Ita/21/2018 Of M/S. Oil Palm India Ltd v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM MONDAY, THE 27 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 5TH ASWINA, 1943 ITA NO. 14 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 111/Coch/2014 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/Respondent: M/S. OIL PALM INDIA LTD.XIV/130, KODIMATHA, KOTTAYAM SOUTH, KOTTAYAM -686013.BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIRSRI.ACHYUT K PADMARAJSRI.P.JINISH PAULKUM.MEKHALA M.BENNYSMT.MARY JOSSYSRI.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENT/Appellant: 1THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXKOTTAYAM - 686001.*2STATE OF KERALAREPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.(Suo motu impleaded as addl.2[nd] respondent in this appeal ZITA No.111/2018) vide order dt.21.06.2018)BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.09.2021, ALONG WITH ITA.18/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM MONDAY, THE 27 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 5TH ASWINA, 1943 ITA NO. 18 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 390/Coch/2014 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/Respondent: 1M/S OIL PALM INDIA LTDXIV/130,KODIMATHA,KOTTAYAM SOUTH, KOTTTAYAM - 686013 REP.BY MANAGING DIRECTOR2THE DEPUTY COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAXKOTTAYAM- 686 001.BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIRSRI.ACHYUT K PADMARAJSRI.P.JINISH PAULKUM.MEKHALA M.BENNYSMT.MARY JOSSYSRI.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENT/Appellant: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXKOTTAYAM.BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.P.K.R.MENONSR.COUNSEL GOITAXESSRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON27.09.2021, ALONG WITH ITA.14/2018, 20/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM MONDAY, THE 27 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 5TH ASWINA, 1943 ITA NO. 20 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 113/Coch/2014 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/Respondent: M/S. OIL PALM INDIA LTD.XIV/130, KODIMATHA, KOTTAYAM SOUTH, KOTTAYAM 686 013.BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIRSRI.ACHYUT K PADMARAJSRI.P.JINISH PAULKUM.MEKHALA M.BENNYSMT.MARY JOSSYSRI.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENT/Appellant: 1THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXKOTTAYAM 686 001.2STATE OF KERALAREPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAMBY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON27.09.2021, ALONG WITH ITA.18/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURTON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ITA No.14 of 2018 and batch cases 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM MONDAY, THE 27 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 5TH ASWINA, 1943 ITA NO. 21 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 223/Coch/2016 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/Respondent: M/S. OIL PALM INDIA LTD.XIV/130,KODIMATHA,KOTTAYAM SOUTH,KOTTAYAM-686013,REP.BYMG.DIRECTOR.BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIRSRI.ACHYUT K PADMARAJSRI.P.JINISH PAULKUM.MEKHALA M.BENNYSMT.MARY JOSSYSRI.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENT/Appellant: 1THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXKOTTAYAM-686001.2STATE OF KERALAREPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM MONDAY, THE 27 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 5TH ASWINA, 1943 ITA NO. 21 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 223/Coch/2016 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/Respondent: M/S. OIL PALM INDIA LTD.XIV/130,KODIMATHA,KOTTAYAM SOUTH,KOTTAYAM-686013,REP.BYMG.DIRECTOR.BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIRSRI.ACHYUT K PADMARAJSRI.P.JINISH PAULKUM.MEKHALA M.BENNYSMT.MARY JOSSYSRI.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENT/Appellant: 1THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXKOTTAYAM-686001.2STATE OF KERALAREPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON27.09.2021, ALONG WITH ITA.18/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURTON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ITA No.14 of 2018 and batch cases 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM MONDAY, THE 27 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 5TH ASWINA, 1943 ITA NO. 22 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 112/Coch/2014 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/Respondent: M/S. OIL PALM INDIA LTD.XIV/130, KODIMATHA, KOTTAYAM SOUTH, KOTTAYAM-686013,REP. BY MG.DIRECTOR.BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIRSRI.ACHYUT K PADMARAJSRI.P.JINISH PAULKUM.MEKHALA M.BENNYSMT.MARY JOSSYSRI.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENT/Appellant: 1THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXKOTTAYAM-686001.* 2STATE OF KERALAREPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (Suo motu impleaded as additional 2[nd] respondent in this Appeal(ITA No.112/2018) vide order dtd.21.06.2018.)BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON27.09.2021, ALONG WITH ITA.18/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURTON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT [ITA Nos.14/2018, 18/2018, 20/2018, 21/2018,22/2018] S.V.Bhatti, J. Heard Mr.Anil D.Nair and Mr.PKR Menon learned counsel for parties.2. M/s Oil Palm India Ltd., Kottayam/Assessee is the appellant. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam/Revenue is therespondent. The assessee, being aggrieved by the common order dated1.12.2017 in ITA No.111/Coch/2014 and four other appeals, filed thesubject appeals before this Court under Section 260(A) of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (for short "Central Act"). The details of the assessment year etc.till the filing of the appeals in this Court are stated hereunder: ITA No.14 of 2018 and batch cases 7 3. The appeals raise a question of entitlement by way of deductionof Income Tax paid under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 (forshort 'Act 1991') and under Section 43B of the Central Act. 4. The assessee is a company with the share holding held by the Governments of India and Kerala. The appellant undertakes Oil Palmcultivation and manufacture and production of crude palm oil. Theassessee, till the assessment year 2005-2006, has been paying returnsunder Act 1991 on the 100% income derived from the agriculture andbusiness income from manufacture/production of crude palm oil. Acontroversy arose between the assessee and the revenue, with therevenue implementing Rule 7 of the Central Income Tax Rules, 1962 ITA No.14 of 2018 andbatch cases 8 4. The assessee is a company with the share holding held by the Governments of India and Kerala. The appellant undertakes Oil Palmcultivation and manufacture and production of crude palm oil. Theassessee, till the assessment year 2005-2006, has been paying returnsunder Act 1991 on the 100% income derived from the agriculture andbusiness income from manufacture/production of crude palm oil. Acontroversy arose between the assessee and the revenue, with therevenue implementing Rule 7 of the Central Income Tax Rules, 1962 ITA No.14 of 2018 andbatch cases 8 providing for assessment of income which is partly agricultural and partlybusiness income. The present judgment need not advert to the details inthis behalf, but would be sufficient to observe that this Court in ITANo.382/2010 and Writ Petition (c) No.36862 of 2004 has drawn the cutoff line for the assessee to file returns both under Act and Act 1991dealing with respective incomes. The details stated and considered in ITANo.14 of 2018 could be referred to as representative for all the otherappeals and accordingly, by this common judgment, the appeals aredisposed of. 5. The assessee filed, on 31.10.2007, return for the assessment year2007-2008. The assessee returned total income of Rs.2,63,24,480/-representing income received under 'interest' head. The assessee claimedthat the income received from the sale of crude palm oil and relatedproducts constitutes agricultural income and is not liable for tax under theAct. The assessee objects to the proposal of revenue to apply Rule 7principally by referring to the matters pending before the Tribunal. TheAssessing Officer rejected the claim of assessee for exclusion of incomefrom the purview of the Central Act. The applicability of Central Act is not ITA No.14 of 2018 and batch cases 9 the main ground on which the challenge to order of Tribunal is laid by the assessee. The main ground of assessee in the subject appeals is that theassessee has paid tax under Act 1991 on the whole of its income. The tax paid under 1991 Act is paid as a permissible deduction under Section 43Bof the Act, therefore is entitled to deduction in computation of net totalincome. S.43B Certain deductions to be only on actualpayment—Notwithstanding anything contained in anyother provision of this Act, a deduction otherwiseallowable unde this Act in respect of -- any sum payable by the assessee by way of tax, duty, cess or fee, by whatever name called, under any lawfor the time being in force, or] x x x xxxx xxxx 6. The Assessing Officer rejected deduction claimed by the assessee on the ground that the assessee has paid tax under Act 1991 on thewhole of its income, whereas a part of income alone is amenable toAgricultural Income Tax Act. The agricultural income is excluded from thepurview of Central Act and therefore is not part of computation of incomeunder Central Act. The assessee aggrieved by the assessment order filed ITA No.14 of 2018 andbatch cases 10 appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax and through order inAnnexure-B dated 25.03.2010, the appeal filed by the assessee wasdismissed. The further appeal befor ITAT resulted in dismissal through thecommon judgment impugned in the appeal. It is useful and convenient toexcerpt the following portion of the common judgment to appreciate thesubstantial questions and the argument of Mr.Anil D.Nair. ITA No.14 of 2018 andbatch cases 10 appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax and through order inAnnexure-B dated 25.03.2010, the appeal filed by the assessee wasdismissed. The further appeal befor ITAT resulted in dismissal through thecommon judgment impugned in the appeal. It is useful and convenient toexcerpt the following portion of the common judgment to appreciate thesubstantial questions and the argument of Mr.Anil D.Nair. "We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material onrecord. Admittedly, the agricultural income is exempt from CentralIncome Tax by virtue of provisions of Section 10(1) of the Income TaxAct. When agricultural income itself is exempt from the purview ofCentral Income Tax, there is no reason why a payment made out ofagricultural income (already exempt) should be allowed as adeduction in computing the business income under the CentralIncome-Tax Act. Section 43B states that "a deduction otherwiseallowable under this Act" shall alone be allowed as a deduction u/s43B(a). Since the agricultural income tax is no tax "otherwiseallowable" under the Income Tax Act, payment of agricultural incometax in the respective assessment years on payment basis cannot beallowed as a deduction u/s 43B(a). 4.1The order of the ITAT in ITA Nos.649, 650 & 651/Coch/2005dated 30.11.2007 in assessee's own case does not decide the issue infavour of the assessee. On the contrary, the Tribunal has onlyremitted back the issue to the files of the Assessing Officer to re-compute the income. The relevant finding of the Tribunal inassessee's own case for Asst.years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000reads as follows: "We have heard the learned Sr.DR for the revenue. On perusal ofthe order of the CIT(A), it is seent hat the CIT(A) has restored thematter to the file of the A.O. For re-consideration with certaindirections as per Rule 7 of the I.T.Rules. We fail to understand whythe revenue is aggrieved against th eorder of the CIT(A) as thedirections given by the CIT(A) are not specific or in the nature of any finding on any issue. The entire matter is left open and restored tothe AO. In our opinion, the revenue should not ahve any grievance.We find no merit in the appeal filed by the revenue. We, therefore,confirm the orders of the CIT(A)." 4.2The DR as well as the AR was unable to enlighten us what hashappened subsequent to the remand by the Tribunal in assessee'sown case in assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000. Forour reasoning in aforesaid paragraph (Para 4 and 4.1) we hold thatthe agricultural income being exempt from taxation under theCentral Income-tax, the agricultural income tax paid by the assesseecannot be allowed as a deduction under the Central Income Tax.Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is reversed. It isordered accordingly." Hence the appeals are filed by raising the following substantial questions of law. i.In the facts and circumstances of the case ought not theTribunal have called for the report of the compliance of the orderpassed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.649, 650, 651of 2005, more so, when the Department has accepted the orderspassed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and has passedmodified order therein. ii.In the facts and circumstances of the case ought not theTribunal have dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, by takingnote of the fact that the Department had accepted the orders passedby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 1997-98 and 1998-99 and have been following the same up to assessmentyear 2006-07. iii.In the facts and circumstances of the case, ought not theTribunal have remanded the matter back to the assessing authorityin terms of the Tribunal order dated 30.11.2007 for the assessmentyear 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000." 7. Mr.Anil D.Nair contends that the revenue has accepted the formula decided by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Rule-7 and ii.In the facts and circumstances of the case ought not theTribunal have dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, by takingnote of the fact that the Department had accepted the orders passedby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 1997-98 and 1998-99 and have been following the same up to assessmentyear 2006-07. iii.In the facts and circumstances of the case, ought not theTribunal have remanded the matter back to the assessing authorityin terms of the Tribunal order dated 30.11.2007 for the assessmentyear 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000." 7. Mr.Anil D.Nair contends that the revenue has accepted the formula decided by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Rule-7 and the Department has accepted the claim of assessee in all entirety for thepreceding assessment years. Therefore, for the subject assessmentyears as well, the same view ought to be maintained for consistency ofassessee's tax liability under Central Act and Act 1991. In other words,the revenue is precluded or estopped from taking a different view on theissues which are accepted by the revenue. He next contends that theincome tax paid by the assessee under Act 1991 ought to be deductedunder Section 43B of Central Act as the tax paid by the assessee comeswithin the eligibility criteria set out in Section 43B of the Act. TheTribunal fell in error by reading the words "otherwise allowable inisolation of sub section (1) of Section 43B and therefore the disallowanceof deduction of agricultural income tax paid under Act 1991 is illegal.8. Senior Adv.Mr.PKR Menon argues to sustain the findingsrecorded by the Tribunal and the authorities under the Central Act viz.that the deduction claimed is an import arising as an obligation underAct 1991 to the assessee. Act 1991 deals with agricultural incomepayable by an assessee to whom the provisions of Act 1991 are ITA No.14 of 2018 andbatch cases 13 attracted. As per the decisions of this Court in ITA No.382/2010 andWrit Petition (c) No.36862 of 2004, the assessee undertakes compositeactivities; one agriculture and another manufacturing. These twoactivities are separately governed by Central Act and Act 1991. Incomefrom agriculture is completely exempt from computation under CentralAct by operation of Section 10(1). The tax paid under Act 1991 is inrespect of agricultural income which does not form part of computationunder Central Act. The argument of assessee suffers from selfcontradiction, for according to him, agricultural income is excluded butthe tax paid under Act 1991 alone has to be brought for the purpose ofcomputation under Section 14 r/w Section 43B of the Central Act. Theemphasis on the words "otherwise allowable under this Act" cannot beunderstood to include agricultural income/tax paid under Act 1991. Byreading the findings recorded, he argues that the logic of the assessee isunavailable and beyond the scheme of respective enactments. 9. Replying to the argument of assessee that revenue for thepreceding assessment years in respect of assessee's own returnsaccepted the computation of agricultural income or tax paid thereunder, is without merit and the non-filing of appeal in the previous years does not bar the department from enforcing the provisions of law in subsequent years. For the said proposition, he relies on the judgment reported in C.K.Gangadharan and another v Commissioner of Income Tax[1] . 9. Replying to the argument of assessee that revenue for thepreceding assessment years in respect of assessee's own returnsaccepted the computation of agricultural income or tax paid thereunder, is without merit and the non-filing of appeal in the previous years does not bar the department from enforcing the provisions of law in subsequent years. For the said proposition, he relies on the judgment reported in C.K.Gangadharan and another v Commissioner of Income Tax[1] . "If the assessee takes the stand that the Revenue acted malafide innot preferring appeal in one case and filing the appeal in othercase, it has to establish mala fides. As a matter of fact, as rightlycontended by the learned counsel for the revenue, there may becertain cases where because of the small amount of revenueinvolved, no appeal is filed. Policy decisions have been taken not toprefer appeal where the revenue involved is below a cer-tainamount. Similarly, where the effect of the decision is revenueneutral there may not be any need for preferring the appeal. Allthese certainly provide the foundation for making a departure.In answering the reference, we hold that merely because in somecases,The Revenue has not preferred appeal that does not operateas a bar for the Revenue to prefer an appeal in another case wherethere is just cause for doing so or it is in public interest to do so orfor a pronouncement by the higher court when divergent views areexpressed by the Tribunals or theHigh Courts. The matter shall beplaced before the concerned Bench for disposal of the appeals." 10. We have taken note of the submissions and perused the record. We have called upon the counsel for assessee to place before us the separate returns filed by the assessee for the subjectassessment years under Central Act and Act 1991 to appreciate themovement or flow of Agricultural Income under Act 1991 and the basis for claiming deduction under Section 43B of Central Act. 11. Let us first examine the obligation of assessee to file separatereturns under Central Act and Act 1991. The judgment of this Court inITA No.382/2010 and Writ Petition (c) No.36862 of 2004 has laid downthe applicable law in this behalf. The assessee, by applying theapportionment principle, is under obligation to file returns under boththe enactments. Agricultural income is excluded from the scope ofSection 10(1) of Central Act. Therefore agricultural income does notform part of computation under Section 14 of the Act, 1991. Further,the deduction is envisaged for the purpose of ascertaining the netincome of the assessee under different heads. The agricultural incomeis excluded and tappering into admissible tax, a deduction would againbe inconsistent with Sections 10,14 and 43B of the Act. Clause-B ofSection 43B deals with the tax payable by the assessee. Main faultunder any law for the time being in force means tax payable by theassessee for earning the income for which the computation is carriedout. The agricultural income tax paid for the apportioned agriculturalincome cannot overlap into the business income as tax payable by the assessee for earning business income. No reported judgment on thisaspect of the matter is brought to our notice. Therefore from a plainand literal meaning of applicable clause, we are of the view that theargument that the tax paid under Act 1991, enures for deduction isunsustainable and accordingly rejected. 12. The next objection is that the revenue has accepted thereturn of the assessee for the preceding assessment years and thedeparture now in the subject assessment years is illegal. The judgmentrelied on by the revenue provides a complete answer in this behalf andby following the ratio of the Apex Court in Gangadharan's case, thesaid objection of the assessee is also rejected. assessee for earning business income. No reported judgment on thisaspect of the matter is brought to our notice. Therefore from a plainand literal meaning of applicable clause, we are of the view that theargument that the tax paid under Act 1991, enures for deduction isunsustainable and accordingly rejected. 12. The next objection is that the revenue has accepted thereturn of the assessee for the preceding assessment years and thedeparture now in the subject assessment years is illegal. The judgmentrelied on by the revenue provides a complete answer in this behalf andby following the ratio of the Apex Court in Gangadharan's case, thesaid objection of the assessee is also rejected. For the above reasons and discussion, we are of the view that thegist of the questions framed by the assessee is canvassed in themanner referred to above and we have, after taking note of the liabilityunder respective enactments are satisfied that the Tribunal hasrecorded a valid, legal and correct finding on the claim of assessee fordeduction of agricultural tax paid under Act 1991 as not available. By following the aforementioned reasons and discussion, the ITA No.14 of 2018 and batch cases 17 questions in the instant appeals are answered against the assessee and in favour of revenue. Appeals dismissed. No order as to costs. sd/- S.V.BHATTI, Judge sd/- VIJU ABRAHAM, Judge css/ ITA No.14 of 2018 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Ann.ATrue copy of the assessment order dtd.9.11.2009 for theyear 2007-08 issued to the appellant.year 2007-08 issued to the appellant. Ann.BTrue copy of the order of the Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals) for the year 2007-08 issued to the appellant. Ann.CTrue copy of the order of the Income Tax AppellataeTribunal, Cochin Bench dtd.1.12.2017. batch cases 19 ITA No.18 of 2018 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Ann.ATrue copy of the assessment order dtd.30.3.2013 for theyear 2010-11 issued to the appellant.year 2010-11 issued to the appellant. Ann.BTrue copy of the order of the Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals) for the year 2010-11 issued to the appellant.Tax (Appeals) for the year 2010-11 issued to the appellant. Ann.CTrue copy of the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Cochin Bench dtd.1.12.2017.Tribunal, Cochin Bench dtd.1.12.2017. ITA No.20 of 2018 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Ann.ATrue copy of the assessment order dtd.28.12.2011 for theyear 2009-10 issued to the appellant.year 2009-10 issued to the appellant. Ann.BTrue copy of the order of the Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals) for the year 2009-10 issued to the appellant.Tax (Appeals) for the year 2009-10 issued to the appellant. Ann.CTrue copy of the order of the Income Tax AppellataeTribunal, Cochin Bench dtd.1.12.2017.Tribunal, Cochin Bench dtd.1.12.2017. ITA No.21 of 2018 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Ann.ATrue copy of the assessment order dtd.23.2.2015 for theyear 2012-13 issued to the appellant.year 2012-13 issued to the appellant. Ann.BTrue copy of the order of the Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals) for the year 2012-13 issued to the appellant.Tax (Appeals) for the year 2012-13 issued to the appellant. Ann.CTrue copy of the order of the Income Tax AppellataeTribunal, Cochin Bench dtd.1.12.2017.Tribunal, Cochin Bench dtd.1.12.2017. ITA No.22 of 2018 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Ann.ATrue copy of the assessment order dtd.8.11.2010 for theyear 2008-09 issued to the appellant.year 2008-09 issued to the appellant. Ann.BTrue copy of the order of the Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals) for the year 2008-09 issued to the appellant.Tax (Appeals) for the year 2008-09 issued to the appellant. Ann.CTrue copy of the order of the Income Tax AppellataeTribunal, Cochin Bench dtd.1.12.2017.Tribunal, Cochin Bench dtd.1.12.2017.