M/s N.K. Sharma Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Zirakpur V. ACIT, Patiala

ITA 1052/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90125 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Search and seizure; Document seized; Additional evidence; Documents seized; Revenue expenditure

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.1051 & 1052/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S N.K. SHARMA ENTERPRISES VS. THE ACIT PVT. LTD., CENTRAL CIRCLE WARD 6, NAC PATIALA ZIRAKPUR PAN NO. AABCN3333K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. SUDHIR SEHGAL RESPONDENT BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 16/04/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06/05/2015 ORDER PER T.R.SOOD, A.M. BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 23/08/2012 OF CIT(A)-I, LUDHIANA , 2. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED IDENTICAL ISSUES, THEREFORE, THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CO MMON ORDER. 3. FIRST, WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1051/CHD/2012 . IN THIS APPEAL THOUGH ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS N UMBERING 1 TO 16 BUT OUT OF IT ONLY GROUND NOS. 6, 10, 12 & 13 WERE PRESSED FOR HEARING, WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- 6. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADD ITION OF RS. 8,88,795/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF SO CALLED CONSTRUCTION CHARGES PAID FROM THE UNDISCLOSED SOUR CES AS PER PARA- 12 OF THE ORDER. 2 10. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADD ITION OF RS. 75,438/- AS PER PARA 28 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH WAS MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE BORING EXPENSES AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE WHEREAS THE SAME SH OULD BE TREATED AS CAPITA EXPENSES AS PER PARA 28 OF THE ORDER. 12. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADD ITION OF RS. 72,050/- AS DISCUSSED BY HIM IN PARA 33 TO 35 OF HI S ORDER, WHICH WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT TH E ASSESEE PAID BROKERAGE AND CONSULTANCY CHARGES TO HLSI PROPERTY SERVICES INDIA LTD. ON WHICH, NO TDS HAD BEEN DEDUCTED. 13. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING TH E FACT THAT M/S HLSI PROPERTY SERVICES INDIA LTD. HAD BEEN ALLOWED EXEMPTION FROM THE DEDUCTION OF TDS ON ANY PAYMENT MADE TO HIM. 4. THE OTHER GROUND NOS. 5, 7 TO 9, 11, 14 TO 16 BE ING NOT PRESSED ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 5. GROUND NO. 6:- AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES W E FIND THAT A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED IN THE N.K. SHARMA GROUP OF CASES. DURING SEARCH, VARIOUS INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. A D OCUMENT NO. 51 OF ANNEXURE A-12 DATED 19.7.2006 AND 18.8.2006 CONTAIN ING DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS. 8,88,795/- WAS SEIZED. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE DETAILS OF SOURCES OF THESE EXPENSES BU T NO DETAILS WERE FILED. ULTIMATELY, ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WHY THIS AMOUNT SHOULD NOT BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BUT AGAIN NO REPLY WAS FILED AND, THEREFORE, THIS AMOUNT WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE. 6. ON APPEAL, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS EN GAGED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF VARIOUS PROJECTS NAMELY SAVITRI HEIGHTS, D.E. SA VITRI ENCLAVE, SAVITRI TOWERS. IN RELATION TO THESE PROJECTS CERTAIN EXTER NAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES (EDC) WERE REQUIRED TO BE PAID TO PUNJAB URBAN PLAN NING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (PUDA). THE CHARGES MENTIONED IN THE SEI ZED DOCUMENTS WERE PAID BY CHEQUES TO PUDA AND WERE DULY ENTERED IN THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT AS CAN BE SEEN AT PAGES 1 TO 5. THESE SUBMISSIONS WERE FORWA RDED BY LD. CIT(A) FOR 3 COMMENTS OF ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER OBJECTED TO ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BECAUSE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS ALREADY GIVEN. THESE COMMENTS WERE THEN CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE REJOINDER, IT WAS MAINLY SUBMITTED THAT A SSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT COMMENTED ON THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE BUT HAS SIMPLY OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT SINCE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED IN A LARGE GROUP OF ASSESSEES, IT WAS DIFFICULT TO OBT AIN AND RECONCILE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS AND I.E. WHY THE DETAILS COULD NOT BE FIL ED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. CERTAIN CASE LAWS WERE RELIED FOR ADMISSIO N OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 8 THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER EXAMINING THE SUBMISSIONS, C OMMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND COUNTER COMMENTS OF THE ASSES SEE ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BECAUSE ACCORDING TO HIM THE SAME WERE REQ UIRED FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, ON MERITS THE ISSUE WAS DEC IDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE VIE PARA 11 WHICH IS AS UNDER:- 11. THE PERUSAL OF DOCUMENT AT SR. NO. 52 OF ANNEXURE A -12 SHOWS THAT IT RECORDS THE FOLLOWING TRANSACTIONS:- NAME AMOUNT DATE SAVITRI HEIGHT RS. 1,39,000/- 19/03/2006 D.E.O RS. 2,52,528/- 31/08/2006 SAVITRI ENCLAVE RS. 1,95,607/- 31/08/2006 SAVITRI TOWER RS. 3,01,666/- 18/08/2006 RS. 8,88,795/- 12. THE APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED THE ABOVE DETAILED ENTR IES ON THE BASIS OF FOLLOWING RECORDS:- DATE AMOUNT 28/12/2006 RS. 1,39,600/- 28/12/2006 RS. 2,66,222/- 28/12/2006 RS. 1,95,607/- 28/12/2006 RS. 3,01,666/- THE COMPARISON OF THE ENTRIES IN THE SEIZED DOCUMEN T AND THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT SHOWS THAT THE AMOUNTS PAID ARE ON ONE DATE I.E. 4 28/12/2006 WHEREAS THE DATES AS PER THE SEIZED RECO RD ARE ABSOLUTELY DIFFERENT. FURTHER THE AMOUNTS ALSO DIFFER TO SOME EXTENT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS APPARENT THAT THE EXPLANATION G IVEN BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT AS RECORDED IN THE SEIZED PAPER. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THERE FORE CONFIRMED . 9 BEFORE US LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS IN THE REAL ESTATE BUSINESS AND WAS ENGAGED IN THE CONSTRU CTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF DIFFERENT PROJECTS. FOR THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO I NCUR VARIOUS EXPENSES. THE AMOUNTS MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS RELATES T O PAYMENTS WHICH WERE DUE TO PUDA ON ACCOUNT OF EXTERNAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES. THESE WERE NOTED ONLY AS A REMINDER. THE ACTUAL PAYMENTS COULD NOT BE MAD E ON DUE DATES BUT WERE MADE ULTIMATELY ON 28.12.2006 THROUGH BANKING CHANN EL. IN THIS REGARD, HE REFERRED TO PAGES 1 TO 4 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF VARIOUS PUDA UNITS AND CLEARLY SHOWS THAT PAYMENTS HAS BEEN MADE THROUGH DRAFTS. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT NO DETA ILS OR EVIDENCE WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING SOURCES OF T HIS INVESTMENT. THE STORY OF MAKING PAYMENTS THROUGH BANKING DRAFTS IS AN AFTERT HOUGHT AND THESE BANK DRAFTS MAY RELATE TO DIFFERENT DUES. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFU LLY. THE SIZED DOCUMENTS ENUMERATED IN A-12 READS AS UNDER:- 5 12. THE ABOVE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT ASSESSEE NOTED CER TAIN PAYMENTS MADE ON VARIOUS DATES TOWARDS DIFFERENT PROJECTS. THERE IS NO MENTION OF PUDA IN THE NOTINGS. THEREFORE, IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO PUDA ON ACCOUNT OF EXTERNAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES. AT THE SAME TIME SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A BANK LEDGER ACCOUNT, THEREFORE , ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO PRODUCE COPIES OF THE RECEIPTS FROM PUDA WHICH WILL CLINCH THE ISSUE ONE WAY OR THE OTHERS. FOR THIS LD. COUNSEL HAS SOUGHT TIME OF ONE WEEK. THE CASE WAS TREATED AS HEARD. AFTER ONE WEEK LD. COUNSEL HAS S IMPLY FILED COPY OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND A BANK CERTIFICATE FROM HDFC BANK CERTIFYING THAT MANAGERS CHEQUE (MC) WERE ISSUED ON 20.12.2006 IN FAVOUR OF PUDA. 13. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT NO EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE TO SHOW THAT PAYMENTS WERE NOT MADE. IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT ASSE SSEE HAS MADE CERTAIN NOTINGS IN THE DIARY JUST TO REMEMBER THAT THE SAME WERE REQUI RED TO BE MADE TO PUDA. THE DATES MENTIONED IN THE NOTINGS ARE TOTALLY DIFF ERENT FROM THE DATES SHOWN IN THE BANK CERTIFICATE. EVEN IF ASSUMING FOR AN ARGU MENT SAKE THAT SOME PAYMENT HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL TO PUDA THE SAME MAY RELATE TO SOME OTHER MATTER OR ANOTHER INSTALLMENT OF EXTERNAL DEV ELOPMENT CHARGES. WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THAT IF PAYMENTS NOTED IN THE SEIZED DOC UMENTS WERE REALLY RELATED TO PUDA THEN WHY ASSESSEE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO PROD UCE RECEIPTS FROM PUDA BECAUSE THE SAME RELATES TO PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AN D ARE GENERALLY PRESERVED VERY CAREFULLY. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EV IDENCE IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED CERTAIN EXPENDITURE FOR WHICH NO SOURC E HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR CIT(A) OR EVEN BEFORE US. HOWEVER, WE HAVE ALSO NOTED THAT THE PAYMENT AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,39,000/- HAS BE EN MADE ON 19.3.2006 WHICH MEANS IT RELATES TO EARLIER YEAR AND CANNOT BE ADDE D ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS IN THIS YEAR. THEREFORE, WE DELETE THE AD DITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,39,000/- AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN R ESPECT OF THREE AMOUNTS I.E. RS. 2,52,528/-, RS. 1,95,607/- AND RS. 3,01,666/-. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 6 14. GROUND NO.10:- AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICE D FROM DOCUMENT NOS. 1 TO 3 OF ANNEXURE A-20 THAT SAME CONTAINS DETAILS OF BO RING EXPENSE OF RS . 88750/- IN RESPONSE TO QUERY NO DETAIL WERE FILED. THEREFO RE, THE EXPENDITURE WAS HELD TO BE OF CAPITAL NATURE AND THE SUM OF RS. 74,438/- AFTER ALLOWING 15% DEPRECIATION WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E. 15. ON APPEAL IT WAS MAINLY SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION AND SALES OF FLATS AND PLO TS, THEREFORE, ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF FLATS I S NECESSARY TO BE TREATED TO BE OF REVENUE EXPENDITURE. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) DID NOT FIND FORCE IN THESE SUBMISSIONS AND DECIDED THE ISSUE VIDE PARA 28 AGAI NST THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS AS UNDER:- 28. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE BASIS OF ADDITION MADE B Y THE AO AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE AR ON THE ISSUE. THE BOARING E XPENSES ARE EXPECTED TO GIVE AN ENDURING BENEFIT TO THE BUSINES S OF THE APPELLANT AND IN A WAY SERVES AS SORT OF PLANT AND MACHINERY IN THE PROCESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF FLATS. THE REGULAR AVAILABILITY OF WATER IS ESSENTIAL IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION. EVEN AFTER THE FLATS ARE CONSTRUCTED, THE BOREWELL IS INTENDED TO SERVE AS SOURCE OF WATER SU PPLY TO THE INHABITANTS. THEREFORE, THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN TREATED AS CAPITAL. AS SUCH THE DISALLOWANCE MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONFIRMED. 16. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITER ATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE CIT(A). 17. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 18. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. FIRST OF ALL IN T HE CASE OF ASSESSEE, FLATS ETC. ARE TREATED AS STOCK IN TRADE BECAUSE THE SAME ARE REQUIRED TO BE SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON CO NSTRUCTION OF SUCH FLATS IS TO 7 BE TREATED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. FURTHER, ONCE F LATS ARE SOLD THE ASSESSEE CANNOT TAKE AWAY THE TUBEWELL. FURTHER THE BORING MAY OR MAY NOT YIELD WATER IN LATER YEARS AND THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THA T THE SAME IS OF ENDURING NATURE, THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION THIS EXPENDITURE HAS TO BE TREATED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT AND DELETE THIS ADDITION. 19. GROUND NOS. 12 & 13:- AFTER HEARING BOTH THE P ARTIES WE FIND THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH DOCUMENT NOS. 264 AND 268 OF A NNEXURE A-20 CONTAINING BILLS OF BROKERAGE AND CONSULTANCY CHARGES AMOUNTIN G TO RS. 72,050/- WERE FOUND. THE BROKERAGE WAS PAID TO M/S HLSI PROPERTY SERVICES INDIA LTD. THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW CAUSED WHY THIS EXPENDITURE SHOUL D NOT BE DISALLOWED BECAUSE NO TDS WAS DEDUCTED. SINCE NO REPLY WAS FIL ED THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE SUM OF RS. 72,050/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 20. ON APPEAL, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT M/S HLSI PROPE RTY SERVICES INDIA LTD WAS EXEMPT FROM PROVISIONS OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AND THAT IS WHY NO TDS WAS DEDUCTED. THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT FIND FORCE IN THES E SUBMISSIONS AND DISMISSED GROUND VIDE PARA 35 WHICH IS AS UNDER:- 35. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE BASIS OF ADDITION MADE B Y THE AO AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE AR ON THE ISSUE. THE APPELLANT HAS ONLY CLAIMED THAT M/S HLSI PROPERTY SERVICES INDIA LTD. HAD BEEN ALLOWED EXEMPTION FROM THE DEDUCTION OF TDS ON ANY PAYMENT MADE TO THEM BUT NO EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM HAD BEEN FILED EITHER AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR APPELLATE PROCEED INGS. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER I N MAKING THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE IS CONFIRMED. 21. BEFORE US LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERAT ED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE CIT(A). 8 22. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 23. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIND NO EVIDENCE WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR LD. CIT(A) OR EVEN BEFORE US TO SHOW THAT M/S HLSI PROPERTIES LTD WAS EXEMPT FROM INCOME TAX BY ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, WE FIND NOTHING WRONG WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND CONFIRM THE SAME. 24. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO. 1052/CHD/2012:- 25. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS ERRED IN GIVING HIS FINDINGS THAT ONLY 50% OF DONATION OF RS. 3,24, 025/- WAS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND, THUS, THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE OTHER 50% OF DONATION AMOU NTING TO RS. 3,24,025/- IS UNCALLED FOR AS PER PARA 4 OF HIS. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE AD DITION OF RS. 6,210/- RS. 12,286/- AND RS. 89,957/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED PURCHASES, CONSTRUCTION CHARGES AND UNE XPLAINED CASH AS PER PARA 26 OF HIS ORDER. 3. THAT THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A ) AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY T HE ASSESSE HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY CONSIDERED. 4. NOTWITHSTANDING ABOVE SAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE AS NO INCRIMINATING NATURE OF DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION IN VIEW OF T HE SPECIAL BENCH JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LIMITED & OTHERS AS REPORTED IN 147 TTJ 513. 26. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE WISHES TO WITHDRAW THIS APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, AN END ORSEMENT TO THIS EFFECT HAS BEEN MADE ON THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ITSELF. 9 27. THE LD. DR HAS NO OBJECTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF T HE APPEAL, THEREFORE, APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN 28. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS WITHD RAWN. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06/05/2015 (BHAVNESH SAINI) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 06/05/2015 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR