ACIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. Sun Metal Factory (I) Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 1288/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5277 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 17-03-2011
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E B RENGARAJAN JR
• Assessee Lawyers: T BANUSEKHAR
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Block assessment
• Section: 143(3); 260A; 147; 148; 132; 144; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH D : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] I.T.A.NO.1288/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1999-2000 THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE IV(2) CHENNAI VS M/S SUN METAL FACTORY (I) PVT. LTD L-3, SIDCO INDUSTRIAL ESTATE KODUNGAIYUR CHENNAI - 118 [PAN - AAACS6636B] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.E.B RENGARAJAN, JR. STANDING COUNSEL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T.BANUSEKHAR O R D E R PER HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 1999-2000, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-I, CHENNAI, DATED 5.4.2010. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SE QUENCE OF EVENTS LEADING TO THIS APPEAL ARE THAT A SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY O N 3.11.2000. AS A SEQUEL TO THE SEARCH, BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 158BC R.W.S 143(3) WAS MADE ON 29.11.2000. THE BLOCK PERIOD IN VOLVED IS FROM ITA 1288/10 :- 2 -: 1.4.1990 TO 3.11.2000. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A), VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 6.3.2007, DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER, BUT HE CHOOSE TO DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R U/S 150 OF THE ACT TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 148 R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT FOR AS SESSMENT YEAR 1999- 2000 (FALLING IN THE BLOCK), IN RELATION TO CERTAIN ALLEGED BOGUS ADVANCES. IN COMPLIANCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISS UED NOTICE U/S 148 ON 25.5.2007 TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESS EE FILED WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT, WHO VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 19.9.2007, QUASHED THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. BUT, WHILE DOING SO, THE HON'BLE HIGH COU RT HAD GIVEN LIBERTY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ISSUE FRESH NOTICE IF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER SO DESIRED, OBVIOUSLY AS PER LAW. A FRESH NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON 8.1.2008. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, PREFERRED A WRIT PETITION AGAINST THIS NOTICE ALSO AND THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT THIS TIME STAYED THE OPERATION OF THIS NOTICE FOR FOUR WEEKS VIDE ITS OR DER DATED 20.2.2008. TO SIMPLIFY THE ENTWINED FACTS IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED IN RESPECT OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT, WHERE BY HE HAD DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITIONS, WAS SUBJECTED TO FURTHER APPE AL BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL; AND A CROSS APPEA L WAS ALSO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE VERY SAME DIRECTION OF TH E LD. CIT(A) GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR ITA 1288/10 :- 3 -: 1999-2000 ALTHOUGH THIS DIRECTION TO ISSUE NOTICE U /S 148 OF THE ACT HAD BEEN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF WRIT PETITION TWICE BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. FINALLY, THE TRIBUNAL, VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 11.7.2008, PASSED IN I.T.(SS)A.NO.90/MDS/2007, ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED DIRECTION OF THE LD. CIT (A) GIVEN TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000. AT THE SAME TIME, THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT WAS DISMISSED ON MERIT S. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ISSUED DIRECTION FOR REOPENING, RELEVANT TO AS SESSMENT YEAR 1999- 2000, REGARDING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF HAVING RECE IVED ADVANCES FROM 63 PERSONS AMOUNTING TO ` 2.05 CRORES FOR PURCHASING VACANT LAND THROUGH AUCTION. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S 148 WAS I SSUED ON 25.5.2007, AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS SEPARATELY. IN THE MEA NTIME, THE DIRECTION GIVEN TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT BY THE LD. CIT(A) W AS QUASHED BY THE TRIBUNAL, BUT IN WRIT PETITION FILED CHALLENGING TH E ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT, WAS QUASHED ON THE GROUN D THAT THE REASON TO REOPEN HAD NOT BEEN PROPERLY RECORDED. T HE HON'BLE HIGH COURT GAVE LIBERTY TO THE DEPARTMENT TO ISSUE FRESH NOTICE U/S 148, IF SO ADVISED AS PER LAW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUE D FRESH NOTICE U/S 148 ON 8.1.2008, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000, STA TING REASONS AND THIS WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAME DAY . AGAINST THIS SECOND NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148, THE ASSESSEE ALSO FI LED WRIT PETITION AND ITA 1288/10 :- 4 -: THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 20.2.20 08 GRANTED INTERIM STAY OF FOUR WEEKS. DURING THIS TIME, THE TRIBUNAL HAD DISPOSED OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) GIVEN TO ISSUE NOTICE. BUT THE SECOND NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 ON 8. 1.2009 HAD BEEN ISSUED AS PER THE LIBERTY GIVEN BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT TO ISSUE A FRESH NOTICE AFTER HEARING THE REASONS FOR FILING T HE WRIT PETITION. THIS WRIT PETITION WAS, HOWEVER, WITHDRAWN ON 30.12.2008 . UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER TAKING ABUNDANT PRECAUTION, COMPLETED PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT BY GIVING THE FOLL OWING REASONING: (I) THE RE-ASSESSMENT WAS DONE TO SAVE THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION; (II) NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED AS PERMITTED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.21809 OF 2007; (III) IT APPEARS THAT THE TRIBUNALS ORDER HAD NOT TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF THE FACT THAT THE MATTER OF THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 STOOD CONCLUDED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTS ORDER. (IV) THE TRIBUNALS ORDER HAS NOT ATTAINED FINALITY AS THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT U/S 260A OF THE ACT. 3. AS NO COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF THE NOTICE DATED 8.1.2008, ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 144 R .W.S 148 OF THE ACT. IN THIS ASSESSMENT ORDER, INCOME AS STATED AS UNEXPLAINED ITA 1288/10 :- 5 -: AMONGST OTHERS, WERE ADDED AND ORDER DATED 30.12.2 008 WAS PASSED. AGAINST THIS ORDER THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFO RE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO HAS QUASHED THE ORDER PASSED U/S 147 R.W.S 148 DATED 30.12.2008 BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL W HEREBY NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 WAS SET ASIDE BECAUSE IT WAS HELD TH AT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT EMPOWERED TO GIVE DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO RE-ASSESS THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT AFTER THE EXPIRY OF LIMITA TION. AGAINST THIS FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS B EEN FILED BY THE REVENUE BY TAKING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1.A ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN QUASHING THE ORDER BY HOLDING THAT THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 147 R.W.S 144 DATED 30.12.2008 IS INVALID. 1.B THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO NOTE THAT O RDER OF THE ITAT C BENCH CHENNAI IN I.T.(S.S.)A.NO.90/MDS/07 AND I.T.(S.S.)A.NO.91/MDS/07 DATED 11.7.2008 IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD FROM 1.4.1990 TO 3.11.2000 HAS BEEN DISPUTED AND THAT THE ISSUE HAS NOT BECOME FINAL. 1.C THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT VIDE ITS ORDER IN W.P.NO.21809 O F 2007 AND M.P.NO.1 OF 2007 GRANTED LIBERTY TO THE DEPARTMENT TO ISSUE FRESH NOTICE IF THEY INTENDED T O DO SO AND HENCE THE ISSUE REGARDING VALIDITY OF THE NOTICE U/S 148 PENDING WITH THE SUBORDINATE JUDICIA L AUTHORITIES GOT MERGED WITH THE ORDER OF THE HON'BL E HIGH COURT AND AS SUCH THE FRESH NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 8.1.2008 ISSUED BY THE A.O IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ITA 1288/10 :- 6 -: 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO, ADD ASSESSME NT ORDER AMEND OR ALTER THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS MAY BE DEEMED NECESSARY. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS. THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS H AVE BEEN CLEARLY CIRCUMSPECTED. THE CASE AS PUT FORTH BY THE LD.DR IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN QUASHING THE ORDER BY HOLDING T HAT THE RE- ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 147 R.W.S 144 DATED 30. 12.2008 IS INVALID. THE CONTENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT THE TRIBUNALS DECISION DATED 11.7.2008 PASSED IN I.T.(SS)A.NO.90 & 91/MDS/2007 FOR BLOCK PERIOD FROM 1.4.1990 TO 3.11.2000 HAS NOT BEC OME FINAL AND THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT VIDE ITS ORDER PASSED IN W.P.NO. 21809 OF 2007 AND M.P.NO.1 OF 2007 HAS GRANTED LIBERTY TO THE DEPART MENT TO ISSUE FRESH NOTICE IF THEY WANTED TO DO SO AND HENCE, THE ISSUE REGARDING VALIDITY OF NOTICE U/S 148 PENDING WITH THE SUBORDINATE JUDI CIAL AUTHORITIES WAS MERGED WITH THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AND AS SUCH FRESH NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 8.1.2008 ISSUED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY QUASHED THE NOTIC E IN QUESTION AS THE NOTICE WAS CLEARLY TIME BARRED AS PER THE PROVISION S OF THE ACT. 5. AFTER COGITATING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE C ORRECT AND NO ITA 1288/10 :- 7 -: INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. THE REASONS FOR OUR AB OVE EPILOGUE ARE MANIFOLD. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED AND ADMITTED FACT TH AT IF THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) U/S 150 OF THE ACT HAVE BEE N QUASHED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THEY NO LONGER SURVIVE. UNDER SECTIO N 150, A NOTICE U/S 148 MAY BE ISSUED AT ANY TIME FOR THE PURPOSE OF MA KING AN ASSESSMENT OR RE-ASSESSMENT OR RECOMPUTATION IN CO NSEQUENCE OF OR TO GIVE EFFECT TO ANY FINDING OR DIRECTION CONTAINE D IN AN ORDER PASSED BY ANY AUTHORITY IN ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT BY WAY OF APPEAL, REFERENCE OR REVISION (OR BY A COURT IN ANY PROCEED ING UNDER ANY OTHER LAW). SUB-CLAUSE(2) OF SECTION 150 QUALIFIES THE F IRST CLAUSE WHICH PERMITS RE-ASSESSMENT IN PURSUANCE OF AN ORDER ON A PPEAL ETC. SECTION 150 OF THE ACT IS BEING EXTRACTED HEREIN BE LOW FOR READY REFERENCE: PROVISION FOR CASES WHERE ASSESSMENT IS IN PURSUAN CE OF AN ORDER ON APPEAL, ETC. 150. (1) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION 149 , THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 MAY BE ISSUED AT ANY T IME FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING AN ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT OR RECOMPUTATION IN CONSEQUENCE OF OR TO GIVE EFFECT T O ANY FINDING OR DIRECTION CONTAINED IN AN ORDER PASSED BY ANY AU THORITY IN ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT BY WAY OF APPEAL, REFEREN CE OR REVISION 41 [OR BY A COURT IN ANY PROCEEDING UNDER ANY OTHER LA W]. (2) THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (1) SHALL NOT APP LY IN ANY CASE WHERE ANY SUCH ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR RECOMPUT ATION AS IS REFERRED TO IN THAT SUB-SECTION RELATES TO AN ASSESSMENT YEAR IN RESPECT OF WHICH AN ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMEN T OR RECOMPUTATION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE AT THE TIME THE ORDER WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE APPEAL, REFEREN CE OR REVISION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, WAS MADE BY REASON OF ANY OTHER PROVISION LIMITING THE TIME WITHIN WHICH ANY ACTION FOR ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR RECOMPUTATION MAY BE TA KEN. ITA 1288/10 :- 8 -: 6. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEARLY EVINCED THAT THE PROV ISIONS OF SUB- SECTION(1) OF SECTION 150 SHALL NOT APPLY, IN ANY C ASE WHERE ANY SUCH ASSESSMENT ETC., IN RESPECT OF WHICH AN ASSESSMEN T , RE-ASSESSMENT OR RE-COMPUTATION WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE AT THE T IME THE ORDER WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE APPEAL, REFEREN CE OR REFUND, AS THE CASE MAY BE, WAS MADE BY REASON OF ANY OTHER PR OVISION LIMITING THE TIME WITHIN WHICH ANY ACTION FOR ASSESSMENT, RE -ASSESSMENT OR RECOMPUTATION MAY BE TAKEN. THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THA T THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION AS PROVIDED U/S 149 WILL ALWAYS BE AVAIL ABLE AND EVEN THE DIRECTION GIVEN U/S 150 OF THE ACT CANNOT ENLARGE T HE SCOPE OF LIMITATION. SECTION 149 OF THE ACT READS AS UNDER: TIME LIMIT FOR NOTICE. 149. 37 [(1) NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 SHALL BE ISSUED 38 FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, 39 [( A ) IF FOUR YEARS HAVE ELAPSED FROM THE END OF THE RE LEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNLESS THE CASE FALLS UNDER CLAUSE ( B ); ( B ) IF FOUR YEARS, BUT NOT MORE THAN SIX YEARS, HAVE ELAPSED FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR UNLESS THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AMOU NTS TO OR IS LIKELY TO AMOUNT TO ONE LAKH RUPEES OR MORE 40 FOR THAT YEAR.] EXPLANATION. IN DETERMINING INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUB-SEC TION, THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 2 OF SECTION 147 SHALL APPLY AS THEY APPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THAT SECTION.] (2) THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (1) AS TO THE I SSUE OF NOTICE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 151 . (3) IF THE PERSON ON WHOM A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 IS TO BE SERVED IS A PERSON TREATED AS THE AGENT OF A NON-RE SIDENT UNDER SECTION 163 AND THE ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR RECOMPUTATION TO BE MADE IN PURSUANCE OF THE NOTICE IS TO BE MADE ON HIM AS THE ITA 1288/10 :- 9 -: AGENT OF SUCH NON-RESIDENT, THE NOTICE SHALL NOT BE ISSUED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 7. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT TIME LIMIT FOR ISS UANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 HAS BEEN PROVIDED IN THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCE S OF A CASE. IT IS AN OPEN SECRET THAT THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALREADY COMPLETED, AS PER LAW HAS BEEN QUASHED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND HENCE, IT NO LONGER SURVIVES. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, WHEREBY PERMISSION TO ISSUE FR ESH NOTICE U/S 148 HAS BEEN GIVEN, IS DEFINITELY SUBJECTED TO SECTION 149 OF THE ACT. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS NOT ENLARGED AND CANNOT ENLA RGE THE SCOPE OF LIMITATION. THE LIMITATION IS NOT A CONTRACTUAL OB LIGATION BUT IS A STATUTORY NECESSITY WHICH PROHIBITS FILING OF APPEA LS OR THE REVISION AFTER A CERTAIN PERIOD WITH THE AIM TO ATTAIN FINAL ITY IN REGARD TO DISPUTED AND CONTESTED ISSUES RAISED BY WAY OF APPE ALS, ETC. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS GIVEN LIBERTY TO ISSUE NOT ICE AS PER LAW WHICH MEANS THAT IF THE NOTICE FULFILLS THE OTHER CONDITI ONS LAID DOWN IN THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN ISSUE NOTICE, AFRESH . OTHERWISE ALSO, THE VERY SECTION 147 OF THE ACT EMPOWERS THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO INITIATE RE-ASSESSMENT ACTION IN RESPECT OF ESCAPED INCOME W ITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME, AND NO AUTHORITY CAN STOP HIM FOR DOING SO. BUT THE QUESTION HERE IS DIFFERENT. IN THIS CASE, AFTER ST RIKING DOWN THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LIBERTY WAS ON LY FOR ISSUANCE OF ITA 1288/10 :- 10 - : NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER OTHERWISE POSSESSES. THE REASONS RECORDED ARE THE SAME AND I DENTICAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ACTION U/S 147/148 WAS INITIALLY INI TIATED. SO, ON THE BASIS OF SAME REASONS WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN QUASH ED BY THE TRIBUNAL, NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 WOULD NOT SURVIVE. WHEN THE PARTICULAR DIRECTION/LIBERTY HAS BEEN QUASHED BY THE TRIBUNAL SUCH A DIRECTION NO LONGER SURVIVES. THERE IS NO QUESTION OF MERGER OF AUTHORITY AS HAS BEEN STATED AND CONTENDED BY THE LD.DR. THERE IS N O PROVISION IN LAW TO TAKE ACTION U/S 147 UNDER THE DIRECTION OF ANY A UTHORITY OR COURT. FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, WE CANNOT ALLOW THIS APP EAL OF THE REVENUE AND HENCE, DISMISS THE SAME. THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) STANDS APPROVED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DIS MISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8.4.2011 SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( HARI OM MARATHA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 8 TH APRIL, 2011 RD COPY TO: APPELLANT /RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR