Ita/859/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cochin v. Shri.kishorekumar Shamj, Cochin

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1940 ITA.No.297 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 341(Coch)/1999 ofI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DTD.8.5.2003-ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 APPELLANT:APPELLANT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,COCHIN. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH SC FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT:RESPONDENT: KISHOR KUMAR SHAMJI,PROP.KISHOR SPICES CO.,COCHIN-682 002. BY ADVS.SRI.MANOJ KUMAR.MSRI.R.KISHORE KUMAR (MATTANCHERRY)SRI.R.MOHANDASSRI.R.MURALIDHAR THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.11.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.1185/2009, ITA.787/2009, ITA.834/2009, ITA.859/2009, ITA.1189/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: I.T.A.Nos.297,787,834, 859, 1185 & 1189/2009 ..2.. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1940 ITA.No.787 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 105/Coch/04 ofI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 01-07-2005ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 APPELLANT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,COCHIN. BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE K.GEORGE, SC FOR ITSRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S: KISHORKUMAR SHAMJI, PROP.KISHOR SPICES COMPANY,JEW TOWN, COCHIN-682 002. BY ADVS.SRI.MANOJ KUMAR.MSRI.R.KISHORE KUMAR (MATTANCHERRY)SRI.R.MOHANDASSRI.R.MURALIDHAR THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.11.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.1185/2009, ITA.834/2009, ITA.859/2009, ITA.1189/2009, ITA.297/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: I.T.A.Nos.297,787,834, 859, 1185 & 1189/2009 ..3.. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1940 ITA.No.834 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 103/Coch/2004 ofI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DTD.1.7.2005 APPELLANT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT: KISHORKUMAR SHAMJI,PROP.KISHOR SPICES COMPANY,JEW TOWN, COCHIN-682 002. BY ADVS.SRI.MANOJ KUMAR.MSRI.R.KISHORE KUMAR (MATTANCHERRY)SRI.R.MOHANDASSRI.R.MURALIDHAR THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.11.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.1185/2009, ITA.787/2009, ITA.859/2009, ITA.1189/2009, ITA.297/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: I.T.A.Nos.297,787,834, 859, 1185 & 1189/2009 ..4.. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1940 ITA.No.859 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 104/Coch/2004 ofI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 01-07-2005 APPELLANT/S: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S: KISHORKUMAR SHAMJI, PROP.KISHOR SPICES COMPANY,JEW TOWN, COCHIN-682 002.BY ADVS.SRI.MANOJ KUMAR.MSRI.R.KISHORE KUMAR (MATTANCHERRY)SRI.R.MOHANDASSRI.R.MURALIDHAR THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.11.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.1185/2009, ITA.787/2009, ITA.834/2009, ITA.1189/2009, ITA.297/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: I.T.A.Nos.297,787,834, 859, 1185 & 1189/2009 ..5.. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1940 ITA.No. 1185 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 102/Coch/2004 ofI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 01-07-2005 APPELLANT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT: THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.11.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.1185/2009, ITA.787/2009, ITA.834/2009, ITA.1189/2009, ITA.297/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: I.T.A.Nos.297,787,834, 859, 1185 & 1189/2009 ..5.. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1940 ITA.No. 1185 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 102/Coch/2004 ofI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 01-07-2005 APPELLANT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT: KISHORKUMAR SHAMJI,PROP.KISHOR SPICES COMPANY,JEW TOWN, COCHIN-682 002. BY ADVS.SRI.MANOJ KUMAR.MSRI.R.KISHORE KUMAR (MATTANCHERRY)SRI.R.MOHANDASSRI.R.MURALIDHAR THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.11.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.787/2009, ITA.834/2009, ITA.859/2009, ITA.1189/2009, ITA.297/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: I.T.A.Nos.297,787,834, 859, 1185 & 1189/2009 ..6.. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1940 ITA.No.1189 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 101/Coch/2004 ofI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 01-07-2005 APPELLANT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,COCHIN. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH SC FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S: KISHORKUMAR SHAMJI,PROP.KISHOR SPICES COMPANY, JEW TOWN, COCHIN-682 002.BY ADVS.SRI.MANOJ KUMAR.MSRI.R.KISHORE KUMAR (MATTANCHERRY)SRI.R.MOHANDASSRI.R.MURALIDHAR THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.11.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.1185/2009, ITA.787/2009, ITA.834/2009, ITA.859/2009, ITA.297/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: I.T.A.Nos.297,787,834,859, 1185 & 1189/2009 ..7.. JUDGMENT P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. Same assessee is the respondent in all these appeals preferred by the Revenue, in respect of the differentassessment years running from 1996-1997 to 2001-2002. Theassessment order passed by the Assessing Authority in respectof the year 1996-97 mulcting a higher liability upon theassessee was interdicted by the first Appellate Authority;which came to be confirmed by the Tribunal as well. Theassessment in respect of the year 1996-1997 is the subjectmatter of consideration in I.T.A.No.297/2009; whereas in theother matters, the common order passed by the Tribunal inrespect of the different assessment years 1997-1998 to 2001-2002 is put to challenge. 2.The substantial questions of law suggested by theappellants in the Appeal preferred under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act are in the following terms:- “On the above and other grounds that maybe urged at the time of hearing thefollowing substantial questions of law arise fordecision of the Honourable Court. ..8.. 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact inobserving that 'it is to be seen that the availing ofloan from banks and giving of advances to M/sSport Spices Co. are - integral part of carrying onof the assessee's export business" and is notfinding unsupported by any material solely basedon the submission of counsel which is not proof? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holdingthat "In such circumstances, the estimation madeby the assessing officer towards interest andthereafter excluding 90% on estimate in availingbenefit u/s.80HHC are not at all called for “and isnot the above finding and also in view of the use ofwords "In such circumstances" unsupported bymaterials and based on the ipsi dixit of theTribunal? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holdingthat "In such circumstances, the estimation madeby the assessing officer towards interest andthereafter excluding 90% on estimate in availingbenefit u/s.80HHC are not at all called for “and isnot the above finding and also in view of the use ofwords "In such circumstances" unsupported bymaterials and based on the ipsi dixit of theTribunal? 3.Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, if the finding challengedin the first question is perverse is not the findingchallenged in the second question and based onlyon "In such circumstances" equally fallacious andperverse? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact inconfirming the order of the CIT(A) on theimpugned issue?” 3.Though the appeals stand admitted, no specific substantial question of law was ever framed by this Court inany of these Appeals, but for ordering notice and hence it isreasonably presumed that it is in respect of the substantialquestions of law suggested by the appellant. I.T.A.Nos.297,787,834,859, 1185 & 1189/2009 ..9.. 4.Heard Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/Income Tax Department atlength. 5.The crux of the factual matrix as revealed fromI.T.A.No.297/2009 (which is treated as the lead case) is thatthe assessee is engaged in the export of various Hill produces;such as pepper, ginger, etc. There is a sister concern as well,which is being run by his wife, under the name and style as‘Spot Spices Company’. According to the assessee, the saidsister concern was entrusted with the task of procuring thematerials for export. It is stated that the assessee hadborrowed loans from different corners including the UnionBank of India and part of the said amount was given to thesister concern run by the wife for procuring the materials andstoring the same, as procuring agent. It was only on obtainingexport orders, that the assessee chose to enter it as part oftheir records, virtually showing that the material waspurchased by the assessee after procuring the export orders.This was facilitated through the transactions between the I.T.A.Nos.297,787,834,859, 1185 & 1189/2009 ..10.. petitioner’s establishment and the sister concern run by thewife of the assessee, effecting the sale as required in favour ofthe assessee. 6.The modus operandi was doubted by the AssessingOfficer noting that, though the assessee had charged interestfor more than 1½ decades till 1995-1996 from the sisterconcern run by his wife, the said practice was put to an end allof a sudden, despite the fact that the assessee had to payinterest to the Banks/the financial institutions. It was alsofound that a huge sum of Rs.62,25,676/- was paid by theassessee to the sister concern of his wife without charging anyinterest. Met with the situation, explanation was sought forfrom the assessee; when the position was sought to beclarified by the assessee simply stating that the sister concernhad requested not to charge any interest and hence it was notcharged. The said version was found as not a satisfactoryexplanation by the Assessing Officer who passed Annexure-Aassessment order holding that there was a conscious attemptto reduce the profit and to avoid the tax. In the said I.T.A.Nos.297,787,834,859, 1185 & 1189/2009 ..11.. circumstance, interest in respect of the transactions was worked out as Rs.17,10,503/-, which was subjected to tax,mulcting the liability upon the assessee, as per ‘Annexure-A’order. I.T.A.Nos.297,787,834,859, 1185 & 1189/2009 ..11.. circumstance, interest in respect of the transactions was worked out as Rs.17,10,503/-, which was subjected to tax,mulcting the liability upon the assessee, as per ‘Annexure-A’order. 7.The assessment order was challenged in appealfiled by the assessee, before the Commissioner of Appeals.After considering the merit, the Appellate Authority passedAnnexure-B order holding that the course pursued by theAssessing Officer was not at all correct or sustainable. It is alsoheld that the amount advanced by the assessee to the sisterconcern was not from the interest bearing funds, as reflectedfrom the records and further that there was an agreementbetween the assessee and the sister concern not to charge anyinterest in respect of the transaction involving the lending ofmoney by the assessee to the sister concern for procuring thematerials. It was accordingly that Annexure-A order passed bythe Assessing Authority in this regard was set aside deletingthe addition of the sum of Rs.17,10,503/- as part of the incomeand thus allowing the appeal in part as mentionedtherein. I.T.A.Nos.297,787,834,859, 1185 & 1189/2009 ..12.. 8. This made the Revenue to feel aggrieved, who approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, by way offurther appeals. The Tribunal considered the issue and passeda common order in respect of the assessment years 1995-1996 and 1996-1997, virtually holding that there was nothingto deprecate the course pursued by the assessee or the orderpassed by the Appellate Authority and that the transaction waspart of the business expediency. Annexure-B order passed bythe lower Appellate Authority came to be affirmed, which issought to be challenged before this Court. 9.Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel forthe Department submits that the Appellate Authority as well asthe Tribunal was not justified in arriving at a finding in favourof the assessee, as the attempt to evade tax was quiteevident. It is stated that there was no agreement at allbetween the assessee and the sister concern run by his wife,not to charge any interest and that the inference made by thesaid Authority/Tribunal to have the issue decided in favour ofthe assessee was only on the basis of a submission made by I.T.A.Nos.297,787,834,859, 1185 & 1189/2009 ..13.. the learned counsel appearing for the assessee during thecourse of hearing. This is stated as discernible fromparagraphs 13 and 21 of Annexure-C order. It is pointed outthat the attempt of the assessee was only to reduce the extentof profit and in turn, to evade the tax. The learned StandingCounsel further points out that the assessee, admittedly, wascharging interest from the sister concern run by the wife in theyear 1995-1996 and the sudden change of theprocedure/course was only to make unlawful gain, by availingthe benefit of Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Thebenefit under the said provision will be available only in acircumstance when the materials intended to be exported arepurchased on the basis of an export order in hand. If theassessee had procured the materials well in advance, he willnot be entitled to get the said benefit and it was in the saidcircumstance, that the said materials were sought to beprocured through the sister concern of his wife, who wasrunning an establishment as M/s.Spot Spices Company, keep itwith them with access for the same at any time, showing the I.T.A.Nos.297,787,834,859, 1185 & 1189/2009 ..14.. sale transaction in favour of the assessee after getting the purchase order for export. In such exercise, the assesseesought to reduce the extent of profit, by not charging interestfrom the wife/sister concern (based on the alleged agreementnot to charge any interest) and in turn showing a wider gap. I.T.A.Nos.297,787,834,859, 1185 & 1189/2009 ..14.. sale transaction in favour of the assessee after getting the purchase order for export. In such exercise, the assesseesought to reduce the extent of profit, by not charging interestfrom the wife/sister concern (based on the alleged agreementnot to charge any interest) and in turn showing a wider gap. 10.The course pursued by the assessee was discussedby the Appellate Authority with reference to the case dealtwith in Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar Vs. ShivPrakash Janak Raj & Co. Pvt. Ltd. & others [222 ITR583], rendered by the Apex Court, to the effect that as therewas an agreement between the appellant and the sisterconcern during the account period itself, no interest stoodaccrued to the appellant. Reliance was also sought to beplaced on the verdict passed by the Allahabad High Courtreported inJwala Prasad Radha Krishna Vs.Commissioner of Income Tax [198 ITR 415] to the effectthat, merely because interest was paid in some years, it wouldnot justify the inference that there was some agreementbetween the parties for payment of interest. The discussion as I.T.A.Nos.297,787,834, 859, 1185 & 1189/2009 ..15.. contained in ‘paragraph 7’ of the order under challenge before the Tribunal is relevant and hence the same is extractedbelow:- “7.I have carefully considered the arguments ofthe learned representative and verified the facts.The main ground on which the Assessing Officerhas estimated interest and added to the incomewas that the appellant has advanced interestbearing funds to the sister concern. Further it wasthe case of the Assessing Officer that interest wascharged till the assessment year 1995-96 and thereis no reason for not charging interest during thisassessment year. But on examination of the facts,it reveals that the appellant had not advancedamounts to M/s.Spot Spices Company out ofborrowed funds. It is found that the appellant hadobtained a Shipping Loan amounting toRs.2,35,20,000.00 during the accounting periodagainst which the appellant held stock of BlackPepper worth Rs.3,48,65,985.00. Since the entireamount of loan was utilised for storing blackpepper, I hold that the Assessing Officer is notcorrect in concluding that the amount advanced tosister concern was out of interest bearing funds.Further, it reveals that the sister concern hasrequested the appellant not to charge interest onthe advance during the accounting period itself. Inview of the request, the appellant has agreed not tocharge interest during the accounting period. Asthere was an agreement between the appellant andhis sister concern during the accounting perioditself, no interest accrued to the appellant, in viewof the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Courtreported in [222 ITR 583]. It is also noticed thatthe appellant had not accounted any interestreceipts in its accounts and M/s.Spot SpicesCompany has also not claimed any interest payablefrom its accounts. As the appellant had enoughstock against the loans obtained from the bank,there was no diversion of interest bearing funds fornon business purpose. Even the amount advanced ..16.. ..16.. to the sister concern was only for purchasing andstoring export quality black pepper. The advancewas also made out of own funds of the appellant.Further, it is only a trade advance. When theappellant has not charged interest for commercialexpediency, the Assessing Officer is not correct inconcluding that interest has accrued to theappellant. The decision of the Allahabad High Courtreported in [198 ITR 415] also supports the case ofthe appellant that merely because interest was paidin some years, it cannot justify the inference thatthere was some agreement between the parties forpayment of interest. There was actually anagreement for not charging interest during theaccounting period. For the above reasons, I holdthat the Assessing Officer is not correct in charginginterest and adding it to the income of theappellant.TheadditionamountingtoRs.17,10,503/- is deleted.” 11.It is the correctness of the above finding and reasoning, that was examined by the Tribunal in the course of second appeal, leading to ‘Annexure-C’ verdict. The case of theRevenue has been discussed in ‘paragraph 9’, followed by thecase sought to be projected by the assessee in the subsequentparagraphs and finally, coming to a conclusion in ‘paragraph 21’ in the following terms:- “21.Next we will consider the appeal filed by the*assessee (*apparently a mistake which shouldhave been Revenue as correctly pointed out by thelearned Standing Counsel) for the assessment year1996-97 in ITA No. 341(Coch)/99. The assesseehas not charged any interest for the advances/loanmade during the previous year to his associateconcern, M/s.Spot spices Company. There is no written contract for advancing of money or forcharging any interest thereon. The assessee is anexporter in pepper. Therefore, as rightly pointedout by the learned Sr.Counsel, the assessee had toavail the benefit of export, as provided in section5(3) of the C.S.T.Act, 1956. That benefit would beavailable to the assessee as an exporter only if theexport order preceded the procurement of theexported commodity. Therefore it was in thebusiness interests of the assessee to see that theassessee is having immediate access to theprocurement of right quantity of Pepperimmediately after he obtained the export order.Therefore it is understandable that the assesseehad made arrangements with his associateconcern, namely M/s.Spot Spices Company toprocure pepper from the market and make itreadily available to the assessee as and whenrequired. It is for this purpose that the assesseehad advanced money to M/s.Spot Spices Companyand therefore those advances need to beconsidered as advances made by the assessee forcarrying on his export business. As held by theHon'ble Bombay High Court in 74-ITR-723 and theHon'ble Gujarat High Court in 178-CTR-65,borrowed funds could be applied for businesspurposes, including giving interest-free advancesto suppliers of goods. Therefore, there is nojustification in the finding of the assessing officerthat interest amount need to be estimated againstthe advances made by the assessee to Spot SpicesCompany for the reason that the assessee hadavailed loans from Banks and other Institutions. Itis to be seen that the availing of loan from Banksand giving of advances to M/s.Spot Spices Co. areintegral part of carrying on of the assessee's exportbusiness. In such circumstances, the estimationmade by the assessing officer towards interest andthereafter excluding 90% on estimate in availingbenefit u/s 80HHC are not at all called for.Therefore, the order of the CIT (Appeals) on thatpoint is to be confirmed.” I.T.A.Nos.297,787,834, 859, 1185 & 1189/2009 ..18.. The above finding and reasoning are well-based and within thefour walls of law. I.T.A.Nos.297,787,834, 859, 1185 & 1189/2009 ..18.. The above finding and reasoning are well-based and within thefour walls of law. 12.The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant,however, brought to our notice three judgments-one renderedby the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, P&H,J&K, H.P. and U.T. of Chandigarh Vs. Panipat Woollen &General Mills Co.Ltd. [103 ITR 66] and the remaining twoby Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court as well as theDelhi High Court respectively [Sushila Devi Rampuria Vs.Commissioner of Income Tax (137 ITR 272) and SiddhoMal & Sons Vs. Income Tax Officer (122 ITR 839)]. Thesubmission made by the learned Standing Counsel is withreference to the circumstances involving the “businessexpediency/commercial expediency”, which in fact dependsupon the facts and circumstances of each case. There is nodispute with regard to the proposition therein, but the questionis, how the same would come to the rescue of the Revenue inthe present case. I.T.A.Nos.297,787,834,859, 1185 & 1189/2009 ..19.. 13.In view of the specific discussion made by theAppellate Authority in Annexure-B order as to the factualposition(with reference to the relevant records) and theaffirmation given by the Tribunal in Annexure-C, it remainsmore a ‘question of fact’ and does not involve any question oflaw; much less any substantial question of law, to be dealtwith under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. In the saidcircumstance, we are of the view that, these appeals are notmatters which require interference at the hands of this Court.Accordingly, the Appeals stand dismissed as devoid of anymerit. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE Sd/- N.ANIL KUMAR, JUDGE skj APPENDIX IN I.T.A.No.859/2009 PETITIONER’S ANNEXURE: ANNEXURE ACOPY OF ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAXACT DTD.9.1.2002 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01.ACT DTD.9.1.2002 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. ANNEXURE BCOPY OF THE ORDER DTD.12.9.2003 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS).COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ANNEXURE CCOPY OF THE ORDER DTD.1.7.2005 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN IN ITA.104/Coch/04.INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN IN ITA.104/Coch/04. APPENDIX IN I.T.A.No.1185/2009 PETITIONER’S ANNEXURE: ANNEXURE ACOPY OF ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAXACT DTD.7.11.2000 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99.ACT DTD.7.11.2000 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. ANNEXURE BCOPY OF THE ORDER DTD.12.9.2003 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS).COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ANNEXURE CCOPY OF THE ORDER DTD.1.7.2005 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN IN ITA.102/Coch/04.INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN IN ITA.102/Coch/04. APPENDIX IN I.T.A.No.1189/2009 PETITIONER’S ANNEXURE: ANNEXURE ACOPY OF ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAXACT DTD.24.11.2000 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR1997-98.ACT DTD.24.11.2000 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR1997-98. ANNEXURE BCOPY OF THE ORDER DTD.12.9.2003 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS).COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ANNEXURE CCOPY OF THE ORDER DTD.1.7.2005 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN IN ITA.101/Coch/04.INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN IN ITA.101/Coch/04.