previous year of 27 months was deducted andthe balance claimed at 5% under sub-Clause (b) ofSection 80HHC(1) of the Act. 9.We frame the following questions of lawas arising in the appeals for the three years. InITA Nos.87, 108 and 201/2002, the following questionis framed:- Whether re-assessment could have been carried outunder Section 147, when the entire facts andcircumstances,includingthatoftheamalgamation, were within the knowledge of the AOand the change in assessment year prayed for andpermitted, was anticipating the amalgamationitself and is not the reassessment attemptedhence based on a mere change of opinion? In ITA No.102/2002, the question arising is re-framedas follows:- Whether the rectification under Section 154 waspermissible and whether it is sustainable on thegrounds stated for such rectification, which arenot true and correct? 10. Section 147 as it existed in the relevant year is extracted herein below:- “147.Income escaping assessment:- If (a)The Income-tax Officer has reasonto believe that, by reason of the omissionor failure on the part of an assessee tomake a return under Section 139 for anyassessment year to the Income-Tax Officeror to disclose fully and truly allmaterial facts necessary for hisassessment for that year, incomechargeable to tax has escaped assessmentfor that year, or (b)Notwithstanding that there hasbeen no omission or failure as mentionedin clause (a) on the part of the assessee,the income-tax Officer has in consequenceof information in his possession reason tobelieve that income chargeable to tax hasescaped assessment for any assessmentyear, he may, subject to the provisions ofsection 148 to 153, assess or re-assesssuch income or recompute the loss or thedepreciation allowance, as the case maybe, for the assessment year concerned(hereafter in sections 148 to 153 referredto as the relevant assessment year). Explanation. 1-For the purposes of thissection, the following shall also bedeemed to be cases where income chargeableto tax has escaped assessment, namely:- (a) Where income chargeable to tax hasbeen under-assessed; or (b) Where such income has been assessed attoo low a rate; or (c) Where such income has been made thesubject of excessive relief under this Actor under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922); or (d) Where excessive loss or depreciationallowance has been computed. Explanation 2.- Production before theIncome-tax Officer of account books orother evidence from which materialevidence could with due diligence havebeen discovered by the Income-tax Officerwill not necessarily amount to disclosurewithin the meaning of this section.” 11. When we look at the documents produced (a) Where income chargeable to tax hasbeen under-assessed; or (b) Where such income has been assessed attoo low a rate; or (c) Where such income has been made thesubject of excessive relief under this Actor under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922); or (d) Where excessive loss or depreciationallowance has been computed. Explanation 2.- Production before theIncome-tax Officer of account books orother evidence from which materialevidence could with due diligence havebeen discovered by the Income-tax Officerwill not necessarily amount to disclosurewithin the meaning of this section.” 11. When we look at the documents produced by the Department itself in ITA No.108/2002, it isvery clear that the AO was in the know-how of theamalgamation proceedings. Annexure-F permission wasgranted for change of assessment year to HCL only byway of a request made at Annexure-E, which isspecifically read in Annexure-F as letter dated28.08.1984. The request for change of previous yearspecifically indicated that the amalgamation processwas on and that they expect the order of the HighCourt of Kerala approving the scheme of arrangementand amalgamation, shortly. In such circumstances,there is no warrant to assume that the assessmentorder at Annexure-G was passed without knowledge ofthe amalgamation. We also see that the order atAnnexure-G specifically noticed the amalgamation as ordered by Annexure-D. It is also stated in theassessment order that HCL was amalgamated with theassessee Company w.e.f. 01.01.1983. In suchcircumstances, we do not think that there could beany re-assessment made under Section 147, since thenit would merely be a change of opinion as held in(1997) 225 ITR 226 [Andhra Bank Ltd. v. Commissionerof Income-Tax] and in (2010) 2 SCC 723 [Commissionerof Income Tax, Delhi v. Kelvinator of India Limited]. 12. On the above reasoning, the firstquestion is answered against the Revenue and infavour of the assessee and ITA Nos.87, 108 and201/2002 are rejected. 13. On the second question, we have to first notice the submission of the learned counselappearing for the respondent-assessee that the entireproceedings was on a misconception of a new Companyhaving been formed in the name of M/s.HarrisonsMalayalam Limited. The learned counsel for theassessee produced across the Bar a certificate ofincorporation, consequent on change of name, dated29.10.1984 which we extract hereunder:- 14. Hence, as we noticed, the two Companies,HCL and MPL, when amalgamated; the former wasamalgamated into the latter. What remained and existed after the amalgamation was MPL. Subsequentto the amendment, MPL requested for and obtainedchange of name as M/s.Harrisons Malayalam Limited,which is evidenced by the above extract. Hence, itcannot be said that M/s.Harrisons Malayalam Limitedwas a new Company incorporated on amalgamation. 15. We now look at the judgment of theHonourable Supreme Court in Saraswati IndustrialSyndicate Ltd.,wherein on identical facts oneCompany called Indian Sugar and General EngineeringCorporation was amalgamated with Saraswati IndustrialSyndicate Ltd. Indian Sugar and General EngineeringCorporation, prior to its incorporation, had claimeda trading liability of Rs.58,735/-. Afteramalgamation, in the next assessment year, theRevenue required Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd.to bring to income, the said trading liability of theCompany amalgamated. The Honourable Supreme Courtfound that it could not be done, since Indian Sugarand General Engineering Corporation ceased to existafter the amalgamation. We extract hereunder thereasoning on amalgamation, as found by the HonourableSupreme Court with reference to Halsbury’s Laws ofEngland:- -17- -17- “5. Generally, where only one company isinvolved in change and the rights of theshareholders and creditors are varied, itamounts to reconstruction or reorganisationof scheme of arrangement. In amalgamationtwo or more companies are fused into one bymerger or by taking over by another.Reconstruction or ‘amalgamation’ has noprecise legal meaning. The amalgamation is ablending of two or more existingundertakings into one undertaking, theshareholders of each blending company becomesubstantially the shareholders in thecompany which is to carry on the blendedundertakings. There may be amalgamationeither by the transfer of two or moreundertakings to a new company, or by thetransfer of one or more undertakings to anexisting company. Strictly ‘amalgamation’does not cover the mere acquisition by acompany of the share capital of othercompany which remains in existence andcontinues its undertaking but the context inwhich the term is used may show that it isintended to include such an acquisition.See: Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th editionvolume 7 para 1539). Two companies may jointo form a new company, but there may beabsorption or blending of one by the other,both amount to amalgamation. When twocompanies are merged and are so joined, asto form a third company or one is absorbedinto one or blended with another, theamalgamating company loses its entity.” Hence, when one Company is amalgamated into the otherCompany, the former ceased to exist and the lattercontinues as such. We notice here that HCL wouldcease to exist and MPL would continue to exist. 16. In looking at the sustainability of theorder under Section 154, we have to necessarily first -18- look at the assessment order at Annexure-G, which wassought to be rectified, and the figures coming outtherein. The claim under Section 80HHC has beencomputed in the following manner:- “Less : Deduction under Chapter VIA Deduction u/s 80 HHC FOB value of Export turnover of Trading Rs.35,31,66,651/-division Add : 40% of FOB value of Rs.92,91,647/- being export turnover of tea manufactures in itsRs.37,16,659/-own estates as per discussion in the body oforder. -Rs.35,68,83,310/Less: FOB value of Export turnover of the Rs.87,34,764/-Company for the year ending on 31.3.1984 -Rs.34,81,48,546/1% on Rs.35,68,83,310/-Rs.35,68,833/-5% on incremental turnover of Rs.34,81,48,546/-Rs.1,74,07,427/- Rs.2,09,76,260/-” 17. As pointed out by the learned counselfor the respondent-assessee, the business of HCL whenamalgamated with MPL, continued as the tradingdivision of MPL. For the 27 months comprised in theprevious year to the relevant assessment year, thetrading division had an export turnover ofRs.35,31,66,651/- to which was added the exportturnover of the business of MPL, which was also -Rs.35,68,83,310/Less: FOB value of Export turnover of the Rs.87,34,764/-Company for the year ending on 31.3.1984 -Rs.34,81,48,546/1% on Rs.35,68,83,310/-Rs.35,68,833/-5% on incremental turnover of Rs.34,81,48,546/-Rs.1,74,07,427/- Rs.2,09,76,260/-” 17. As pointed out by the learned counselfor the respondent-assessee, the business of HCL whenamalgamated with MPL, continued as the tradingdivision of MPL. For the 27 months comprised in theprevious year to the relevant assessment year, thetrading division had an export turnover ofRs.35,31,66,651/- to which was added the exportturnover of the business of MPL, which was also continuing, coming to Rs.37,16,659/-. The total ofRs.35,68,83,310/- was taken for deduction underSection 80HHC(1)(a) at 1%. Then, the total exportturnover of MPL for the previous year relevant to theassessment year 1985-86 was taken from which wasdeducted the export turnover of MPL for the previousyear to the previous year which was onlyRs.87,34,764/-. The balance of Rs.34,81,48,546/- wastaken for deduction under Section 80HHC(1)(b) @ 5%.We cannot find any infirmity in the same. We,however, notice that but for the decision inSaraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd.,MPL would havehad to deduct the export turnover of HCL for theperiod from 01.01.1983 to 31.12.1983 being theprevious year to the previous year comprising of 27months, between 01.01.1983 to 31.03.1985. Correctly,the AO had also not at the time of passing Annexure-Gorder sought to deduct such turnover presumably beingaware of the Supreme Court judgment. In suchcircumstances, we do not see any reason to interferewith the order passed at Annexure-G and theinterferencecausedunderSection154onrectification is found to be bad in law. In fact, we had been toying with this problem for quite some time after finishing the hearing andwe appreciate the efforts taken by Sri.Raja Kannan toput us in the right stream, especially by referringto the figures as seen from Annexure-G order. Thequestion is, hence, answered against the Revenue andin favour of the assessee. ITA No.102/2002 alsowould stand rejected. No costs. Sd/-K.VINOD CHANDRANJUDGESd/-ASHOK MENONJUDGE APPENDIX IN ITA NO.87/2002 APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE-ACOPY OF ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 22.12.94. ANNEXURE-BCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 27.9.1995. ANNEXURE-CCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED21.9.2001. [True Copy] jg APPENDIX IN ITA NO.102/2002 APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE-ACOPY OF ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE IT ACT DATED 12.2.1992. ANNEXURE-BCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 5.6.1992.ANNEXURE-CCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED21.9.2001.[True Copy] jg -23- APPENDIX IN ITA NO.108/2002 APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE-ACOPY OF ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 22.12.1994. ANNEXURE-BCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 27.9.1995.INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 27.9.1995. ANNEXURE-CCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED21.9.2001.21.9.2001. ANNEXURE-DCOPY OF SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION.ANNEXURE-ECOPY OF REPLY LETTER OF THE ASSESSEEADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED28.8.1984.ANNEXURE-ECOPY OF REPLY LETTER OF THE ASSESSEEADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED28.8.1984. ANNEXURE-FCOPY OF THE LETTER OF THE ASSESSINGOFFICER DATED 1.9.1984.OFFICER DATED 1.9.1984.ANNEXURE-GCOPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED26.2.1988.26.2.1988.ANNEXURE-G1COPY OF THE MODIFIED ORDER OF THE ASESSINGOFFICER DATED 19.10.1994.OFFICER DATED 19.10.1994. ANNEXURE-HCOPY OF THE LETTER OF THE ASSESSINGOFFICER DATED 5.12.1994.[True Copy]OFFICER DATED 5.12.1994.[True Copy] jg APPENDIX IN ITA NO.201/2002 APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE-A COPY OF ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 22.12.1994. ANNEXURE-B ANNEXURE-DCOPY OF SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION.ANNEXURE-ECOPY OF REPLY LETTER OF THE ASSESSEEADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED28.8.1984.ANNEXURE-ECOPY OF REPLY LETTER OF THE ASSESSEEADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED28.8.1984. ANNEXURE-FCOPY OF THE LETTER OF THE ASSESSINGOFFICER DATED 1.9.1984.OFFICER DATED 1.9.1984.ANNEXURE-GCOPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED26.2.1988.26.2.1988.ANNEXURE-G1COPY OF THE MODIFIED ORDER OF THE ASESSINGOFFICER DATED 19.10.1994.OFFICER DATED 19.10.1994. ANNEXURE-HCOPY OF THE LETTER OF THE ASSESSINGOFFICER DATED 5.12.1994.[True Copy]OFFICER DATED 5.12.1994.[True Copy] jg APPENDIX IN ITA NO.201/2002 APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE-A COPY OF ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 22.12.1994. ANNEXURE-B COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 27.9.1995. ANNEXURE-CCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED21.9.2001. [True Copy] jg