M/S TRIO SHIPPING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI V. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 (2), CHENNAI

ITA 1779/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4435 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: L SHIBI CS
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Fair market value; TDS
• Section: 37(1); 131

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI , . , BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 1779/CHNY/2018 /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 M/S. TRIO SHIPPING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, NO. 34, GOPAL STREET, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 017. [PAN:AABCT2299N] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 3( 2), CHENNAI 600 034. ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI L. SHIBI, C.S. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR, ADDL. CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 12.02.2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.03.2019 / 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) 13, CHENNAI, DATED 10.03.2018 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE THAT (I) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF COMMISSION PAYMENTS UNDER SECTION 37(1) AND (II) THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF 50% OF COMMISSION PAYMENTS UNDER SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [ACT IN SHORT]. I.T.A. NO. 1779/CHNY/18 2 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT .39,21,039/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILS FILED AGAINST STATUTORY NOTICES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED COMMISSION PAYMENTS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOME AT .2,72,21,483/-. 3. ON APPEAL, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FACTS OF THE CASE, WHILE CONFIRMING THE COMMISSION PAID TO MS. RUKSANA FATHIMA [.91,00,000/-] AND MS. MOHAMMED BAKHAR MEHRUNISSA [.69,50,000/-] MADE UNDER SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED 50% OF COMMISSION PAYMENTS OF .34,42,000/- MADE UNDER SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. 4. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WITH REGARD TO THE COMMISSION PAID TO MS. RUKSANA FATHIMA [.91,00,000/-] AND MS. MOHAMMED BAKHAR MEHRUNISSA [.69,50,000/-], THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ONLY OBJECTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) WAS THAT THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT WITH THE COMMISSION AGENTS AND QUESTIONED THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE BY DISALLOWING THE ADDITION, WHEREAS, IN THE REMAND REPORT, AFTER RECORDING THE STATEMENT OF THE ABOVE TWO PARTIES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SATISFIED AND STATED THAT THE PARTIES TO WHOM THE PAYMENTS MADE ARE REGULAR COMMISSION AGENTS, WHO RECEIVE COMMISSION FROM VARIOUS I.T.A. NO. 1779/CHNY/18 3 PARTIES APART FROM THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER SATISFIED ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR DELETING THE ADDITION CONFIRMED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE APPELLATE ORDER. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW INCLUDING PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. AGAINST THE COMMISSION PAID TO MS. RUKSANA FATHIMA [.91,00,000/-] AND MS. MOHAMMED BAKHAR MEHRUNISSA [.69,50,000/-], UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUMMONED THE ABOVE PERSONS TO EXAMINE THE VERACITY OF THE CLAIM OF PAYMENT COMMISSION BY THE ASSESSEE, DETAILS OF SERVICES RENDERED, ETC., BUT, BONE APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE COMMISSION AGENTS AND THERE WAS NO DOCUMENT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT COULD BE SAID THAT COMMISSION WAS DUE AND PAYABLE TO COMMISSION AGENTS. SINCE, MERE PRODUCTION OF CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM THE ABOVE AGENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF THE EXPENDITURE WOULD NOT PROVE THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF EXPENDITURE BEING COMMISSION PAYMENTS AND BROUGHT TO TAX. ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATION LETTERS, BANK STATEMENTS, ETC. IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR REMAND I.T.A. NO. 1779/CHNY/18 4 REPORT, WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED/CROSS EXAMINED THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SATISFIED GENUINENESS OF THE COMMISSION PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, SINCE THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMMISSION AGENTS AND THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BY IGNORING THE REMAND REPORT AND SUBSEQUENT EXPLANATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SUBSEQUENT EXPLANATIONS OF THE AGENTS, ETC. AND THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: THE AO HAS SUBMITTED REMAND REPORT UNDER RULE 46A OF IT RULES. 1962 WHICH IS CAPTIONED AS UNDER: AS PER THE DIRECTION, VIDE YOUR OFFICE LETTER DATED REFERRED TO THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 10.11.2016 FILED COPIED OF THE AFFIDAVITS OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM COMMISSION HAD BEEN PAID FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2011-12 TOGETHER WITH THE DETAILS OF THE SERVICES RENDERED BY TILL' COMMISSION AGENT TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENTS EVIDENCING THE PAYMENTS OF COMMISSION TO VARIOUS PARTIES. THE COMMISSION PAYMENTS WERE CROSS VERIFIED WITH THE DETAILS FILED AND FOUND TO BE IN ORDER. OUT OF THE COMMISSION PAID, TWO PERSON TO WHOM MAJOR COMMISSION OF RS.91,00,000/- AND RS. 69,50,000/- PAID WERE SUMMONED AND A SWORN STATEMENT WAS RECORDED FROM THEM. SMT. M.B. MEHRUNNISA HAS DEPOSED THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.91,00,000/- AS COMMISSION FROM THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, OUT OF THIS COMMISSION RECEIPT OF RS.7,96,000/- HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AS TDS. SHE HAS FILED COPY OF FORM 26AS AND COPY OF HER RETURN OF INCOME. SIMILARLY, MS. RUKSANA FATHIMA WAS SUMMONED AND A SWORN STATEMENT WAS RECORDED FROM HER ALSO. SHE HAS CONFIRMED THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED A COMMISSION OF RS. 69,50,000/- FROM THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2011-12. AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,35,000/ - HAD BEEN DEDUCTED AS TDS OUT OF THE ABOVE PAYMENT. IN SUPPORT OF HER CLAIM SHE HAD FILED FORM 26AS AND COPY OF HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT ASST. YEAR. THE REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE CIT(A) THROUGH PROPER CHANNEL WAS RETURNED BACK BY THE ADD. CIT, CORPORATE RANGE-3, CHENNAI WITH A DIRECTION TO RESUBMIT THE REPORT AFTER EXAMINING THE FOLLOWING. I.T.A. NO. 1779/CHNY/18 5 IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE SAID AGENTS I.E., TECHNICAL EXPERTISE IN CARRYING OUT THE WORK, SERVICES RENDERED BY THEM AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED ETC. REASON FOR PAYMENT OF SUCH HEFTY SUM AS COMMISSION ESPECIALLY LOOKING INTO THE FACT THAT PERSONS WHOSE STATEMENT ARE RECORDED ARE LADIES, WITH ONE LADY BEING 65 YEARS OF AGE. THE AMOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID I.E. RS. 91,00,000/- AND RS. 69,50,000/- DEMANDS INTENSE CONTROL AND KNOWLEDGE OF THE LONE OF BUSINESS OF CLEARING AGENCY AND THE ASSESSEE/AGENTS NEEDS TO BE QUESTION ON THE ABOVE LINES. THE ISSUE OF DIVERSION OF PROFIT AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION FOR ANY PARTICULAR SERVICES HAS ALSO NOT BEEN DEALT WITH IN THE STATEMENT. AFTER RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER, LETTERS HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO BOTH THE COMMISSION AGENTS ON 15.06.2017 TO FURNISH THE FOLLOWING. 1. KINDLY FURNISH DETAILS OF NATURE OF WORK/SERVICES RENDERED BY YOU TO M/S. TRIO SHIPPING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11. 2. KINDLY CLARIFY AS TO WHETHER YOU HAVE DONE THE SIMILAR SERVICE/WORK TO ANY OTHER PERSON, IF SO PLEASE FURNISH THE DETAILS. 3. KINDLY CLARIFY AS TO WHETHER YOU HAVE DOME THE SIMILAR WORK/SERVICE TO M/S. TRIO SHIPPING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, FOR ANY OTHER YEARS OTHER THAN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11. IN RESPONSE TO THESE LETTERS, BOTH THE AGENTS SUBMITTED THEIR REPLIES ON 19.07.2017 STATING THAT, 1. I ACT AS AN AGENT FACILITATING AIR FREIGHT TO M/S. TRIO SHIPPING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED (HERE IN AFTER REFERRED AS 'THE COMPANY'). AS AN AGENT, I ASSIST THE COMPANY IN IDENTIFYING THE C1IENLS AND FACILITIES THE TRANSPORT OF THE CLIENT'S CARGO TO THEIR RESPECTIVE DESTINATION BY AVAILING AND PROVIDING LOGISTICS SOLUTIONS, SEVERAL CARRIERS AND LINERS. I ASSIST THEM IN NEGOTIATION A GOOD RATE OF FREIGHT TO REACH THEIR PARTICULAR DESTINATION. FOR SUCH SERVICES, I CHARGE A NORMAL COMMISSION. 2. I STATE THAT I HAVE RENDERED SIMILAR SERVICES WHICH I RENDER TO THE ABOVE SAID COMPANY ARC AIR CARGO CONNECTION AND SMALL EXPORTERS FROM LOCAL AND URBAN AREAS. 3. I HAVE CARRYING ON THIS BUSINESS FOR A PAST 7 YEARS AND ACT AS AIR, SEA FREIGHT FACILITATION AGENTS TO M/S. TRIO SHIPPING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED AND A COPY OF THE SAME IS ENCLOSED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE L . THE AFFIDAVIT CONTAINS THE DETAILS OF THE SAID TRANSACTION BETWEEN ME AND M/S. TRIO SHIPPING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. I STATE I.T.A. NO. 1779/CHNY/18 6 THAT THE AFFIDAVIT IS SELF-EXPLANATORY AND EXPLAINS IN TOTALITY THE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED BETWEEN ME & M/S. TRIO SHIPPING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED AND INCLUDING THE TAXABILITY OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE COMPANY.' THE ASSESSEE ALSO ENCLOSED IT COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE CIT(A) AS ANNEXURE. AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE RANGE-3, CHENNAI, THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL DETAILS HAVE ALSO BEEN VERIFIED. THE COMMISSION AGENTS HAVE ACTUALLY FILED THE RETURNS OF INCOME FOR THIS YEAR AS WELL AS IN THE PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT YEAR-SO THE FOLLOWING CHART WOULD SHOW THE DETAILS OF RETURN OF INCOME FILED, AMOUNT OF COMMISSION INCOME ADMITTED ETC. S,NO. NAME OF AGENTS AY 2008- 09 AY 2009- 10 AY 2010-11 AY 2011-12 1. RUKSANA FATHIMA 4,70,378 18,72,905 1,00,78,560 1,27,46,175 2. MEHRUNNISA 3,54,015 3,55,000 3,90,002 1,14,58,990 THE ABOVE CHART WOULD SHOW THAT THE ABOVE PARTIES ARE REGULAR COMMISSION AGENTS RECEIVING COMMISSION FOR SERVICES RENDERED AND HENCE THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION FOR SERVICES RENDERED AND HENCE THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO THE ABOVE PARTIES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. IN THIS CONNECTION, KINDLY SEE PARA 1 ABOVE IN WHICH IT WAS REPORTED THAT MRS.RUKSANA FATHIMA HAS RECEIVED A COMMISSION OF RS. 69,50,000/- FROM THE APPELLANT-COMPANY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AND A TOTAL COMMISSION OF RS. 1,27,06,175/- REFLECTED IN 26AS INCLUDES COMMISSION FROM THE ABOVE APPELLANT AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.57,96,175 WAS RECEIVED AS COMMISSION FROM OTHERS. SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF MEHRUNNISA, THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED A TOTAL COMMISSION OF RS. L,14,58,990/- WHICH INCLUDES COMMISSION OF RS.91 LAKHS FROM THE APPELLANT-COMPANY. HENCE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT THE ADDITION MADE ON THE ISSUE OF COMMISSION PAYMENTS MADE TO THE AGENTS MAY BE DECIDED ON MERITS, IN VIEW OF THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE RECIPIENT OF THE COMMISSION AGENTS AND BY THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEARLY EMANATE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE COMMISSION AGENTS BEFORE THE I.T.A. NO. 1779/CHNY/18 7 ASSESSING OFFICER ALONG WITH AFFIDAVITS, BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENTS, ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED SWORN STATEMENTS FROM THE AGENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CROSS VERIFIED THE COMMISSION PAYMENTS WITH THE DETAILS FILED AND FOUND TO BE IN ORDER. BOTH THE AGENTS HAVE DEDUCTED TDS ON THE COMMISSION RECEIPT AND FILED 26AS ALONG WITH COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME. OVER AND ABOVE THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, VARIOUS QUERIES RAISED BY THE LD. ADDL. CIT WERE ALSO REPLIED. MOREOVER, BOTH THE COMMISSION AGENTS HAVE FILED DETAILS OF COMMISSION PAYMENT RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 ONWARDS IN THE FORM OF CHART, WHICH WAS ALSO REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE, WHICH CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE ABOVE PARTIES ARE REGULAR COMMISSION AGENTS RECEIVING COMMISSION FOR SERVICES RENDERED. NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS NOR THE LD. CIT(A) DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT MADE ANY OBJECTION OVER THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE COMMISSION AGENTS OR RETURNS OF INCOME OF THE AGENTS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE EARLIER YEARS OR THE CURRENT YEAR ACCOUNTS, BANK STATEMENT, ETC. THERE IS NOTHING AGAINST THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO THE AGENTS. ONCE THE DEPARTMENT ACCEPTED THE TDS ON THE COMMISSION RECEIPTS OF THE AGENTS, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT LEGALLY CORRECT TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION TOWARDS COMMISSION PAYMENTS EVEN THOUGH THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE COMMISSION EXPENDITURE OF THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THE ABOVE FACTS AND I.T.A. NO. 1779/CHNY/18 8 CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT CORRECT IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS OF TWO COMMISSION PAYMENTS ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE AGENTS, BECAUSE, THERE WAS NEARLY 20 PARTIES TO WHOM THE ASSESSEE MADE COMMISSION PAYMENTS AND THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO WITH ANY OF THE PARTIES. MOREOVER, IN VIEW OF THE DETAILS OF THE COMMISSION PAYMENTS RECEIPTS IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, PAYMENT OF TDS THEREON, COPIES OF THE RETURNS OF INCOME OF THE AGENT, THE GENUINENESS OF THE COMMISSION PAYMENT WAS NOT DOUBTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE DELETE THE ADDITIONS MADE UNDER SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE COMMISSION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO MS. RUKSANA FATHIMA [.91,00,000/-] AND MS. MOHAMMED BAKHAR MEHRUNISSA [.69,50,000/-] AND ALLOW THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE NEXT GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE MADE COMMISSION PAYMENT TO RELATED PERSONS UNREASONABLY HIGH AS COMPARED TO MARKET RATES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE SAME AND BROUGHT TO TAX. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PAYING COMMISSION TO THE NON-RELATED PARTIES WITHIN THE RATE OF .1 LAKH TO .3 LAKHS AND THEREFORE, HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT COMMISSION PAYMENT TO RELATED PARTIES ARE UNREASONABLY HIGH AND IS NOT IN I.T.A. NO. 1779/CHNY/18 9 ACCORDANCE WITH THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF SUCH SERVICES RENDERED BY THEM. THUS, THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISALLOW 50% OF .34,42,000/-, SUCH COMMISSION PAYMENTS MADE TO SPECIFIED RELATED PARTIES UNDER SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. IN THIS CASE, COMMISSION PAYMENTS TO THE RELATED PARTIES IN TERMS OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THUS, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 22 ND MARCH, 2019 IN CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (DUVVURU RL REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, 22.03.2019 VM/- /COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT, 2. / RESPONDENT, 3. ( ) /CIT(A), 4. /CIT, 5. /DR & 6. /GF.