Chandrakumar Khanmal Jain, Mumbai V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 1226/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8532 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUPRIYO PAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M KARUNAKARAN
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Accommodation entries
• Section: 234B; 147; 131; 148

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . , . , BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU R L REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I T.A. NO. 12 2 6 /MDS/201 6 / ASSESSMENT YEAR :20 06 - 07 SHRI CHANDRAKUMAR KHANMAL JAIN, ROOM NO. 1101, 11 TH FLOOR, DR. DESHMUKH BUILDING, 7/9 DR. DESHMUKH LANE, VP ROAD, MUMBAI. [PAN:A A FP J8043F ] VS. TH E INCOME TAX OFFICER , NON CORPORATE WARD 12 ( 2 ) , CHENNAI 600 006 . ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M. KARUNAKARAN, ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S UPRIYO PAL, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 1 8 . 0 7 .201 6 / DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 09 . 0 9 .201 6 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 1 3 , CHENNAI , DATED 2 9 . 02 .20 1 6 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 06 - 07 . THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ILLEGAL, AR BITRARY, AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE AND ALL PROBABILITIES OF THE CASE. I.T.A. NO . 1226 /M/ 16 2 2. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE RE - OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 148 WAS NOT VALID AS IT WAS BASED ON SUSPICION THAT THE APPELLANT'S TRANSACTION WITH M/S ALLIANCE INTERMEDIARIE S AND NETWORK P LTD. IN APRIL, 2004 WAS BOGUS. 3. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE WITHOUT AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY AND FAIR PLAY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PROVIDED THE EVIDENCES USED AGAINST HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT N OR THE CONCERNED PERSON, SRI MUKESH CNOKSHI WHOSE STATEMENT IS RELIED ON WAS ALLOWED TO BE CROSS EXAMINED BY THE APPELLANT. 4. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSMENT BASED ON THE ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED BEHIND THE BACK OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT VALID AND L IABLE TO BE CANCELLED. 5. THE APPELLANT'S TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES OF M/S TALENT INFOWAYS LTD WAS GENUINE AND MADE THROUGH REGISTERED SHARE BROKER AND SEBI IN DEMAT FORM AND THE SHARE BROKER SHREE KHAN LTD. THROUGH WHOM THE TRANSACTION WAS DONE WAS NOT AN ASSOCIATE OF MAHASAGAR GROUP OF MR. MUKESH CHOKSHI. AND THEREFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN DOUBTING THE GENUINE TRANSACTION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. 6. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT MR. MUKE SH CHOKSHI SEEMS TO HAVE TOLD THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE TRANSACTIONS DONE BY HIM IN THE YEAR 2006 ONWARDS WERE ACCOMMODATION TRANSACTIONS WHEREAS THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OF SHARE BY THE APPELLANT WAS DONE IN APRIL, 2004 MUCH EARLIER TO THE ALLEGED PERIOD AND THEREFORE THE APPELLANT'S TRANSACTION CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS ACCOMMODATION EVEN BASED ON ME STATEMENT OF MR. MUKESH CHOKSHI. 7. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE SHARES WERE PASSED THROUGH THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THE APPELLANT HAD EX PLAINED THE SOURCE FOR THE DEPOSIT INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE SUCH ACCOUNTED INCOME CANNOT BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES ON THE WRONG ASSUMPTION THAT THE TRANSACTION ITSELF WAS BOGUS. 8. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SUBMITTED VALID AND SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTS BY WAY OF CONTRACT NOTES, DEMAT ACCOUNT AND BANK STATEMENTS TO PROVE THAT THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES OF M/S. ALLIANCE INTERMEDIARIES AND NET WORK P LTD. WAS GENUINE AND THE CLAIM CANNOT BE REJECTED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. 9. THE APPELLANT RELY ON THE DECISION OF THE ITA T MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHAF BROADCAST P LTD. IN ITA NO.1819/MUM/2012 DATED 17/04/2013 WHEREIN I.T.A. NO . 1226 /M/ 16 3 THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT BASED ON THE STATEMENT O F MR. MUKESH CHOKSHI WAS HELD TO BE INVALID WHICH WOULD SQUARELY APPLY TO THE APPELLANT'S CASE. 10. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSMENT BEING A RE - ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147, THE INTEREST HAS TO BE CALCULATED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234B (3) AND NOT UNDER SECTION 234B(1) AS DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 11. THE APPELLANT THEREFORE PRAYS THAT THE HON'BLE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY BE PLEASED TO CANCEL THE RE - ASSESSMENT AS INVALID AND VOID: TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,75,200/ - AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND TO DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CALCULATE THE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B(3) AND NOT UNDER SECTION 234B(1) IF INTEREST IS CHARGEABLE IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE AND RENDER JUSTICE. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL DERIV ING INCOME BY WAY OF SALARY AND ALSO FROM BUSINESS. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 HE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ORIGINALLY ON 12.10.2006 ADMITTING AN INCOME OF .87,539/ - . THIS RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [ ACT IN SHORT] ON 05.03.2007. IN THIS RETURN THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION ON .10 ,75,200/ - UNDER SECTION 1 0(38) OF THE ACT BEING THE CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF LISTED SECURITIES. 2.1 THE ASSESSMENT WAS THEREAFTER RE - OPENED BY I S SUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT ON 27.03.2013. THE A SSESSING O FFICER RE - OPENED THE ASSESSMENT BASED ON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING, MUMBAI THAT A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED IN THE GROUP CASE OF M / S. MAHASAG A R GROUP AND SRI. MU KESH CHOKSHI, THE DIRECTOR OF THE MAHASAGAR S ECURITIES P . LTD., AND OTHER COMPANIES. SRI MUKESH CHOKSHI IN THE COURSE OF SWORN STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN TOLD THE I.T.A. NO . 1226 /M/ 16 4 DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES THAT THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY WAS TO PRO VIDE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FOR SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS, LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS, PURCHASE, SALES, SHARE APPLICATION MONEY ETC., TO THE PERSONS WHO WANTED TAKE ENTRIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING FICTITIOUS PROFIT/LOSS BY TAKING A COMMISSION OF 0 .15 % . HE S EEMS TO HAVE ALSO TOLD THAT THE TRANSACTIONS DONE THROUGH HIM AND HIS GROUP COMPANIES WE RE NOT TRUE AS THESE ARE ACCOMMODATIVE FICTITIOUS ENTRIES. SINCE THE A SSESSEE HA S TRANSACTIONS WITH M/S. ALLIANCE INTERMEDIARIES AND NETWORK PVT. LTD., OF M/S. MAHASAGA R GROUP OF CASES, THE A SSESSING O FFICER FELT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO BENEFICIARY AND THE TRANSACTIONS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO NOT REAL. 2.2 IN THE COURSE OF RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THROUGH HIS LETTER DATED 24.02.201 4 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED 12000 EQUITY SHARES OF TALENT INFOWAYS LTD. FROM MAHASAGAR SECURITIES P LTD. ON 13.04.2004 AND THE SAME WAS SOLD THROUGH STOCK BROKERS ALLIANCE INTERMEDIARIES AND NETWORK PVT. LTD., ON 15.07.2005 AND 18.07.2005 AND THE PRO FIT DERIVED ON THE SALE OF THE SHARES BEING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS SUBJECTED TO ST T , THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM TAX UNDER S E CTION 10(38) OF THE ACT . IN SUPPORT OF THE SUBMISSIONS, THE ASSESSEE HA S ALSO SUBMITTED THE R E L E VANT CONTRACT NOTES. HE HAS ALSO SUBMITTE D THAT THE 12000 SHARES WERE AL SO SUBMITTED FOR DEM ATERIALISATION ON 08.06.2005 WITH SHAREKHAN LTD., AND THE SAME WAS ALSO DONE ON 30.06.2005 BY M/S. I.T.A. NO . 1226 /M/ 16 5 SHAREKHAN LTD., A SHARE BROKER WHO IS NOT AN ASSOCIATE OF MAHASAGAR GROUP OF CASES. THE TRANSACTION STATEM ENT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH M/S. S HAREKHAN LTD WAS ALSO SUBMITTED TO THE A SSESSING O FFICER. BASED ON THE ABOVE DOCUME NTARY EVIDENCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT WITHOUT THE PURCHASE OF SHARES WHICH WAS ALSO PUT TO DE - MAT ACCOUNT THE SALES WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE AND THEREFORE THE TRANSACTION WAS A GENUINE ONE AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN ACCO MM ODATION ENTRY. BANK STATEMENT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED T O PROVE THE RECEIPT OF SALE CONSIDERA TION OF THE SHARES WERE SOLD THROUGH DE - MAT. THE A SSESSI NG O FFICER DI D NOT ACCEPT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND BASED ON THE I NFORM A T ION AVAILABLE WITH HIM THAT SRI. MUKESH CHOKSHI HIMSELF HAS ADMITTED THAT THE BILLS GIVEN AR E NOT GENUINE BECAUSE BILLS HAVE BEEN ISSUED WITHOUT ANY A CTUAL TRANS A CTION T AKING PLACE AND BO GUS IN NATURE. T HEREFORE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS ONLY AN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY AND BOGUS IN NATURE AND DENIED THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 10(38) OF THE ACT ON .1 0,7 5 .200/ - AND BROUGHT TO TAX THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. HE ALSO FOUN D THAT THERE WAS A CREDIT OF .1 ,00,000/ - ALSO IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH REMAINED U NE XPL A I NE D. THEREFORE, H E HAS BROUGHT TO TAX THE SAID SUM OF . 1,00,000/ - ALSO AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 3. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE RE - OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT ITSELF IS NOT VALID. HE ALSO I.T.A. NO . 1226 /M/ 16 6 SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE M ADE THE PURCHASES IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004 - 05 AND IN T HE STATEMENT, SHRI CHOKSHI STATED THAT ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES PERTAINED TO SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER S UBMI T T ED THAT IN THE REASONS RECORDED, IT IS NO WHERE MENTIONED AS TO ON WHAT BASIS A SSESSING O FFICER REACHED T HE CONCLUSION THAT ASSE SSEE RECE IVED ACCOMMODATION EN TRIES IN RESPECT OF THE PURCHASE OF SHARES FROM TALENT INFOWAY L T D. THE A SSESSING O FFICER HAS NOT PROVIDED THE DOCUMENTS IN HIS POSSESSION TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS DENIED REASONABLE OPPO RTUNITY TO PUT HIM AGAINST THE ALLEGA TIONS MADE. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE STATEMENT OF MUKESH CHOKSHI , IT IS NOT KNOWN WHETHER THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN AND THE REASSESSMENT HAS BEEN INITIATED ONLY ON SUSPICION AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HA S ESCAPED A SSESSMENT. BY RELYING ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ITO V. LAKHMANI MEWAL DAS, 103 ITR 437 (SC), THE ASSESSEE HAS PRAYED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE REASSESSMENT ORDER MAY BE CANCELLED. 3.1 WITH REGARD TO INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B OF THE ACT, THE AS SESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LEVIED THE INTEREST EXCESSIVELY WITHOUT CALCULATING THE INTEREST COMPONENT BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23 4B (3) AND SHOULD NOT HAVE CALCULATED THE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234 B(1) OF THE ACT SINCE THE ASSESSMENT BEING A R E - ASSESS ME NT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. I.T.A. NO . 1226 /M/ 16 7 3.2 AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BUT NOT ACCEPTING THE SAME, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. ON BEING AGG RIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED PURELY ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING, MUMBAI AND THE STATEMENT RECORDED DUR ING THE COURSE OF SEARCH FROM SHRI MUKESH CHOKSHI . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THE DETAILS WITH REGARD TO THE EQUITY SHARES PURCHASED. WITHOUT FINDING ANY FAULT WITH THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, BY RELY ING ON THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM SHRI MUKESH CHOKSHI AND WITHOUT FURNISHING A COPY OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM SHRI CHOKSHI, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT IS NOT LEGALLY JUSTIFIED AND PLEADED THAT THE REASSESSMENT SHOULD BE QUASHED . 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT VIDE CONTRACT NOTE DATED 13.04.2014, THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED EQUITY SHARES OF M/S. TALENT INFOWAYS LTD. FROM MAHASAGAR SECURITIES PVT. LTD. AND AS PER CONTRACT NOTES DATED 15.07.2005 AND 18.07.2005, THE I.T.A. NO . 1226 /M/ 16 8 ASSESSEE IS STATED TO HAVE SOLD THE SAME THROUGH STOCK BROKERS M/S. ALLIA NCE INTERMEDIATERIES AND NETWORK PVT. LTD. FOR THE ABOVE TRANSACTION, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED RELEVANT DE - MAT ACCOUNT, DETAILS OF SHARES PURCHASED, MODE OF PAYMENT, VALUE OF SHARES, BANK ACCOUNT, DAY BOOK, CASH BOOK, ETC. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. H OWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT FOUND ANY MISTAKE FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6.1 FURTHER, BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT 12000 SHARES FOR DEMATERIALIZATION (DEMAT) ON 08.06.2005 WITH SHAREKHAN LIMITED AND THE SAID SHARES WERE DEMATERIALIZED ON 30.06.2005. EVIDENCING THEREOF, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE STATEMENT OF SHAREKHAN LTD. FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01.04.2005 TO 31.03.2006. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT WHEN THE SHARES WERE DEMATERIALIZED WITH SHAREKHAN LTD., IT CLEARLY PROVES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED AND TAKEN DELIVERY OF THE SAID SHARES WITHOUT WHICH DEMATERIALIZATION OF TALENT INFOWAYS LTD. SHARES WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE AND THE DELIVERY OF THE SAID SHARES WER E ROUTED THROUGH SHAREKHAN LTD., WHICH IS NOT AN ASSOCIATE OF M/S. MAHASAGAR GROUP COMPANIES AND HENCE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE AN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY . WE FIND FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDINGS OVER THE ABOVE SUBMI SSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHERMORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY ENQUIRY I.T.A. NO . 1226 /M/ 16 9 AS TO WHETHER THE ABOVE FACTS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE TRUE OR NOT. WHEN THESE FACTS WERE PUTFORTH BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), HE HAS NOT OBTAINED ANY REMAND REPORT FROM THE A SSESSING OFFICER . IT WAS ALSO NOT MADE IT CLEAR WHETHER THE STOCK BROKING COMPANIES ARE REGISTERED WITH SEBI OR NOT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY RELYING ON THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM SHRI MUKESH CHOKSHI BY THE INVESTIGATION WING, MUMBAI REOPENED THE ASSESSME NT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. 6.2 ADMITTEDLY, THE ONLY INSTRUMENT USED FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT OF THE A SSESSEE IS THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM SHRI MUKESH CHOKSHI BY THE INVESTIGATION WING, MUMBAI AND IT IS A FACT THAT THE DEPARTMENT DO NOT HAVE ANY OTHER MATERIAL EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE OR IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THE REAS SESSMENT HURRIEDLY WITHOUT MAKING ANY ENQUIRY OR VERIFICATION OF THE PARTICULARS FURNISHED BEFORE HIM WHETHER THE SHARES WERE DEMATERIALIZED WITH SHAREKHAN LTD. AND THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED AND TAKEN DELIVERY OF THE SAID SHARES OF TALENT INFOWAYS LTD. TH ROUGH SHAREKHAN LTD., OR NOT. 6.3 UNDER THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REMITTED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO OBTAIN REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER MAKING DETAILED ENQUIRY AND DECIDE WHETHER THE REASSESSMENT WAS LEGALLY VIABLE OR NOT AFTER GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES TO BOTH ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSING I.T.A. NO . 1226 /M/ 16 10 OFFICER . THUS, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE INTEREST COMPO NENT IS CONSEQUENTIAL TO THE ASSESSMENT AND HENCE NOT ADJUDICATED SEPARATELY. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 09 TH SEPTEMBER , 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - (A. MOHAN ALANKA MONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 09 . 0 9 .201 6 VM/ - / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT , 2. / RESPONDENT , 3. ( ) / CIT(A) , 4. / CIT , 5. / DR & 6. / GF.