Ita/74/2019 Of M/S. Calicut Educational Trust v. The Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI WEDNESDAY, THE 6 DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944 ITA NO. 3 OF 2021 ITA 28/COCH/2020 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/S: M/S. CALICUT EDUCATIONAL TRUST CORPORATE COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCECORPORATE COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCE, EMAS COMPLEX, YMCA ROAD,KOZHIKODE-673001NOW AT T P BUILDING, MUTHALAKULAM,KOZHIKODE-673001. BY ADV RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN RESPONDENT/S: 1THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCIRCLE 2(1), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NORTH BLOCK, KOZHIKODE-673001.CIRCLE 2(1), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NORTH BLOCK, KOZHIKODE-673001. 2THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXOFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NORTH BLOCK. KOZHIKODE-673001.OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NORTH BLOCK. KOZHIKODE-673001. BY SC.SHRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON06.07.2022, ALONG WITH ITA.74/2019, 4/2021, THE COURT ON THESAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI WEDNESDAY, THE 6 DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944 ITA NO. 74 OF 2019 ITA 266/COCH/2018 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/S: M/S. CALICUT EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,CORPORATION COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCE, EMAS COMPLEX, YMCA ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001. NOW AT T.P.BUILDING, MUTHALAKULAM, KOZHIKODE-673 001. BY ADV SRI.RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN RESPONDENT/S: 1THE INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD-1(1),CALICUTWARD-1(1),CALICUT 2THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673 001.BY SC.SHRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON06.07.2022, ALONG WITH ITA.3/2021 AND ITA 4/2021, THE COURTON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -3- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJIWEDNESDAY, THE 6 DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944ITA NO. 4 OF 2021 ITA 29/COCH/2020 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCHAPPELLANT/S: M/S. CALICUT EDUCATIONAL TRUST CORPORATE COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCE, EMAS COMPLEX, YMCA ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001, NOW AT T.P. BUILDING, MUTHALAKULAM, KOZHIKODE-673 001 BY ADV RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN RESPONDENT/S: 1THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCIRCLE 2 (1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NORTH BLOCK, KOZHIKODE-673 0012THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXOFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NORTH BLOCK, KOZHIKODE-673 001 BY SC.SHRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON06.07.2022, ALONG WITH ITA.3/2021 AND ITA 74/2019, THE COURTON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -4- S.V.BHATTI & BASANT BALAJI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - ITA Nos.3 of 2021, 74 of 2019 and 4 of 2021- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT (Dated this the 6[th] day of July 2022) Basant Balaji J., These appeals are filed by the appellant against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in I.T.ANos.266/COCH/2018, 28/COCH/2020, and 29/COCH/2020 for the assessment years 2003-04,2007-08 and 2010-11respectively. 2. The appellant is a registered charitable Trust with the primary object of promoting the advancement of education and training. The Trust was also granted an exemption underSection 12AA of the Income Tax Act (for short 'the I.T Act') -5- by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kozhikode by certificate ITA Nos.3 of 2021, 74 of 2019 and 4 of 2021- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT (Dated this the 6[th] day of July 2022) Basant Balaji J., These appeals are filed by the appellant against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in I.T.ANos.266/COCH/2018, 28/COCH/2020, and 29/COCH/2020 for the assessment years 2003-04,2007-08 and 2010-11respectively. 2. The appellant is a registered charitable Trust with the primary object of promoting the advancement of education and training. The Trust was also granted an exemption underSection 12AA of the Income Tax Act (for short 'the I.T Act') -5- by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kozhikode by certificate dated 28.5.2003. For the assessment years 2003-04, theAssessing Officer, after issuing notice under Section 143(2) ofthe I.T. Act and hearing the assessee along with his dulyauthorized agent, passed an assessment order dated 13.2.2006holding that the Trust is not a Charitable Trust, but running aparallel college/Tuition center to make a profit and as suchdeduction under Section 11 of the I.T. Act is not allowable. Asper the assessment, the total amount payable was Rs.51,483/-. Similarly, for the assessment years 2007-08, the total amount payable was Rs.1,11,180/- and for the assessment year 2010-11, the total amount payable was Rs.1,65,570/- by theappellant. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment orders, the appellant filed the first appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax -6- (Appeals). The first appellate authority, after hearing theauthorised representative, dismissed the appeals holding that the action of the Assessing Authority in disallowingdeduction under Section 11 of the I.T. Act to the appellantTrust, is in order. 4. The appellant, filed second appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kochi bench as I.T.A.No.266/COCH/2018, 28/COCH/2020 and 29/COCH/2020 for the years 2003-04, 2007-08 and 2010-11 respectively. TheTribunal, after hearing the appellant as well as the departmentand relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SoleTrustee, Lok Shikshana Trust v. CIT, Mysore [(1975)101ITR 234], as well as the decisions of the Patna High court in Bihar Institute of Mining and Mine Surveying v. CIT[(1994) 208ITR 608 (Pat)]and of Gujarat High Court in Saurashtra -7- Education Foundation v. C.I.T. [(2005) 273 ITR 139 (Guj.)],held that the assessee cannot be considered to be anEducation Trust within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the I.T. Act and hence, not entitled for exemption and therefore the appeals were dismissed. It is aggrieved by the said ordersof the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, these appeals are filed.5. The questions of law arise for consideration are asfollows: (i). Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunalwas justified in confirming the denial of exemption u/S 11 of the Actby the authorities below for the relevant assessment year. (ii). Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunalwas justified in holding that the appellant cannot be considered to bean educational trust within the meaning of S 2 (15) of the Act andtherefore not entitled for exemption u/S 11 of the Act. (iii). Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the findingof the Tribunal that the appellant is not an educationaltrust/charitable trust within the meaning of S 2 (15) of the Act and -8- therefore not entitled for exemption u/S 11 of the Act is perverse,unsustainable and contrary to (1) the findings in the judgment of thisHon'ble Court in the appellants own case in W.A. No. 750 of 2006,(2) the objects contained in the Deed of Trust dt. 31.08.2002 and (3)the Certificate of Registration u/S 12 AA dt. 28.05.2003 of the Actgranted by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kozhikode. (iii). Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the findingof the Tribunal that the appellant is not an educationaltrust/charitable trust within the meaning of S 2 (15) of the Act and -8- therefore not entitled for exemption u/S 11 of the Act is perverse,unsustainable and contrary to (1) the findings in the judgment of thisHon'ble Court in the appellants own case in W.A. No. 750 of 2006,(2) the objects contained in the Deed of Trust dt. 31.08.2002 and (3)the Certificate of Registration u/S 12 AA dt. 28.05.2003 of the Actgranted by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kozhikode. (iv). Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunalwas justified in approving the conclusion of the assessing officerthat the activities carried on by the appellant is not charitable innature and there by denying exemption and is not the said findingcontrary to facts, incorrect and perverse. (V). Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunalwas justified in coming to a finding that the appellant is hit by theprovisions of section 13 (1)(c)(ii) of the Act. (Vi). Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case theprovisions of Section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act is applicable to theappellant when the expenditure incurred by the appellant by way ofinterest, salaries, license fees etc. were incidental to an inevitable forthe purpose of carrying out the objects of the appellant trust and formeeting the normal expenses of the management. (vii). Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case theTribunal was justified in confirming the applicability of section13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act to the case of the appellant when there is nounreasonableness or excessiveness in the expenditure incurred bythe appellant and which expenses were only necessary and -9- incidental to carrying out the objects of the appellant trust. (viii). Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case theTribunal was justified in ignoring and not adjudicating upon thealternate claim for allowing exemption u/s 10 (23C) (iii ad) of theAct raised by the appellant. (ix).Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunalought to have found that the appellant was an educational institutionexisting solely for educational purposes and not for purposes ofprofits and quitted to exemption u/S 10 (23C) (iii ad) of the Acthaving satisfied all the conditions mentioned in the said section. (x).Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunalwas justified in confirming the levy of maximum marginal rate oftax on the appellant applicable to AOP u/S 164/165 of the Act. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Adv. Ramesh Cherian John and the learned standing counsel for the respondent, Adv. Christopher Abraham. 7. The main ground raised by the counsel for the appellant, is that the appellant is a Charitable Trust formed with the primary object of promotion and advancement of -10- education and training and that it has been awarded acertificate under Section 12AA of the I.T. Act. Having beenawarded the certificate mentioned above, the AssessingOfficer cannot make a further probe into the objects of theTrust and make an assessment holding that the Trust is not aCharitable Trust. The learned counsel went on to submit thatthe decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court relied on by theTribunal in Sole Trustee (supra) is distinguishable from thefacts of the case and hence, the finding of the Tribunal that theassessee cannot be considered as an education Trust within themeaning of Section 2(15) of the I.T. Act is wrong. Thecounsel also relied on the judgment passed by a DivisionBench of this court in W.A. 750 of 2006, in which thechallenge was made against the constitutional validity ofservice tax treating parallel college as commercial training and -11- coaching centres coming under section 65(27) of the Finance -11- coaching centres coming under section 65(27) of the Finance Act,whereby a Division Bench of this court has held that theParallel colleges/Tuition centres will come under the definitionof charitable purposes. He mainly relies on that since aDivision Bench of this has already held that the appellant'snature of business is of a charitable center, there is no shadowof a doubt that the Trust will fall within the definition underSection 2(15) of I.T. Act. Hence the orders of the assessmentauthority as well as the first and second appellate authority arewrong in facts and in law and hence, liable to be interferedwith. 8. The learned Standing counsel for the Income Tax, Shri Christopher Abraham, submits that the Assessing Officerhad reason to believe and going through the objects of Trust, -12- has found that the Trust is not a charitable trust but running a parallel college to make profit out of the same. Moreover,the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A. No.750 of 2006is in respect of service tax and any finding regarding thecharitable trust nature of the Trust cannot be imported into theIncome Tax Act to bring the Trust under the definition ofSection 2(15) of the I.T. Act. The appellate authority as wellas the Tribunal, was justified in dismissing the appeals, as onfacts, both the authorities found that the nature of businesscarried out by the appellant is not of a Charitable Trust, but indoing coaching centres and making profit out of it. 9. Annex. B is a certificate issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kozhikode under Section 12AA of the I T Act.Clause 3 of the said certificate specifically states that 'thisregistration is not a finding regarding charitable nature of the -13- fund”. In view of the said statement, the appellant cannot contend that once registration is granted under Section 12 AAof the I T Act, the assessee cannot probe into the nature of thecharitable purpose for assessment. The object of the Trust isnot only to conduct educational, cultural, and socialadvancement of the people of Malabar but also to publish andpropagate books, periodicals, and journals as deemed usefulby the Trust for the achievement of the objectives of the Trust.The appellant is collecting fees for imparting coaching to thestudents. It cannot be treated as charitable in nature and it is apaid service with the motive of earning profit out of it. 10. The judgment of the Division Bench in W.A. No.750of 2006 was in respect of service tax wherein the consideration is entirely different and the respondent hereinwere not parties to the said judgment. So the finding of the -14- Division Bench cannot be brought into purview of the Income Tax Act, to hold that the appellant fall within the ambit ofSection 2(15) of the I T Act. 11. Section 2(15) of the I T Act defines “Charitablepurpose” as follows:- (15) “charitable purpose” includes relief of the poor, education, yoga, medical relief, [preservation of theenvironment (including watersheds, forests and wildlife)and preservation of monuments or places or objects ofartistic or historic interest], and the advancement of anyother object of general public utility: [Provided that the advancement of any other object of a general public utility shall not be a charitable purpose, if itinvolves the carrying on of any activity in the nature oftrade, commerce or business, or any activity of renderingany service in relation to any trade, commerce or business,for a cess or fee or any other consideration, irrespective ofthe nature of use or application, or retention, of the incomefrom such activity, unless- (i) such activity is undertaken in the course of actual carrying out of such advancement of any other object ofgeneral public utility; and (ii) the aggregate receipts from such activity or -15- activities during the previous year, do not exceed twentypercent. of the total receipts, of the trust or institutionundertaking such activity or activities, of thatprevious year]” a general public utility shall not be a charitable purpose, if itinvolves the carrying on of any activity in the nature oftrade, commerce or business, or any activity of renderingany service in relation to any trade, commerce or business,for a cess or fee or any other consideration, irrespective ofthe nature of use or application, or retention, of the incomefrom such activity, unless- (i) such activity is undertaken in the course of actual carrying out of such advancement of any other object ofgeneral public utility; and (ii) the aggregate receipts from such activity or -15- activities during the previous year, do not exceed twentypercent. of the total receipts, of the trust or institutionundertaking such activity or activities, of thatprevious year]” 12. Though education is included in the said definition, on case by case the purpose and object of each Trust have to be looked into. It is not an universal declaration that all Education Institutions can be termed as a charitable purpose under Section 2(15) of the I T Act. 13. The Hon'ble Apex court in Sole Trustee (supra) held that the sense in which education has been used in Section 2(15) of the I T Act is the systemic instruction, schooling or training given to the young in preparation for the work of life. It also connotes the whole course of scholastic instruction that a person has received. The Hon'ble Apex Court, thereafter, went on to hold that “what education connotes in that clause is the process of -16- training and developing the knowledge, skill, mind and characterof a student by normal schooling. Going by the dictum laiddown it can be seen that mere coaching given to students beingeducation cannot fall within the meaning of education asprovided under Section 2(15) of the I T Act. As stated above, tobring a Trust within the ambit of Section 2(15) of the I T Act, itis necessary to probe into the activities and object of the Trustand once it is found that there is no charitable activities in theTrust or if there is charitable activities coupled with profit-making, the same cannot be brought under the definition ofSection 2(15) of the I T Act. The Assessing Officer as well asthe two appellate authorities having found in the fact that theactivities done by the appellant Trust are giving coaching tostudents, the same cannot be treated as a charitable institution asprovided under Section 2(15) of the I T Act, cannot be found -17- fault with by this Court sitting in appellate jurisdiction underSection 260A of the I T Act. In view of the matter, the question of law No.(ii) raised in this appeal is answered against the appellant. Resultantly, theother questions of law raised are also answered against theappellant as it flows from the answer to question No.(ii). Hence,the Income Tax appeals are dismissed. SD/ S.V.BHATTI, JUDGE SD BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE dl/ -18- APPENDIX OF ITA 74/2019 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED DEED OF TRUST DATED 31.8.2002TRUST DATED 31.8.2002 ANNEXURE BTRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 28.5.2003 GRANTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, KOZHIKODE28.5.2003 GRANTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, KOZHIKODE ANNEXURE CTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 13.2.2006 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITYDATED 13.2.2006 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY ANNEXURE DTRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.7.2013 IN WA NO 750/2006 IN THE APPELLANTS OWN CASE25.7.2013 IN WA NO 750/2006 IN THE APPELLANTS OWN CASE ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.1.2013 OF THE DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. ANNEXURE F TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 18.1.2014REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 18.1.2014 ANNEXURE GTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DATED 28.3.2018APPELLATE AUTHORITY DATED 28.3.2018ANNEXURE HTRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THETRIBUNALTRIBUNAL ANNEXURE I ANNEXURE CTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 13.2.2006 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITYDATED 13.2.2006 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY ANNEXURE DTRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.7.2013 IN WA NO 750/2006 IN THE APPELLANTS OWN CASE25.7.2013 IN WA NO 750/2006 IN THE APPELLANTS OWN CASE ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.1.2013 OF THE DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. ANNEXURE F TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 18.1.2014REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 18.1.2014 ANNEXURE GTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DATED 28.3.2018APPELLATE AUTHORITY DATED 28.3.2018ANNEXURE HTRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THETRIBUNALTRIBUNAL ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE LIST INDEX OF DOCUMENTSFILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ALONG WITH THEWRITTEN SUBMISSION/WRITTEN STATEMENTFILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ALONG WITH THEWRITTEN SUBMISSION/WRITTEN STATEMENT ANNEXURE JTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 30.10.2018DATED 30.10.2018 -19- APPENDIX OF ITA 4/2021 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE ATRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED DEED OF TRUST DATED 31.08.2002.ANNEXURE BTRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 28.05.2003 GRANTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOZHIKODE.ANNEXURE CTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DT.22.12.2011.ANNEXURE DTRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.7.2013 IN W.A. NO. 750/2006 IN THE APPELLANTS OWN CASE. ANNEXURE ETRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 22.01.2013 OFTHE DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.ANNEXURE FTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 18.01.2014. ANNEXURE GTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 23.10.2019 OFTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)ANNEXURE HTRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL.ANNEXURE ITRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A. NO. 29/COCH/2020 DT. 27.02.2020 FOR THE AY 2010-11.ANNEXURE JTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A NO. 266/COCH/2018 DT. 30.10.2018 FOR THE AY 2003 -04. -20- APPENDIX OF ITA 3/2021 PETITIONER ANNEXURESANNEXURE-ATRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED DEED OF TRUST DATED 31.08.2002.ANNEXURE-BTRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 28/05/2003 GRANTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOZHIKODE.ANNEXURE-CTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 22.12.2011.ANNEXURE-DTRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25/07/2013 IN WA NO. 750/2006 IN THE APPELLANTS OWN CASE.ANNEXURE-ETRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.01.2013OF THE DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.ANNEXURE-FTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 18/01/2004.ANNEXURE-GTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.10.2019OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)ANNEXURE-HTRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE TRIBUNALANNEXURE-ITRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 28/COCH/2020 DATED 27/02/2020 FOR THE AY-2007-08.ANNEXURE-JTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN I T A. NO. 266/COCH/2018 DATED 30.10.2018 FOR THE AY 2003-04.