Ita/304/2013 Of K.p.abdul Majeed v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income - Tax, Circle 1-(1), Calicut

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON MONDAY ,THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1940 ITA.No. 303 of 2013 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 44/2013 ofI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 26-07-2013 APPELLANT/S: K.P.ABDUL MAJEED"SANA", KOTTARAM ROAD, CALICUT BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHANSMT.SMITHA GEORGESRI.P.RAGHUNATHSRI.TERRY V.JAMES RESPONDENT/S: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- CIRCLE-I(1), CALICUT - 673 001. OTHER PRESENT: SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.02.2019, ALONG WITH ITA.304/2013, ITA.305/2013, ITA.306/2013, ITA.307/2013, THE COURT ON 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 ASHOK MENON MONDAY ,THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1940 ITA.No. 304 of 2013 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OTHERS 47/2013 ofI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 26-07-2013 APPELLANT/S: K.P.ABDUL MAJEEDSANA KOTTARAM ROAD, CALICUT BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHANSMT.SMITHA GEORGESRI.P.RAGHUNATHSRI.TERRY V.JAMES RESPONDENT/S: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE CIRCLE 1-(1), CALICUT 673001 BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH SC FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.02.2019, ALONG WITH ITA.307/2013, ITA.306/2013, ITA.305/2013, ITA.303/2013, THE COURT ON 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 ASHOK MENON MONDAY ,THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1940 ITA.No. 305 of 2013 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 46/2013 ofI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 26-07-2013 APPELLANT/S: K.P. ABDUL MAJEED'SANA', KOTTARAM ROAD, CALICUT. BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHANSMT.SMITHA GEORGESRI.P.RAGHUNATHSRI.TERRY V.JAMES RESPONDENT/S: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCIRCLE 1 (1), CALICUT-673001. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH SC FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.02.2019, ALONG WITH ITA.307/2013, ITA.306/2013, ITA.304/2013, ITA.303/2013, THE COURT ON 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 ASHOK MENON MONDAY ,THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1940 ITA.No. 306 of 2013 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 48/2013 ofI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 26-07-2013 APPELLANT/S: K.P. ABDUL MAJEED'SANA',KOTTARAM ROAD, CALICUT BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHANSMT.SMITHA GEORGESRI.P.RAGHUNATHSRI.TERRY V.JAMES RESPONDENT/S: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCIRCLE 1(1)CALICUT-673001 BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH SC FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.02.2019, ALONG WITH ITA.307/2013, ITA.305/2013, ITA.304/2013, ITA.303/2013, THE COURT ON 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 ASHOK MENON MONDAY ,THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1940 ITA.No. 307 of 2013 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 45/2013 ofI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 26-07-2013 APPELLANT/S: K.P. ABDUL MAJEED'SANA', KOTTARAM ROAD, CALICUT. BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHANSMT.SMITHA GEORGESRI.P.RAGHUNATHSRI.TERRY V.JAMES RESPONDENT/S: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCIRCLE-1(10, CALICUT-673001. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH SC FOR INCOME TAX IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON MONDAY ,THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1940 ITA.No. 307 of 2013 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 45/2013 ofI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 26-07-2013 APPELLANT/S: K.P. ABDUL MAJEED'SANA', KOTTARAM ROAD, CALICUT. BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHANSMT.SMITHA GEORGESRI.P.RAGHUNATHSRI.TERRY V.JAMES RESPONDENT/S: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCIRCLE-1(10, CALICUT-673001. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH SC FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.02.2019, ALONG WITH ITA.306/2013, ITA.305/2013, ITA.304/2013, ITA.303/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT [ ITA 303/2013, ITA.304/2013, ITA.305/2013,ITA.306/2013 & ITA.307/2013 ] Vinod Chandran, J The questions of law arising from theappeals as found in the memorandum of appeal are asfollows:- a. Whether the provisions of Section 68, 69 and 69A of the Act can at allbe applied to the appellant when theIT Department's own case was that the appellant was only a moneylaunderer or hawala operator ?launderer or hawala operator ? b. Whether after having added 2% commission on the money received to the appellant's income on thefooting that the appellant was afooting that the appellant was a money launderer, was it at all lawful or permissible for the IT Department to also treat the money itself as the undisclosed income of the appellant ? c. Does not the impugned order passed by the ITAT suffers from patent and fatal internal inconsistency and patent error of law in as much as the appellant cannot possibly be considered to be both a moneylaunderer and also the owner of themoney laundered ?launderer and also the owner of themoney laundered ? d. Whether the impugned order passed by the ITAT is perverse, arbitrary and wholly unreasonable and unjustified inasmuch as in the case of the other person Surendran Kumar against whom identical allegations of money laundering were made, commission only @1% of the money received wasadded to his assessed income but notadded to his assessed income but not the amount of the money transacted ? e. Is the impugned order of the ITAT perverse, arbitrary, discriminatory and wholly unreasonable and unjustified because in the case of Surendran Kumar the rate of hawala commission was taken as @1% whereas in the matter of appellant same was taken @ 2% without any warrant orjustification whatsoever ?justification whatsoever ? 2. The assessee who is the appellant herein had been carrying on a lodge and had also filed returns of income for the assessment years involvedin the above case; 2002-03 to 2005-06. An action under Section 147 was initiated on informationreceived of the assessee having opened various bank accounts in the name of partnership firms constituted of the relatives and employees of theassessee. Substantial amounts came into such Bankaccounts in all the subject assessment years andthere were withdrawals made immediately on thedeposits having come to the account. The Income Taxauthorities took up the matter on informationsupplied by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Aswe see from the proceedings of the ED, which wascalled for by the Commissioner of Appeals, theofficers of the ED unearthed a huge hawalaoperation of money sourced from the middle east,deposited in Mumbai and then transferred todifferent persons all over the country who are saidto have acted as agents for distribution of theamounts to various people. The assessee refused toown up the accounts and also refused to file areturn in pursuance of the notice issued underSection 148. 3.The Department took up the enquiry on ITA Nos. 303/2013 & con. 3.The Department took up the enquiry on ITA Nos. 303/2013 & con. the basis of the statements recorded from thevarious persons who appeared in accordance with thesummons issued and the materials collected, of thedetails of the Bank accounts and completedproceedings against the assessee. The assessmentswere completed by two separate Assessing Officersin the year 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2005-06 by one andof the A.Y 2004-05 by another. The peak credit inthe accounts recovered were assessed under Section68, 69 and 69A as unexplained cash credits andinvestments. Considering the fact that the entiretransactions were hawala transactions, commissionat the rate 2% was also assessed as income of theassessee. The First Appellate Authority and theTribunal confirmed it, against which the presentappeal is filed. For the year 2004-05, the entireamounts deposited in the accounts was taken asincome. 4. The Assessing Officer who took up the peak credit, adopted it as revealed from each ofthe accounts and assessed it for the respectiveyears. The Appellate Tribunal however, directedthat the incremental peak credit, meaning, thoseavailable in the respective years, as availablefrom all the accounts has to be adopted for thepurpose of addition. 5.Sri.Raghunath,learnedcounselappearing for the appellant would primarily contendthat there was absolutely nothing to connect theassessee to the accounts. Further it is submittedthat admittedly when the Department accepted theposition that the assessee was carrying on hawalaproceedings, there could be no assessment of theamounts which came into the accounts, and withdrawnimmediately, as an unexplained cash credit orunexplained investment. The very allegation ofhawala transaction would indicate that the moneywhich came into the accounts did not belong to the assessee; but to those persons to whom it wasdistributed. In the teeth of the very allegation,there could not have been any addition made on thebasis of the peak credit and even the incrementalpeak credit for an year as directed by the Tribunalis flawed. 6. As to the Commission applied it isargued that one of the other agents who had beenimplicated in the case by the ED was assessed byanother officer in Coimbatore at 1% commissionwithout any addition made under Sections 68, 69 and69A. In fact, the said assessment orders producedalong with the records clearly indicate that theofficer had conducted enquiries and found thatthere was no evidence of assets acquired by thesaid agent; using the amounts that came intosimilar accounts maintained by that assessee. Inthe present case, the Assessing Officer had notattempted any such inquiry and the liability to ITA Nos. 303/2013 & con. commission, if at all has to be confined to 1% asin Surendran's case. 7. The Appellate Tribunal raised two issues, as arising in the appeal, which found inAnnexure B order are as follows:- (a)Whether the money transactions carried out through the bank accounts opened in the name of various partnershipfirms constituted by the employees andrelatives of the assessee, belong tothe assessee or not?firms constituted by the employees andrelatives of the assessee, belong tothe assessee or not? (b) If the answer to the above question is in affirmative, then whether the quantum of income determined by theassessing officer and confirmed by LdCIT(A) is correct.assessing officer and confirmed by LdCIT(A) is correct. 8. On the first issue the Tribunal ITA Nos. 303/2013 & con. commission, if at all has to be confined to 1% asin Surendran's case. 7. The Appellate Tribunal raised two issues, as arising in the appeal, which found inAnnexure B order are as follows:- (a)Whether the money transactions carried out through the bank accounts opened in the name of various partnershipfirms constituted by the employees andrelatives of the assessee, belong tothe assessee or not?firms constituted by the employees andrelatives of the assessee, belong tothe assessee or not? (b) If the answer to the above question is in affirmative, then whether the quantum of income determined by theassessing officer and confirmed by LdCIT(A) is correct.assessing officer and confirmed by LdCIT(A) is correct. 8. On the first issue the Tribunal discussed the various evidences unearthed withrespect to the details of the accounts which wereopened in the name of partnership firms. Therewere nine accounts opened in Centurion Bank,Kozhikode Branch in the name of partnership firms,The firms had different partners; all of whom werealleged to be relatives or employees of theappellant. None of these partners had any sourceof income which would justify the opening of suchaccounts nor had they carried on any business inthe name of the partnership firm, in which name,the accounts were opened. 9. All the partnership firms had oneaddress as revealed from the details supplied bythe Bank, which was a building belonging to theassessee wherein he was also residing earlier. Thetelephone number, again of all the partnershipfirms, furnished at the Bank, was the same and thiswas a telephone which was installed in the premises when the assessee was residing therein. None ofthe partners on enquiry were found to have anycapacity to carry on financial transactions of themagnitude revealed from the accounts. Many of themexamined on summons also stated that they hadopened the accounts at the behest of the assesseeand had withdrawn amounts deposited therein, on hisbehalf. 10. The Bank details again contained twomobile numbers which were found to be of theassessee's wife. The assessee's wife also gave astatement to the effect that these mobile numbersbelong to her. The call details, obtained by theDepartment also indicate regular calls having beenmade by the assessee and his son to the mobilenumbers. 11. The assessee's son had opened a NRI account with the Centurion Bank and depositedRs.50,00,000/-, on the strength of which deposit a loan was sanctioned to one of the partnershipfirms. The Branch Manager, who opened the accountalso deposed that, considering the quantum of theloan availed, the bank had insisted for additionalsecurity which was provided by the assessee's son.This is another clinching factor in linking theassessee to the bank accounts. It was also theManagers deposition that the assessee wasinstrumental in opening the deposit account in thename of his son. It has also come out in evidencethat eventually the loan account was settled withthe 50,00,000/- deposited in the name of theassessee's son. Considering all these evidences,the lower authorities including the Tribunal foundthat the accounts were opened on behalf of theassessee and the transactions were also regulatedby the assessee. We do not find any infirmity inthe appreciation of the facts as revealed onenquiry and we refuse to interfere with that in this appeal, where substantial questions of law areto be considered. We do not find any perversity inthe fact finding of the lower authorities and noquestion of law arise. this appeal, where substantial questions of law areto be considered. We do not find any perversity inthe fact finding of the lower authorities and noquestion of law arise. 12. The questions raised are on theadditions made as against the assessee; which areasserted to be perverse on facts and not possibleof taxation going by the very position adopted bythe Department of a hawala transaction. A hawalatransaction is a money laundering exercise wherethe ill gotten gains of one is attempted to bebrought into the country for oneself or fordistribution to other beneficiaries; without thesame being subject to any liability to tax or duty,levied by statutory enactments on such income orreceipts. 13. The learned Standing Counsel for the Department, Sri Jose Joseph asserts that the assessee refused to divulge any details with respect to any transactions unearthed in thevarious accounts, with which the assessee wasinextricably found to be connected. It is in suchcircumstances that the peak credit was assessed inthe name of the assessee as also further assessmentat 2% commission made in years other than 2004-05.The Tribunal modified the said assessment directingthe peak credit to be the incremental peak creditof the subject year and the commission at 2% asdecided by the Assessing Officer on the totalamounts credited to the accounts. For all we knowthe amounts credited in the accounts would havebeen enjoyed by the assessee himself; is theargument.14. The question of law raised by theassessee is as to whether the credit found in theBank account could be taken as undisclosedinvestment or cash credit especially when the booksof accounts referred to in Section 68,69 and 69A are that of the assessee. Here there wasabsolutely no books of accounts maintained by theassessee; admittedly. In fact, we revisit the factthat when notice was issued to the assessee, herefused to file a return. Despite the overwhelmingevidence unearthed regarding the inextricable linkthe assessee had with the various accountsmaintained in the name of bogus partnership firms,the assessee refused to acknowledge the same. Theassessee maintained a stoic silence insofar as thesource of the amounts deposited in the accounts asalso the destination of the said amounts. It is insuch circumstances, the Tribunal accepted theaddition made on the basis of the peak credit inthe subject years. 15. The Tribunal found that the assesseehad failed to discharge the initial burden of proofas required under Section 68, 69 and 69A and hencethe addition made in the name of the assessee under the above provision was justified. The peak creditas determined in the subject year represented thefunds available with the assessee; was the findingof the Tribunal. The Tribunal also held that thededuction could have been made for an outgoing inthe form of expenses and investments and thebalance amounts should be considered as fundsavailable in the hands of the assessee as incometaxable under the Act. We cannot but observe thatsince there is no explanation offered as to thesource or destination of the amounts which cameinto the bank account there is no illegality inmaking addition of the peak credit. Of course thesame has to be confined to the peak credit in therespective years and not on each of the accounts.This is the only concession possible on theassertion of the Department that the deposits werefor money laundering. The destination of theamounts which were deposited and later withdrawn ITA Nos. 303/2013 & con. ITA Nos. 303/2013 & con. having not been disclosed or substantiated; it isnot reasonable to assume that the entire amountswould have been disbursed, with only the commissionappropriated. Virtue among thieves is an adagewhich cannot be imported, as a principle, tostatutory assessment of income to tax. 16. Money laundering can also be foroneself and there can be no presumption that it isfor others, especially when the assessee refuses todivulge the details of the persons to whom themoney was distributed. When the assessee contestedthe proceedings with a stout denial and nothingmore; the various accounts being found to have beenopened and operated on behalf of the assessee, theentire deposits therein has to be treated as hisincome. One Assessing Officer for a solitaryAssessment Year did just that. However, theDepartment having not filed an appeal from theorder reversing it and maintaining that at ITA Nos. 303/2013 & con. incremental peak credit; we would not interfere.In the other years the Assessing Officer himselfadopted the peak credit in each year, which againwas modified to incremental peak credit. Despiteour above observations, we find no way in thepresent appeal to import these principles into theassessment impugned. Nor is it warranted in anappeal under Section 260A filed by the assessee.But we find the adoption of incremental peak creditas income to be quite a plausible view, presumingat least that, to be the income of the assessee. 17. The assessee cannot dissociate himselffrom the various accounts in view of theoverwhelming evidence unearthed by the Departmentconnecting him to the various accounts maintainedin the Centurion Bank, Kozhikode Branch and thedepositions of the various witnesses summoned.Despite the fact that the ED had found theassessee to be a hawala operator or money ITA Nos. 303/2013 & con. launderer, we find the assessment under Section68, 69 and 69A of the incremental peak credit ofthe respective years, in the subject assessmentyears, taken from all the accounts to be perfectlyin order. There can be a reasonable assumption thatthe incremental credit would be the income of theassessee, the remittances being found in favour ofthe assessee and the disbursal not having beenproved or even admitted. 18. The next question is as to thecommission which could have been assessed at thehands of the assessee for which also the assesseerefused to state anything as to the actualpercentage. The assessee's contention is that thesame should be confined to that fixed on oneanother assessment made in the case of one anotheragent who was also implicated as a part of thenetwork unearthed by the ED. We cannot find anyinconsistency in the Assessing Officer having not adopted the commission as adopted by anotherofficer in a different location. At the outset itcannot be pleaded that the commission adopted in acase should be adopted in the case of anotherwithout reference to the various factors regulatinga hawala transaction; which perse is illegal. 19. Evidently the other person was anagent operating in Tamil Nadu. The assessee hereinbelongs to the State of Kerala which has themaximum expatriates insofar as the Middle East isconcerned. We do not find any patent error orinconsistency in the assessment made against theappellant herein and hence we reject the appealfinding the questions of law in favour of therevenue and against the assessee. We howevernotice that when incremental peak credits are takenas the income of the assessee for a particular yearthe said quantum shall not be treated for thepurpose of 2% commission and no addition shall be ITA Nos. 303/2013 & con. made on that count. Hence the commission shall beonly on the amounts deposited, other than theincremental peak credit adopted for each year. The above appeals are rejected. No order as to costs. ITA Nos. 303/2013 & con. made on that count. Hence the commission shall beonly on the amounts deposited, other than theincremental peak credit adopted for each year. The above appeals are rejected. No order as to costs. Sd/-K. Vinod Chandran, Judge jma Sd/-Ashok Menon, Judge APPENDIX OF ITA 303/2013 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLETE SET OF THE FOUR VOLUMES RELATING TO THE APPEALS FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH. APPENDIX OF ITA 304/2013 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED30/12/2010 FOR THE YEAR 2005-06 ANNEXURE-BTRUE COPY OF THE COMMON APPELLATE ORDERDATED 17/12/2012 OF THE COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, CALICUT. ANNEXURE-C TRUE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER DATED 26/7/2013 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH IN ITANO. 47/COCH/2013. APPENDIX OF ITA 305/2013 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED30/12/2009 FOR THE YEAR 2004-05. ANNEXURE-B TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON APPELLATE ORDERDATED 17/12/2012 OF THE COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, CALICUT. ANNEXURE-C TRUE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER DATED 26/7/2013 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH IN ITANO. 46/COCH/2013. APPENDIX OF ITA 306/2013 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED30/12/2010 FOR THE YEAR 2003-04 ANNEXURE-B TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON APPELLATE ORDERDATED 17/12/2012 OF THE COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, CALICUT. ANNEXURE-C TRUE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER DATED 26/7/2013 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH IN ITANO. 48/COCH/2013. APPENDIX OF ITA 307/2013 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED29/12/2006 FOR THE YEAR 2003-04 ANNEXURE-B TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON APPELLATE ORDERDATED 17/12/2012 OF THE COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, CALICUT. ANNEXURE-C TRUE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER DATED 26/7/2013 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH IN ITANO. 46/COCH/2013.