Ita/202/2019 Of Vadakkenchery Service Co-Operative Bank Limited v. The Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI WEDNESDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 18TH POUSHA, 1941 ITA.No.197 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 467/COCH/2018 FOR AY 2013-14 DATED29.11.2018 AND RECEIVED ON 24.12.2018 OFI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE: KUTHANNUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,NO.F 1563, KUTHANNUR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678721, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.JOJOSRI.JACOB CHACKOSRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH RESPONDENT/APPELLANT: 1THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 5, AYAKAR BHAVAN, ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD, PALAKKAD, PIN-678014.WARD 5, AYAKAR BHAVAN, ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD, PALAKKAD, PIN-678014. 2THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),AYAKAR BHAVAN, THRISSUR , PIN-680001.AYAKAR BHAVAN, THRISSUR , PIN-680001. 3INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH,KAKKANAD, COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.682030KAKKANAD, COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.682030 4CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECTOR TAXES (CBDT),DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI.110011DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI.110011 I.T.A.Nos.197 of 2019& conn.cases 2 5RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,CENTRAL OFFICE, CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING, (21ST FLOOR), SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH MARG, FORT, MUMBAI-400001. R1-4 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.)R1-4 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON04-09-2019, ALONG WITH ITA.198/2019, ITA.199/2019,ITA.202/2019, THE COURT ON 08-01-2020 DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: I.T.A.Nos.197 of 2019& conn.cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI WEDNESDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 18TH POUSHA, 1941 ITA.No.198 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 468/COCH/2018 FOR AY 2013-14 DATED29.11.2018 AND RECEIVED ON 24.12.2018 OFI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE: PERINGOTTUKURUSSI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.519PARUTHIPULLY P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678573, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.JOJOSRI.JACOB CHACKOSRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH RESPONDENT/APPELLANT: 1THE INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD 5, AYAKAR BHAVAN, ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD, PALAKKAD, PIN-678014. 2THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL),AYAKAR BHAVAN, THRISSUR, PIN-680001. 3INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH,KAKKANAD, COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR. 682030KAKKANAD, COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR. 682030 I.T.A.Nos.197 of 2019& conn.cases 4 4CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES (CBDT),DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI.110011DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI.110011 5RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,CENTRAL OFFICE, CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING, (21ST FLOOR), SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH MARG, FORT, MUMBAI-400001.CENTRAL OFFICE, CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING, (21ST FLOOR), SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH MARG, FORT, MUMBAI-400001. R1-4 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.)R1-4 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-09-2019,ALONGWITHITA.197/2019,ITA.199/2019,ITA.202/2019, THE COURT ON 08-01-2020 DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: I.T.A.Nos.197 of 2019& conn.cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI WEDNESDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 18TH POUSHA, 1941 ITA.No.199 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 469/COCH/2018 FOR AY 2013-14 DATED29.11.2018 AND RECEIVED ON 24.12.2018 OFI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE R1-4 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.)R1-4 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-09-2019,ALONGWITHITA.197/2019,ITA.199/2019,ITA.202/2019, THE COURT ON 08-01-2020 DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: I.T.A.Nos.197 of 2019& conn.cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI WEDNESDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 18TH POUSHA, 1941 ITA.No.199 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 469/COCH/2018 FOR AY 2013-14 DATED29.11.2018 AND RECEIVED ON 24.12.2018 OFI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE VADAKKENCHERY SERVICE CO OP BANK LTD.,NO.F 1219, VADAKKENCHERY P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 683, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.JOJOSRI.JACOB CHACKOSRI.MATHEWS JOSEPHSMT.SWATHY S. RESPONDENT/APPELLANT: 1THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,PALAKKAD, PIN-678 014 WARD-5, AYAKAR BHAVAN, ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD, 2THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)AYAKAR BHAVAN, THRISSUR, PIN-680 001 3INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH,KAKKANAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR , COCHIN. 682030KAKKANAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR , COCHIN. 682030 4CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES (CBDT),DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI.110011DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI.110011 5RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,CENTRAL OFFICE, CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING, (21ST FLOOR), SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH MARG, FORT, MUMBAI-400 001CENTRAL OFFICE, CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING, (21ST FLOOR), SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH MARG, FORT, MUMBAI-400 001 R1-4 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAXR1-4 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.)R1-4 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-09-2019,ALONGWITHITA.197/2019,ITA.198/2019,ITA.202/2019, THE COURT ON 08-01-2020 DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING:ITA.202/2019, THE COURT ON 08-01-2020 DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: I.T.A.Nos.197 of 2019& conn.cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI WEDNESDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 18TH POUSHA, 1941 ITA.No.202 OF 2019 AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER IN ITA 470/COCH/2018 FOR AY 2013-14 DATED 29.11.2018 AND RECEIVED ON 24.12.2018 OFI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE: VADAKKENCHERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITEDNO.F 1219,VADAKKANCHERY.P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,PIN-678683, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.JOJO RESPONDENT/APPELLANT 1THE INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD 5,AYAKAR BHAVAN,ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD,PALAKKAD,PIN-678014. 2THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEAL),AYAKAR BHAVAN,THRISSUR, PIN-680001. 3INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH,KAKKANAD,REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR,COCHIN-682030.KAKKANAD,REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR,COCHIN-682030. I.T.A.Nos.197 of 2019& conn.cases 4CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES(CBDT),DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,MINISTRY OF FINANCE,GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110001. 5RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,CENTRAL OFFICE,CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING(21ST FLOOR),SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH MARG,FORT,MUMBAI-400001.REP.BY ITS MANAGER.CENTRAL OFFICE,CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING(21ST FLOOR),SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH MARG,FORT,MUMBAI-400001.REP.BY ITS MANAGER. R1-4 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.)R1-4 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-09-2019,ALONGWITHITA.197/2019,ITA.198/2019,ITA.199/2019, THE COURT ON 08-01-2020 DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: I.T.A.Nos.197 of 2019& conn.cases C.K.ABDUL REHIM & R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JJ. ************************** I.T.Appeal Nos.197 of 2019, 198 of 2019, 199 of 2019 &202 of 2019 ---------------------------------------------- 5RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,CENTRAL OFFICE,CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING(21ST FLOOR),SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH MARG,FORT,MUMBAI-400001.REP.BY ITS MANAGER.CENTRAL OFFICE,CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING(21ST FLOOR),SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH MARG,FORT,MUMBAI-400001.REP.BY ITS MANAGER. R1-4 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.)R1-4 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-09-2019,ALONGWITHITA.197/2019,ITA.198/2019,ITA.199/2019, THE COURT ON 08-01-2020 DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: I.T.A.Nos.197 of 2019& conn.cases C.K.ABDUL REHIM & R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JJ. ************************** I.T.Appeal Nos.197 of 2019, 198 of 2019, 199 of 2019 &202 of 2019 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8[th] day of January, 2020 "CR" J U D G M E N T R.Narayana Pisharadi, J The appellants/assessees are Co-operative Societiesregistered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Theissue raised in these appeals relates to their claim for deductionunder Section 80P(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafterreferred to as 'the Act'). 2. The claim for deduction under Section 80P (2) of the Actmade by the appellants was denied by the Assessing Officer by treating them as Co-operative Banks and not as PrimaryAgricultural Credit Societies. Aggrieved by the assessment ordersthus passed by the Assessing Officer, the appellants filed appeals I.T.A.Nos.197 of 2019& conn.cases before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appellate authority, by following the judgment of this Court in ChirakkalService Co-operative Bank Limited v. Commissioner ofIncome Tax : 2016 (2) KHC 726: 2016 (2) KLT 535, allowedthe appeals and directed the Assessing Officer to grant deductionunder Section 80P (2) of the Act, on the ground that theassessees are classified as Primary Agricultural Credit Societiesby the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. 3. The revenue challenged the orders passed by the firstappellate authority in second appeals filed before the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. The assessees filed crossobjections supporting the orders passed by the first appellateauthority, by making reference to a circular issued by thedepartment. The Tribunal also relied upon the decision of thisCourt in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Limited(supra) and dismissed the appeals filed by the revenue. Thecross objections filed by the assessees were also dismissed onthe ground that they only supported the view taken by the firstappellate authority. Though the decision of the Tribunal was in I.T.A.Nos.197 of 2019& conn.cases their favour, the assessees have filed these appeals against the orders passed by the Tribunal, raising only the grievance that theTribunal has not considered the effect of the circular issued bythe department in the matter. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants andalso the learned Standing Counsel for the Income TaxDepartment. 5. Section 80P of the Act deals with deduction in respect of income of co-operative societies. Sub-section (1) of that sectionprovides that where, in the case of an assessee being a co-operative society, the gross total income includes any incomereferred to in sub-section (2) of that section, there shall bededucted, in accordance with and subject to the provisions ofSection 80P, the sums specified in sub-section (2) thereof, incomputing the total income of the assessee. Sub-section (4) ofSection 80P provides that the provisions of Section 80P shall notapply in relation to any co-operative bank other than a primaryagricultural credit society or a primary co-operative agriculturaland rural development bank. I.T.A.Nos.197 of 2019& conn.cases 6. In Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank (supra), a income of co-operative societies. Sub-section (1) of that sectionprovides that where, in the case of an assessee being a co-operative society, the gross total income includes any incomereferred to in sub-section (2) of that section, there shall bededucted, in accordance with and subject to the provisions ofSection 80P, the sums specified in sub-section (2) thereof, incomputing the total income of the assessee. Sub-section (4) ofSection 80P provides that the provisions of Section 80P shall notapply in relation to any co-operative bank other than a primaryagricultural credit society or a primary co-operative agriculturaland rural development bank. I.T.A.Nos.197 of 2019& conn.cases 6. In Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that, societies having beenclassified as Primary Agricultural Credit Societies by thecompetent authority under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act,it has necessarily to be held that the principal object of suchsocieties is to undertake agricultural credit activities and toprovide loans and advances for agricultural purposes, the rate ofinterest on such loans and advances to be at the rate to be fixedby the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and having its area ofoperation confined to a village, panchayat or a municipality andas such, they are entitled for the benefit of sub-section (4) ofSection 80P of the Act to ease themselves out from the coverageof Section 80P and that the authorities under the Act cannotprobe into any issues or such matters relating to such societiesand that the Primary Agricultural Credit Societies registered assuch under the Kerala Co-operative Socities Act and classified sounder that statute, are entitled to such exemption. 7. Chirakkal (supra) now stands overruled by the decisionof a Full Bench of this Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative I.T.A.Nos.197 of 2019& conn.cases Bank Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax : 2019 (2)KHC 287: 2019 (2) KLT 597, in which it has been held asfollows: “In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court inCitizen Co-operative Society v. AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax: AIR 2017 SC 5147, itcannot be contended that, while considering theclaim made by an assessee society for deductionunder Section 80P of the IT Act, after theintroduction of sub-section (4) thereof, theAssessing Officer has to extend the benefitsavailable, merely looking at the class of the societyas per the certificate of registration issued under theCentral or State Co-operative Societies Act and theRules made thereunder. On such a claim fordeduction under Section 80P of the ITAct, theAssessing Officer has to conduct an enquiry into thefactual situation as to the activities of the assesseesociety and arrive at a conclusion whether benefitscan be extended or not in the light of the provisionsunder sub-section(4) of Section 80P”. The Full Bench has further held as follows: “Moreover, the law laid down by the Division Benchin Chirakkal is not good law, since, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Citizen Co-operative Society, on a claim for deduction underSection 80P of the Income Tax Act, by reason ofsub-section (4) thereof, the Assessing Officer has toconduct an enquiry into the factual situation as tothe activities of the assessee society and arrive at aconclusion whether benefits can be extended or notin the light of the provisions under sub-section (4)of Section 80P of the IT Act”. 8. The orders passed by the Tribunal, confirming the decision of the first appellate authority merely on the basis ofChirakkal (supra), are erroneous, in the light of the law laiddown by the Full Bench of this Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank (supra). However, the revenue has not filed anyappeal or cross objection challenging the orders passed by theTribunal and we cannot interfere with the decision of the Tribunalin these appeals filed at the instance of the assessees. 8. The orders passed by the Tribunal, confirming the decision of the first appellate authority merely on the basis ofChirakkal (supra), are erroneous, in the light of the law laiddown by the Full Bench of this Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank (supra). However, the revenue has not filed anyappeal or cross objection challenging the orders passed by theTribunal and we cannot interfere with the decision of the Tribunalin these appeals filed at the instance of the assessees. 9. The grievance of the appellants is that, though the orders passed by the Tribunal are in their favour, the Tribunal hasnot considered the effect of Circular No.133/6 of 2007 dated09.05.2007 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. In this I.T.A.Nos.197 of 2019& conn.cases circular, it was clarified by the department that, for the purposeof Section 80P(4) of the Act, a co-operative bank shall have themeaning assigned to it in Part V of the Banking Regulation Act,1949. In other words, the contention of the appellants is that, inview of the aforesaid circular, in order to ascertain whether a co-operative society is conducting the business of banking, whatshall be considered is whether it is a co-operative bank withinthe meaning of Part V of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 andthat the criteria shall not be as stated by the Full Bench of thisCourt in Mavilayi (supra). 10. The aforesaid contention is misconceived. Clarificatorycirculars are issued by Government departments for the guidanceof the officers. Such circulars or instructions do bind thedepartment and its officers. But they do not bind the Court ininterpretation of statutory provisions. Circulars issued by aGovernment department cannot have any primacy over thedecision of the jurisdictional High Court. Circulars andinstructions thus issued will not survive, if they are contrary tothe decision of a Constitutional Court.If a circular provides an I.T.A.Nos.197 of 2019& conn.cases 16 interpretation of law that runs contrary to the interpretationgiven by the jurisdictional High Court, it no longer survives.Circulars or instructions given by the department are no doubtbinding on the authorities under the Act, but when the SupremeCourt or the High Court has declared the law on the questionarising for consideration, it will not be open to a party to contendthat the circular should be given effect to and not the viewexpressed in the decision of the Supreme Court or the HighCourt. Any direction issued by the Government in a circularwould be mere expression of its opinion. But, once a provisionhas been interpreted by the superior court, then it will not beopen to the assessee to project an interpretation on theconcerned provision in tune with the circular, but against the lawlaid down by the Court. 11. In Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/sGurukripa Resins Private Limited : (2011) 13 SCC 180, theSupreme Court has held as follows: “It is well settled proposition of law that Circularsand instructions issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs are no doubt binding in law onthe authorities under the respective Statutes butwhen this Court or the High Court declares the lawon the question arising for consideration, it wouldnot be appropriate for the Courts or the Tribunal, asthe case may be, to direct that the Board's Circularshould be given effect to and not the view expressedin a decision of this Court or a High Court”. 12. In Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s Ratan Melting Wire Industries: (2008) 13 SCC 1, the ConstitutionBench has held as follows: 11. In Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/sGurukripa Resins Private Limited : (2011) 13 SCC 180, theSupreme Court has held as follows: “It is well settled proposition of law that Circularsand instructions issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs are no doubt binding in law onthe authorities under the respective Statutes butwhen this Court or the High Court declares the lawon the question arising for consideration, it wouldnot be appropriate for the Courts or the Tribunal, asthe case may be, to direct that the Board's Circularshould be given effect to and not the view expressedin a decision of this Court or a High Court”. 12. In Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s Ratan Melting Wire Industries: (2008) 13 SCC 1, the ConstitutionBench has held as follows: “Circulars and instructions issued by the Board areno doubt binding in law on the authorities under therespective statutes, but when the Supreme Court orthe High Court declares the law on the questionarising for consideration, it would not be appropriatefor the Court to direct that the circular should begiven effect to and not the view expressed in adecision of this Court or the High Court. So far asthe clarifications/circulars issued by the CentralGovernment and of the State Government areconcernedtheyrepresentmerelytheirunderstanding of the statutory provisions. They arenot binding upon the Court. It is for the Court todeclare what the particular provision of statute says and it is not for the Executive. Looked at from another angle, a circular which is contrary to thestatutory provisions has really no existence in law”. 13. It is true that, when the Tribunal passed the orders, the decision in Mavilayi (supra) was not in existence. But, thedecision in Chirakkal (supra), was then in force. In view of thedecision in Chirakkal (supra), it was not necessary for theTribunal to consider the effect of the circular issued by thedepartment. A circular issued by the department is not bindingon the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal also. Authority for thisproposition can be had from the decision of the Supreme Court inCommissioner of Income Tax v. Hero Cycles : AIR 1998 SC 1555, wherein it has been held as follows: “We have passed similar orders in a large numberof cases but in this case on behalf of the assessee ithas been contended that there is a circular issuedby Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi whichshould conclude the matter. A copy of the so calledcircular dated 9th April, 1981/13th April, 1981 hasbeen handed over in Court. It does not appear thatthe document handed over in Court is a copy ofCircular at all. ...... Moreover, it is well settled that I.T.A.Nos.197 of 2019 & conn.cases 19 circulars can bind the Income Tax Officer but willnot bind the appellate authority or the Tribunalorthe Court or even the assessee”. (emphasissupplied). 14. The appellants have filed these appeals challenging the orders passed by the Tribunal in their favour. No substantialquestion of law arises for consideration in these appeals. Theappeals are misconceived and they are liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the appeals are dismissed. (sd/-) C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE (sd/-) R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE & conn.cases APPENDIX OF ITA 197/2019 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE AA TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24.03.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE BA TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 31.07.2018 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE CA TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLETRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH DATED 29.11.2018. ANNEXURE DA TRUE COPY OF THE CROSS OBJECTION DATED 22.11.2018 FILED BY THE APPELLANT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL I.T.A.Nos.197 of 2019& conn.cases APPENDIX OF ITA 198/2019 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE AA TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24.03.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE BA TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 19.07.2018 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. (sd/-) C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE (sd/-) R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE & conn.cases APPENDIX OF ITA 197/2019 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE AA TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24.03.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE BA TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 31.07.2018 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE CA TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLETRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH DATED 29.11.2018. ANNEXURE DA TRUE COPY OF THE CROSS OBJECTION DATED 22.11.2018 FILED BY THE APPELLANT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL I.T.A.Nos.197 of 2019& conn.cases APPENDIX OF ITA 198/2019 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE AA TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24.03.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE BA TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 19.07.2018 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE CA TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLETRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH DATED 29.11.2018.ANNEXURE DA TRUE COPY OF THE CROSS OBJECTION DATED 29.11.2018 FILED BY THE APPELLANT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL I.T.A.Nos.197 of 2019& conn.cases APPENDIX OF ITA 199/2019 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE AA TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FORAY 2010-11 DATED 22.03.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE BA TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FORAY 2013-14 DATED 22.03.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE CA TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 19.07.2018 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE D A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLETRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH DATED 29.11.2018. ANNEXURE EA TRUE COPY OF THE CROSS OBJECTION DATED 22.11.2018 FILED BY THE APPELLANT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL I.T.A.Nos.197 of 2019 & conn.cases APPENDIX OF ITA 202/2019 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE AA TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FORAY 2013-14 DATED 22.03.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE B A TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 19.07.2018 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE C A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLETRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 29.11.2018 ANNEXURE D A TRUE COPY OF THE CROSS OBJECTION DATED 22.11.2018 FILED BY THE APPELLANT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY PS TO JUDGE