TCP Limited, CHENNAI V. ACIT Central Circle 1(3), CHENNAI

ITA 1629/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4088 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S VIDYA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Proportionate interest; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOM E TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , C BENCH, CHENNAI . , . , BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO S . 1627 TO 1629 / CHNY /201 8 / ASSE SSMENT YEAR S : 1997 - 98, 1998 - 99 & 2004 - 05 ) M/S. TCP LIMITED, NO.4, OLD NO.10, TCP SAPTHAGIRI BHAVAN, KARPAGAMBAL NAGAR, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI 600 004. VS THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), CHENNAI. PAN: A AACT3615K ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MS. S. VIDYA, CA / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR, ADDL. CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 15 .0 2 . 201 9 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08 . 0 5 .2019 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM : - TH ESE APPEAL S BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 18 , C HENNAI , DATED 25.01.2018 IN ITA NO .1147, 1148 & 1143 / 15 - 1 6 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 1997 - 98, 1998 - 99 & 2004 - 05 PASSED U/S.250(6) R.W.S. 143(3) & 254 OF THE ACT. 2 I TA NOS.1627 TO 1629/CHNY/2018 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL IDENTICAL GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL S HOWEVER THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE LD.AO WHO HAD DISALLOWED THE INTEREST ON BORROWED FUNDS AMOUNTING TO RS.20,66,400/ - EACH FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1997 - 98 & 1998 - 99 AND RS.2,12,75,000/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2004 - 05 BEING THE PROPORTIONATE INTEREST ON THE INTEREST FREE LOAN EXTENDED TO THE SISTER CONCERNS OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND TRADING IN CHEMICALS AND GENERATION OF POWER, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1997 - 98, 1998 - 99 & 2004 - 05 ON 26.11.1997, 30.11.1998 & 01.11.2004 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.51 , 12,470/ - , RS.1,21,73,493/ - & RS.2,13,25,965/ - RESPECTIVELY. INITIALLY THE RETURN WERE PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE CASES WERE REOPENED FOR ALL THE THREE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS AND ORDERS WERE PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT WHEREIN THE LD.AO DISALLOWED THE PROPORTIONATE INTEREST EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWARDS INTEREST FREE LOAN EXTENDED TO SISTER CONCERNS. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) HELD THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE 3 I TA NOS.1627 TO 1629/CHNY/2018 ASSESSEE. S BSEQUENTLY THE TRIBUNAL BY ITS COMMON ORDER REMITTED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD.AO WITH DIRECTIONS TO EXAMINE THE CASH FLOW S TATEMENT ON EACH DATE OF ADVANCING THE MONEY AND TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE NON - INTEREST BEARING FUND WERE AVAILABLE FOR MAKING INTEREST FREE ADVANCES. HOWEVER THE LD.AO ON EXAMINING THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS N OT SATISFIED ABOUT THE CASH LIQU IDITY POSITION AVAILABLE TOWARDS THE GENERAL RESERVE, BALANCES IN P&L ACCOUNT, CASH BALANCES, BANK BALANCES AND BALANCES IN CC ACCOUNT WITH B ANKS. THE LD.AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT GENERAL RESERVE AND BALANCES IN P& L ACCOUNT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS LIQUID CASH AVAILABLE FOR IMMEDIATE DISBURSE MENT. THE LD.AO FURTHER OPINED THAT IF GENERAL RESERVE IS ACTUAL L IQUID CASH THEN THERE IS NO NECESSITY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO RESORT TO HUGE BORROWINGS. THE LD.AO FURTHER OPINED TH AT GENERAL RESERVE CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN INDICATOR FOR LIQUIDITY POSITION OF THE COMPANY. THEREFORE THE LD.AO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION ONCE AGAIN THAT PROPORTIONAL INTEREST EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWARDS INTEREST FREE LOAN EXTENDED TO SISTER CONCERNS CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION BECAUSE THE INTEREST FREE LOAN EXTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY OUT OF ITS INTEREST BEARING FUND IS NOT FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) AGREEING WITH THE 4 I TA NOS.1627 TO 1629/CHNY/2018 VIEW OF THE LD.AO CONFIRMED HIS ORD ER FOR ALL THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS. 4. BEFORE US THE LD.AR ARGUED STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANYS EQUITY CAPITAL, GENERAL RESERVES, ACCUMULATED PROFITS AND SURPLUS EXCEEDED THE AMOUNT OF LOAN EXTENDED TO THE SISTER COM PANIES. THE LD.AR FURTHER ARGUED STATING THAT THE ASSESSEES FUNDS ARISING FROM ITS EQUITY CAPITAL, GENERAL RESERVES, ACCUMULATED PROFITS AND SURPLUS ARE INTEREST FREE FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THERE IS NO PROHIBITION UNDER THE ACT TO DIVERT SUCH FUNDS FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE AND YET CARRY ON ITS BUSINESS SOURCED FROM INTEREST BEARING FUNDS . THE LD AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS ALSO NO PROVISION UNDER THE ACT FOR DISALLOWING SUCH INTEREST AS ALLOWABLE DEDUCT ION. THE LD.AR FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS NO DISPUT E WITH RESPECT TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEES EQUITY CAPITAL, GENERAL RESERVE, ACCUMULATED PROFITS AND SURPLUS EXCEEDS THE LOAN EXTENDED TO ITS SISTER CONCERN AT ANY POINT OF TIME DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE LD.AR FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THE O NLY GRIEVANCE OF THE LD.REVENUE AUTHORITIES WAS THAT , THE ASSESSEES OWN FUNDS SUCH AS EQUITY CAPITAL, GENERAL RESERVE, ACCUMULATED PROFITS AND SURPLUS WERE ALREADY DEPLOYED BY THE 5 I TA NOS.1627 TO 1629/CHNY/2018 ASSESSEE COMPANY IN ITS BUSINESS AND THERE WAS NO LIQUID CASH AVAILABLE AND IN SUCH SITUATION THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS BORROWED INTEREST BEARING FUNDS AND EXTENDED THE SAME AS INTEREST FREE LOAN TO ITS SISTER CONCERNS AND THEREFORE THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EXTENDING INTEREST FREE ADVANCES WERE TO BE DISALLOWED AS ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE . THE LD.AR FURTHER ARGUED THAT FOR SUCH ACTION MET OUT BY THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTES . IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD.AO WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A) MAY BE DELETED. 5. THE LD.DR ON THE OTHER HAND ARGUED IN SUPPOR T OF THE ORDERS OF THE LD.REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND PLEADED FOR SUSTAINING THE SAME . HOWEVER, T HE LD.DR DID NOT DISPUTE WITH THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEES EQUITY SHARE, GENERAL RESERVES, ACCUMULATED PROFITS AND SURPLUS EXCEEDS THE LOAN EXTENDED , HOWEVER HE RE LIED ON THE ORDER S OF THE LD.REVENUE AUTHORITIES WHEREIN THEY HAD HELD THAT THE EQUITY SHARE, GENERAL RESERVES, ACCUMULATED PROFITS AND SURPLUS DOES NOT REFLECT THE CASH LIQUIDITY POSITION OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND IF THERE WAS CASH LIQUIDITY FROM SUCH F UNDS THEN THERE WAS NO 6 I TA NOS.1627 TO 1629/CHNY/2018 NEED FOR THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO BORROW INTEREST BEARING FUNDS. THE LD.DR ALSO RELIED IN THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURIDICITIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE K,SOMASUNDARAM & BROS. V/S. CIT REPORTED IN 238 ITR 939. 6. WE HAVE HEARD T HE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE LOAN EXTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO ITS SISTER CONCERNS ARE LESS THAN THE AGGREGATE OF THE ASSESSEES EQUITY SHARE CAPITAL, GENERAL RESERVE S , ACCUMULATED PROFITS AND RESERVES AND THE SAME IS NOT IN DISPUTE . I T IS ALSO APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY UTILIZING THE CASH GENERATED FROM EQUITY SHARE CAPITAL, GENERAL RESERVES, ACCUMULATED PROFITS AND SURPLUS FOR IT S BUSINESS PURPOSES. D URING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS OBTAINED INT EREST BEARING LOAN AND PASSED ON THE SAME TO ITS SISTER CONCERNS AS INTEREST FREE LOANS. FROM THE ABOVE FACT S , IT IS OBVIOUS THAT TH E ASSESSEE CO MPANY MIGHT HAVE DIVERTED ITS INTEREST BEARING FUNDS TO ITS SISTER C ONCERNS AS INTEREST FREE LOAN. NEVERTHELESS IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEES OWN FUNDS SUCH AS EQUITY SHARE CAPITAL, GENERAL RESERVES, ACCUMULATED PROFITS AND SURPLUS 7 I TA NOS.1627 TO 1629/CHNY/2018 ARE MUCH MORE THAN THE INTEREST FREE LOAN EXTENDED TO THE ASSESSEES SISTER CONCERN. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD.AR THERE IS NO PROHIBITION UNDER THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO CONDUCT ITS BUSINESS ENTIRELY OUT OF BORROWED FUNDS AND IN SUCH SITUATION, TH E INTEREST EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ALSO AT LIBERTY TO DEPLOY ITS ENTIRE INTEREST FREE FUNDS IN WHAT SO EVER MANNER IT DEEMS FIT SUBJECT TO THE SANCTIONS GRANTED UNDER THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND YET CARRY OUT ITS BUSINESS SOURCED FROM INTEREST BEARING FUNDS. IN AN IDENTICAL SITUATION IN THE CASE CIT VS. RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWERS LTD., REPORTED IN 313 ITR 340 WHEREIN THE AS SESSEE HAD EQUITY SHARE CAPITAL OF RS.180 CRORES, RESERVES & SURPLUS RS.120.80 CRORES, DEPRECIATION RESERVES OF RS.95.39 CRORES AGGREGATING TO RS.398.19 CRORES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RECORDED A FINDING THAT THE SUM OF RS.213 CRORES WAS INVESTED OUT O F THE ASSESSEES OWN FUNDS AND RS.147 CRORES WAS INVESTED OUT OF BORROWED FUNDS AND THEREFORE DISALLOWED INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.4.4 CRORES CALCULATED AT 12% PER ANNUM FOR 3 MONTHS FROM JAN 2000 TO MAR 2000, THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAD HELD THAT : - 8 I TA NOS.1627 TO 1629/CHNY/2018 IF THERE WERE FUNDS AVAILABLE BOTH INTEREST FREE AND OVERDRAFT AND/OR LOANS TAKEN, THEN A PRESUMPTION WOULD ARISE THAT INVESTMENTS WOULD BE OUT OF THE INTEREST - FREE FUNDS GENERATED OR AVAILABLE WITH THE COMPANY, IF THE INTEREST - FREE FUNDS WERE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE INVESTMENTS. IN THIS CASE THIS PRESUMPTION WAS ESTABLISHED CONSIDERING THE FINDING OF FACT BOTH BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND THE TRIBUNAL. THE INTEREST WAS DEDUCTIBLE. 6.1 FURTHER IN THE CASE CIT VS. HOTEL SAVERA REPORTED IN 239 ITR 795 WHEREIN THE FACTS WERE THAT : THE ASSESSEE WAS A REGISTERED FIRM AND ITS ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1972 - 73, WAS COMPLETED ALLOWING A CERTAIN AMOUNT IF INTEREST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON ITS BORROWING FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, LATER, THE REVENUE AUDIT POINTED OUT THAT SOME OF THE MONEYS WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD BORROWED HAD BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE ADVANCE OF LOANS TO A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY AND ON SUCH LENDING NO INTEREST HAD BEEN CHARGED. REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE STARTED AND A PART OF THE INTEREST WAS DISALLOWED. THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT IN THE PARTNERS CAPITAL AND CURRENT ACCOUNT WAS GREATER THAN THE AMOUNT ADVANCED TO THE PRIVATE COMPANY. THE TRIBUNAL F OUND THAT THE AMOUNT BORROWED BY THE FIRM HAD BEEN MIXED WITH ITS OWN FUNDS AND HENCE THE PRESUMPTION WAS THAT THE AMOUNT HAD BEEN ADVANCED BY THE FIRM FROM ITS OWN FUNDS. IT ALLOWED DEDUCTION OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF INTEREST ON BORROWED CAPITAL. SUBSEQU ENTLY THE HONBLE JURISDI CTIONAL MADRAS HIGH COURT HELD THAT : - THERE WAS A TOTAL AMOUNT CREDITED IN THE PARTNERS CAPITAL AS WELL AS CURRENT ACCOUNT. A SUM OF RS.10,95,010 WAS ARRIVED AT IN THE PARTNERS ACCOUNT AFTER TAKING NOTE OF ALL THE DRAWINGS MA DE BY THEM AND THE LOSSES THAT WERE INCURRED IN THE BUSINESS FOR THE YEAR ENDED ON MARCH 31,1972. EVEN AFTER DEBITING THE DRAWINGS AND THE LOSS IN THE BUSINESS, THE FACTS SHOWED THAT THERE WERE SUFFICIENT FUNDS WITH THE FIRM TO COVER THE ENTIRE ADVANCE TO THE PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY. THE REVENUE HAD NOT MADE ANY ATTEMPT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL TO SHOW THAT THE FIRM HAD PAID INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT OUTSTANDING IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE PARTNER. THERE WAS NO FINDING EITHER BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY OR BY THE APPELLA TE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OR BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE FIRM HAD PAID INTEREST TO THE PARTNERS ON THE CREDIT BALANCE. IN SUCH A SITUATION, THE POSITION 9 I TA NOS.1627 TO 1629/CHNY/2018 THAT REMAINED WAS THAT THE FIRM HAD ITS OWN FUNDS AS WELL AS BORROWED FUNDS. IT WAS NOT CLEAR THAT THE FIR M HAD NOT ADVANCED MONEY OUT OF ITS OWN FUNDS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIALS TO INDICATE THAT THE FIRM HAD ADVANCED MONEYS TO THE PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY OUT OF FUNDS BORROWED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES, THE PRESUMPTION WOULD ARISE, WHERE THERE WAS A COMMO N FUND, THAT THE MONEY ADVANCED CAME ONLY OUT OF ITS OWN FUNDS. THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT NO PART OF THE INTEREST SHOULD BE DISALLOWED ESPECIALLY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FINDING THAT THE MONEY BORROWED WAS ADVANCED TO THE PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY FREE OF INTEREST. 6.2 FURTHER O N SIMILAR SITUATION THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ON IDENTICAL SITUATION IN THE CASE M/S. TIL HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 2416/CHNY/2017 VIDE ORDER DATED 17.04.2018 FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE CIT VS. HOTEL SAVERA AND THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE CIT VS. RELIANCE UTILITIES & POWER LTD., DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY T HE LD.AO WHEN T HE ASSESSEE HAD INTEREST FREE FUNDS SUCH AS SHARE CAPITAL AND RESERVES & SURPLUS IN EXCESS TO THE INTEREST FREE LOAN EXTENDED BASED ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT INTEREST FREE LOAN WAS EXTENDED SOURCED FROM ITS INTEREST FREE FUNDS . 6.3 IT IS A WELL KNOWN FACT THAT WHEN FUNDS ARE POOLED IN TOGETHER THEY GET INTRI NSICALLY MIXED UP AND CANNOT BE PHYSICALLY IDENTIFIED AS TO FROM WHICH SOURCE SUCH FUNDS HAVE BEEN SOURCED. IT 10 I TA NOS.1627 TO 1629/CHNY/2018 IS AKIN TO A SITUATION WHEN A PILE OF WATER IS ACCUMULATED FROM DIFFERENT SOURCE THEN THE ID ENTITY OF THE SOURCE LOSES ITS CHARACTERISTICS. IN SUCH SITUATION VARIOUS HIGHER JUDICIARY HAS HELD THAT WHEN FUNDS FROM DIFFERENT SOURCE SUCH AS NON INTEREST BEARING SOURCE(OWN SOURCE) AND INTEREST BEARING SOURCE SUCH AS EQUITY SHARE CAPITAL, GENERAL RESE RVES, ACCUMULATED PROFITS, RESERVES AND INTEREST BEARING LOAN RECEIVED ARE MIXED UP BY WAY OF INTRODUCING THEM IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THEN THERE IS A PRESUMPTION THAT WHEN INTEREST FREE LOAN IS EXTENDED THEY ARE FIRSTLY SOURCED OUT OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS AND IF IT NOT SUFFICIENT TO COVER UP THE ENTIRE EXTEND OF INTEREST FREE LOAN THE BALANCE IS MET OUT OF INTEREST BEARING FUNDS. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE , THE ASSESSEES EQUITY SHARE CAPITAL, GENERAL RESERVES , ACCUMULATED PROFITS AND RESERVES EXCEEDS THE INTEREST FREE LOAN EXTENDED DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THE SAME IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THEREFORE THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF THE ASS ESSEE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE CASE DECIDED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL MADRAS HIGH COURT, HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, AND THE CHENNAI BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL CITED HEREIN ABOVE. HENCE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HIGHER JUDICIARY WE HEREBY DIRE CT THE LD.AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY DISALLOWING THE PROPORTIONATE INTEREST TOWARDS THE INTEREST FREE 11 I TA NOS.1627 TO 1629/CHNY/2018 LOAN EXTENDED FOR ALL THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS IN APPEAL BEFORE US . IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT THE DECISION CITED BY THE LD.DR IN TH E CASE K.SOMASUNDRAM & BROS SUPRA HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THERE IS NO FINDING IN THAT CASE REGARDING THE EQUITY SHARE CAPITAL, GENERAL RESERVES, AND ACCUMULATED PROFITS AND RESERVES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO BE IN EXCESS OF THE INTEREST FREE LOAN EXTENDED. 7 . I N THE RESULT, THE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. O RDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 8 TH MAY , 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ( ) (DUVVURU R.L REDDY) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / CHENNAI, / DATED 8 TH MAY , 2019 RSR / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / CIT(A) 4. / CIT 5. / DR 6. / GF