Ita/89/2012 Of M/S.skyline Builders v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 27TH POUSHA, 1940 ITA. No.84 of 2012 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA NO.210/2009 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATETRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH DATED 30.12.2011 APPELLANT/APPELLANT: M/S.SKYLINE BUILDERSRAJAJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIARSRI.K.JOHN MATHAISRI.P.GOPINATH (SR.) RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXC.R. BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682018. SRI.PKR MENON, SR.COUNSEL FOR GOI SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.01.2019,ALONG WITH ITA.87/2012, ITA.89/2012 & ITA.94/2012, THE COURT ONTHE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ITA. No.84, 87, 89 & of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 27TH POUSHA, 1940 ITA. No.87 of 2012 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA NO.222/2009 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATETRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH DATED 30.12.2011 APPELLANT/APPELLANT: M/S SKYLINE BUILDERSRAJAJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIARSRI.K.JOHN MATHAISRI.P.BENNY THOMASSRI.P.GOPINATH (SR.) RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXC.R. BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682018. SRI.PKR MENON, SR.COUNSEL FOR GOI SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.01.2019,ALONG WITH ITA.84/2012, ITA.89/2012 & ITA.94/2012, THE COURT ONTHE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ITA. No.84, 87, 89 & of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 27TH POUSHA, 1940 ITA.No. 89 of 2012 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA NO.224/2009 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATETRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH DATED 30.12.2011 APPELLANT/APPELLANT: M/S.SKYLINE BUILDERSRAJAI ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIARSMT.PREETHA S.NAIRSRI.K.JOHN MATHAISRI.P.BENNY THOMASSRI.P.GOPINATH (SR.) RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXC.R. BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682018. SRI.PKR MENON, SR.COUNSEL FOR GOI SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.01.2019,ALONG WITH ITA.84/2012, ITA.87/2012 & ITA.94/2012, THE COURT ONTHE 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 THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 27TH POUSHA, 1940 ITA.No. 94 of 2012 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA NO.350/2010 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATETRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH DATED 31-01-2012 APPELLANT/APPELLANT: M/S.SKYLINE BUILDERSRAJAI ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIARSMT.PREETHA S.NAIRSRI.K.JOHN MATHAISRI.P.BENNY THOMASSRI.P.GOPINATH (SR.) RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXC.R. BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682018. SRI.PKR MENON, SR.COUNSEL FOR GOI SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.01.2019,ALONG WITH ITA.84/2012, ITA.87/2012 & ITA.89/2012, THE COURT ONTHE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT K. Vinod Chandran, J. I.T.A. No.84 of 2012 THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 27TH POUSHA, 1940 ITA.No. 94 of 2012 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA NO.350/2010 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATETRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH DATED 31-01-2012 APPELLANT/APPELLANT: M/S.SKYLINE BUILDERSRAJAI ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIARSMT.PREETHA S.NAIRSRI.K.JOHN MATHAISRI.P.BENNY THOMASSRI.P.GOPINATH (SR.) RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXC.R. BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682018. SRI.PKR MENON, SR.COUNSEL FOR GOI SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.01.2019,ALONG WITH ITA.84/2012, ITA.87/2012 & ITA.89/2012, THE COURT ONTHE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT K. Vinod Chandran, J. I.T.A. No.84 of 2012 The above appeals raise questions withrespect to the claim under Section 80IB of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 [for brevity, 'the Act] forthe assessment years 2001-2002, 2003-2004, 2005-2006 & 2006-2007. The Tribunal, affirmed theorder passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Act, revising theassessment made, allowing the claim underSection 80IB of the Act. The CIT found that theessential conditions of the claim is notsatisfied. The Tribunal affirmed the order ofthe CIT under Section 263 of the Act, againstwhich questions of law are raised in all theassessment years. 2. In the assessment year 2001-2002, thereis a question of limitation, which admittedly had not been raised before any of theauthorities under the Act. The question oflimitation being a mixed question of fact andlaw, it could be raised at the point of anappeal under Section 260A of the Act also; ifthe facts are clear and require no adjudication.The dates are not in dispute with respect to theorders passed, which alone would enable anadjudication on the question of limitation. Wehence frame the following question of law in sofar as the appeal for the year 2001-2002: “Whether the Tribunal was correct inhaving affirmed the order under Section263 of the Act for reason of the periodof limitation having expired at the timewhen the order was passed?” 3. The period of limitation under Section263(2) of the Act is expiry of two years fromthe end of the financial year, in which theorder sought to be revised was passed. There isquite a bundle of facts, in so far as the orders ITA. No.84, 87, 89 & of 2012 passed for the subject year. Annexure-A dated10.12.2003 is the first order of assessmentpassed under Section 143(3) of the Act. Therein,there was no consideration of the claim underSection 80IB of the Act. The claim made by theassessee under Section 80IB of the Act through arevised return filed on 12.11.2003 was notallowed. An appeal was filed before the CIT, inwhich the ground of rejection of the claim wastaken. The CIT (Appeals) by Annexure-B directedconsideration of the claim. The claim as made inthe return was considered by Annexure-I orderand an order passed, allowing deduction ofRs.70,651/- under Section 80IB of the Act. 4. A search proceeding was initiated underSection 132 of the Act and notice was issuedunder Section 153A of the Act, pursuant towhich, a return was filed by the assessee. Theassessment was completed as per Annexure-C forthe year 2001-2002, where there was no ITA. No.84, 87, 89 & of 2012 consideration of the claim under Section 80IB ofthe Act, obviously for reason of the claimhaving already been allowed by the AssessingOfficer by Annexure-A. The significant fact,which weighed with the Commissioner, actingunder Section 263 of the Act was the fact thatthe assessee when filing the return pursuant tothe notice under Section 153A, enhanced theclaim under Section 80IB to Rs.11,88,622/-, inaddition to that claimed under the revisedreturn filed at the stage of Section 143(3)proceedings. ITA. No.84, 87, 89 & of 2012 consideration of the claim under Section 80IB ofthe Act, obviously for reason of the claimhaving already been allowed by the AssessingOfficer by Annexure-A. The significant fact,which weighed with the Commissioner, actingunder Section 263 of the Act was the fact thatthe assessee when filing the return pursuant tothe notice under Section 153A, enhanced theclaim under Section 80IB to Rs.11,88,622/-, inaddition to that claimed under the revisedreturn filed at the stage of Section 143(3)proceedings. 5. The Commissioner, by Annexure-E orderdated 25.03.2009, sought to revise the entireclaim of Rs.11,88,622/-, which includedRs.70,651/- as allowed in Annexure-I order. Thereasons for finding prejudice to the Revenue asseen from Annexure-E order are; (i) separateaccount for the eligible bills were not beingmaintained for determining profit having regard ITA. No.84, 87, 89 & of 2012 9 to the provisions of Section 80IB of the Actread with Section 80IA(5); (ii) the accounts ofeligible business were not audited by anaccountant and (iii) the report of audit in FormNo.10CCB was neither filed with the return ofincome nor during the course of assessmentproceedings or the proceedings under Section153A. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for theappellant/assessee would contend that there wasno consideration of the claim under Annexure-C,especially since the same was already consideredand allowed in the proceedings under Section143(3) in an order giving effect to theappellate order at Annexure-B. If at all; therevision had to be done, of the original orderpassed allowing the claim under Section 80IB,which is Annexure-I dated 31.08.2005. Thelimitation commencing from the end of thefinancial year, in which the order is passed, it ITA. No.84, 87, 89 & of 2012 commences from 31.03.2006 and Section 263 has tobe invoked before 31.03.2008. The order has beenpassed on 25.03.2009, long after the expiry oflimitation. 7. The learned Senior Counsel, Governmentof India [Taxes} would seek to sustain the orderunder Section 263 of the Act. It is pointed outthat the claim to the extent of Rs.11,88,622/-was never made in the original return or in therevised return. In fact at the time of theoriginal proceedings, the assessee had onlyclaimed an amount of Rs.70,651/-, that too in arevised return. This was the claim, which wasallowed as per the original order at Annexure-A.The further claim was made in the return filedas against the notice issued under Section 153Aof the Act, which the assessee was not entitledto raise. The original assessment had resultedin the claim being allowed to the extent ofRs.70,651/-, which alone was claimed at that ITA. No.84, 87, 89 & of 2012 time. There could be no enhancement of suchclaim in a return filed pursuant to a noticeunder Section 153A. 8. The search proceedings cannot inure tothe benefit of the assessee, in so far as makinga claim far in excess of that claimed in theoriginal assessment and which had resulted infinal determination. It is also submitted thatthe conditions with respect to the claim as perthe provisions under Section 80IB of the Actwere also not complied with. Hence, thelimitation commences only from Annexure-C orderdated 28.12.2007, wherein though there is nodiscussion as to the claim under Section 80IB ofthe Act, the assessee having claimed it in thereturns, the same is inferred to have beenallowed, which was sought to be revised byAnnexure-D. 9. We cannot, but observe that the ITA. No.84, 87, 89 & of 2012 12 8. The search proceedings cannot inure tothe benefit of the assessee, in so far as makinga claim far in excess of that claimed in theoriginal assessment and which had resulted infinal determination. It is also submitted thatthe conditions with respect to the claim as perthe provisions under Section 80IB of the Actwere also not complied with. Hence, thelimitation commences only from Annexure-C orderdated 28.12.2007, wherein though there is nodiscussion as to the claim under Section 80IB ofthe Act, the assessee having claimed it in thereturns, the same is inferred to have beenallowed, which was sought to be revised byAnnexure-D. 9. We cannot, but observe that the ITA. No.84, 87, 89 & of 2012 12 Commissioner making the order under Section 263of the Act never raised the contention of aclaim, in excess of that originally made beingnot permissible in a proceeding under Section153A of the Act. If such a ground had resultedin the order being revised, the issue would havebeen viewed by us in a totally differentperspective. The grounds, for invoking Section263, as we noticed non-compliance of theconditions for allowing the claim under Section80IB of the Act viz: the separate accounts beingnot maintained, the accounts being not auditedand the report of audit having not been filed.These are fundamental aspects in allowing theclaim under Section 80IB, which applies to theclaim made in the revised return of Rs.70,651/-and that claimed in excess in the return filedunder Section 153A of the Act. These groundsapplicable to the claim in the revised return,stood allowed and at the point when revision was attempted, had attained finality. 10. As of now we find that the reasonsstated for revising the order under Section 263of the Act are those extracted herein above,which go to the root of the claim made underSection 80IB of the Act, which would apply tothe entire amounts claimed; that in the revisedreturn originally filed and in the return filedunder Section 153A of the Act. Without revisingthe earlier order at Annexure-I, it would not bepossible to disallow the claim further madeunder the return filed pursuant to notice issuedunder Section 153A of the Act by revisingAnnexure-C order. The grounds as stated inSection 263 order was available to the Revenueeven as against the original order passed atAnnexure-I. No interference of the allowancegranted by the Assessing Officer having beenattempted under Section 263 of the Act; theissue stands settled for that assessment year. ITA. No.84, 87, 89 & of 2012 As for the enhanced claim made under Section80IB not being sustainable in a return filedpursuant to a notice issued under Section 153A;it was never raised by the CIT in the orderunder Section 263. 11. In such circumstances, we are of theopinion that the limitation in so far asinterfering with the claim under Section 80IB ofthe Act has to commence from the first order atAnnexure-I, which is dated 31.08.2005. The orderunder Section 263 of the Act had been passedlong after the limitation expired and hence weare unable to sustain the same. We answer thequestion of law in favour of the assessee andagainst the Revenue, in so far as the limitationaspect is considered. I.T.A. No.87 of 2012 12. In this appeal also, the question oflimitation arises. We find that there was a ITA. No.84, 87, 89 & of 2012 miscellaneous application filed before the Tribunal as M.A. No.59/Kochi/2012, which hasbeen allowed on this question by order dated07.09.2012. There is no challenge from the orderby the Revenue. In such circumstances, I.T.A. No.87 of 2012would stand rejected as infructuous. I.T.A. NoS.89 & 94 of 2012 I.T.A. No.87 of 2012 12. In this appeal also, the question oflimitation arises. We find that there was a ITA. No.84, 87, 89 & of 2012 miscellaneous application filed before the Tribunal as M.A. No.59/Kochi/2012, which hasbeen allowed on this question by order dated07.09.2012. There is no challenge from the orderby the Revenue. In such circumstances, I.T.A. No.87 of 2012would stand rejected as infructuous. I.T.A. NoS.89 & 94 of 2012 13. With respect to the assessment years2005-2006 and 2006-2007, the contention of theassessee is that the assessment order was notrevisable under Section 263 of the Act forreason of it having merged with the appellateorder. The following question of law arises fromthe appeals: “Whetherinthefactsandcircumstances of the case, ought not theTribunal have set aside the order underSection 263 of the Act for reason of the order revised having merged with theappellate order?” 14. We see that the assessment orders werepassed rejecting the claim under Section 80IB ofthe Act and the assessee challenged it inappeal. The Appellate Authority agreed with thecontention of the appellant with respect to theclaim made under Section 80IB of the Act. Theappellant was found eligible under Section 80IBof the Act and the Assessing Officer wasdirected accordingly. In both the years we findfrom the first appellate orders that there was adirection issued to the Assessing Officer togrant the claim. 15. In such circumstances, we have toanswer the questions of law in favour of theassessee and against the Revenue. We find thatthe order of assessment was not available forrevision under Section 263 of the Act for reasonof it having merged with the First Appellate ITA. No.84, 87, 89 & of 2012 Order. The Revenue could have taken up thematter in further appeal, but however the choicewas to proceed under Section 263, which waserroneous. We hence allow these appeals. I.T.A 87 of 2012 is closed refusing toanswer the question of law raised and the otherthree I.T.A's are allowed answering thequestions of law in favour of the assessee andagainst the revenue setting aside the orderunder Section 263, for the respective assessmentyears. Parties to suffer their respective costs. Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- ASHOK MENON JUDGE sp/19/01/19 APPENDIX OF ITA NO.84/2012 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: APPENDIX OF ITA NO.87/2012 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ITA. No.84, 87, 89 & of 2012 Order. The Revenue could have taken up thematter in further appeal, but however the choicewas to proceed under Section 263, which waserroneous. We hence allow these appeals. I.T.A 87 of 2012 is closed refusing toanswer the question of law raised and the otherthree I.T.A's are allowed answering thequestions of law in favour of the assessee andagainst the revenue setting aside the orderunder Section 263, for the respective assessmentyears. Parties to suffer their respective costs. Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- ASHOK MENON JUDGE sp/19/01/19 APPENDIX OF ITA NO.84/2012 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: APPENDIX OF ITA NO.87/2012 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-ATRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2003-04 DATED 27/02/2006 U/S. 143(3) OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2) ERNAKULAM TO THE APPELLANT.YEAR 2003-04 DATED 27/02/2006 U/S. 143(3) OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2) ERNAKULAM TO THE APPELLANT.ANNEXURE-BTRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28/12/2007 U/S. 153A READ WITH SEC.143(3) ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2) ERNAKULAM TO THE APPELLANT.28/12/2007 U/S. 153A READ WITH SEC.143(3) ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2) ERNAKULAM TO THE APPELLANT.ANNEXURE-CTRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 31/01/2009 SENT BY THE APPELLANT'S CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL).SENT BY THE APPELLANT'S CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL).ANNEXURE-DTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE YEAR 2002-03 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) DATED 22/09/2008 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT.INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE YEAR 2002-03 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) DATED 22/09/2008 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT.ANNEXURE-ETRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE YEAR 2003-04 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) DATED 25/03/2009 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT.INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE YEAR 2003-04 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) DATED 25/03/2009 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT.ANNEXURE-FTRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL'S ORDERDATED 30/12/2011 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT.DATED 30/12/2011 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT. APPENDIX OF ITA NO.89/2012 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-ATRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2005-06 DATED 28/12/2007 U/S. 143(3) OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CETNRAL CIRCLE 2(2), ERNAKULAM TO THE APPELLANT.YEAR 2005-06 DATED 28/12/2007 U/S. 143(3) OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CETNRAL CIRCLE 2(2), ERNAKULAM TO THE APPELLANT. ANNEXURE-BTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03/09/2008 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO THE APPELLANTISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO THE APPELLANTANNEXURE-CTRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 31/01/2009 SENT BY THE APPELLANT'S CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL).SENT BY THE APPELLANT'S CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL).ANNEXURE-DTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE YEAR 2002-03 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) DATED 22/09/2008 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT.INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE YEAR 2002-03 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) DATED 22/09/2008 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT.ANNEXURE-ETRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE YEAR 2005-06 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) DATED 25/03/2009 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT.INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE YEAR 2005-06 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) DATED 25/03/2009 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT.ANNEXURE-FTRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL'S ORDERDATED 30/12/2011 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT.DATED 30/12/2011 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT. APPENDIX OF ITA NO.94/2012 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: APPENDIX OF ITA NO.94/2012 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-ATRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2006-07 DATED 28/12/2007 U/S. 143(3) OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), ERNAKULAM TO THE APPELLANT.YEAR 2006-07 DATED 28/12/2007 U/S. 143(3) OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), ERNAKULAM TO THE APPELLANT. ANNEXURE-BTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03/09/2008 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO THE APPELLANT.ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO THE APPELLANT.ANNEXURE-CTRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 31/01/2009 SENT BY THE APPELLANT'S CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL).SENT BY THE APPELLANT'S CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL).ANNEXURE-DTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE YEAR 2002-03 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) DATED 22/09/2008 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT.INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE YEAR 2002-03 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) DATED 22/09/2008 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT.ANNEXURE-ETRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE YEAR 2005-06 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) DATED 25/03/2009 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT.INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE YEAR 2005-06 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) DATED 25/03/2009 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT.ANNEXURE-FTRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL'S ORDERDATED 31/01/2012 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT.DATED 31/01/2012 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT.