The DCIT, 2(1), V. M/s Optel Communication Ltd.,

ITA 199/IND/2005

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2559 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 10 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-12-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 21-12-2009
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 28-02-2005
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: YESHWANT SHARMA
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JM, AND SHRI V.K. GUPTA , AM ITA NO.528/IND/2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1994-95 ACIT-2(1), BHOPAL APPELLANT V/S M/S. OPTEL TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD., E-1, NEW INDUSTRIAL AREA, MANDIDEEP, BHOPAL (PAN AAACO 1747 M) RESPONDENT AND ITA NO.309 & 199/IND/2005 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1997-98 DCIT-2(1), BHOPAL ...APPELLANT V/S. M/S. OPTEL TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD., E-1, NEW INDUSTRIAL AREA, MANDIDEEP, BHOPAL (PAN AAACO 1747 M) ...RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI K.K. SINGH, CIT, DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI YESHWANT SHARMA, CA 2 ORDER PER JOGINDER SINGH, JM THESE APPEALS ARE BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED AGAINST THE DIFFERENT ORDERS DATED 26.3.04, 29.12.2004 AND 11.1 1.2004 RESPECTIVELY OF LD. CIT(A)-II, BHOPAL, ON THE FOLLO WING COMMON GROUNDS: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN ANNULLING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 147 OF THE ACT (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1994-95) (ITA NO.528/IND/2004). 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN ANNULLING THE ASSESSMENT RIGHTLY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 148/143(3) OF THE ACT AS THE CASE FALLS WITHIN THE CONDITIONS LAID UN DER PARA 3 OF BOARD INSTRUCTION NO.1997 DATED 27.3.2000 AND FURTHER DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEFERRED SALES-TAX OF RS.1,97,31,319/- DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (ITA NO.309/IND/2005). 3 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF TECHNICAL KNOWHOW EXPENSES OF RS.5,18,614/- U/S 35A B RELATING TO THE PERIOD PRIOR TO 1.4.92 AND DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF GIFT OF RS.21,802/- DISALLOWED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER (ITA NO.199/IND/2005). 2. DURING THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL, WE HAVE HEARD SHRI K.K. SINGH, LD. CIT, DR AND SHRI YESHWANT SHARMA, L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS NO PERMISSIO N OF THE COD WITH THE DEPARTMENT, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M.P. STATE CIVIL SUP PLIES CORPORATION (ITA NO.105/IND/2006) AND ANOTHER DECIS ION IN THE CASE OF M.P. RAJYA VAN VIKAS NIGAM, BHOPAL, ORDER DATED 17.07.09 (IN ITA NOS. 221 & 269/IND/2009), T HESE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE MAY BE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PERMISSION FROM COD. THIS FACTUAL ASSERTION WAS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL 4 AVAILABLE ON THE FILE. WITHOUT GOING INTO MUCH DELI BERATION, WE ARE REPRODUCING HEREUNDER THE RELEVANT PORTION O F THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: THIS APPEAL IS BY THE REVENUE CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 6.12.2005 OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX (APPEALS)-I, BHOPAL, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN :- 1. GRANTING RELIEF OF RS.2,00,000/- RIGHTLY ADDED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF ST AFF WELFARE. 2. GRANTING RELIEF OF RS. RIGHTLY ADDED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE BEIN G THE REDUCTION OF COST BY GOVT. OF INDIA. 3. GRANTING RELIEF OF RS. 2,17,809/- RIGHTLY ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF PERIOD EXPENDITURE BEING THE MOISTURE GAIN AMOUNT. 4. GRANTING RELIEF OF RS. 44,54,719/- RIGHTLY ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPEND ITURE BEING THE CARE CHARGE CLAIMS 5. GRANTING RELIEF OF RS. 17,71,100/- RIGHTLY ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPEND ITURE BEING THE DA ARREARS. 6. GRANTING RELIEF OF RS.5,28,837/- RIGHTLY ADDED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPEND ITURE BEING THE TRANSPORTATION CHARGES 5 7. GRANTING RELIEF OF RS. 16,70,077/- RIGHTLY ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPEND ITURE BEING THE PAYMENT AGAINST COURT ORDER. 8. GRANTING RELIEF OF RS.1,97,821/- RIGHTLY ADDED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF PART PAYMENT OF COM MERCIAL TAX, CENTRAL SALES TAX AND ENTRY TAX. 9. GRANTING RELIEF OF RS. 1,00,000/- RIGHTLY ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPEND ITURE BEING THE BALANCE PAYMENT TO MPLUNL IN THE CONNECTI ON WITH INTERNATIONAL TRADE FAIR. 10. GRANTING RELIEF OF RS.5,500/- RIGHTLY ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPEND ITURE BEING THE PAYMENT TO INCOMETAX ADVISOR FOR FILING O F REVISED INCOMETAX RETURN FOR A.Y. 1997-98. 11. GRANTING RELIEF OF RS.42,000/- RIGHTLY ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPEND ITURE BEING THE PAYMENT OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT FOR AUDIT FEE FOR A.Y. 1997-98. 12. GRANTING RELIEF OF RS. 4,000/- RIGHTLY ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPEND ITURE BEING THE PAYMENT OF SERVICE TAX AMOUNT TO CHARTERE D ACCOUNTANT. 13. GRANTING RELIEF OF RS.10,07,971 RIGHTLY ADDED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPEND ITURE BEING THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF PROVISIONAL AND FINA L INCIDENTALS DECIDED BY THE GOI AND INTIMATED BY FCI T 14. GRANTING RELIEF OF RS.4,43,380/- RIGHTLY ADDED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPEND ITURE BEING THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF PROVISIONAL AND FINA L INCIDENTALS DECIDED BY THE GOI AND INTIMATED BY FCI T 15. GRANTING RELIEF OF RS.19,597/- RIGHTLY ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPEND ITURE BEING THE PAYMENT OF SHORTAGE AMOUNT TO THE TRANSPO RTER. 16. GRANTING RELIEF OF RS.61,450/- RIGHTLY ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPEND ITURE BEING THE PAYMENT OF SETTLEMENT AMOUNT TO THE TRANS PORTER. 17. GRANTING RELIEF OF RS. 1,70,700/- RIGHTLY ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF OTHER PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE 6 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, WE HAVE HEARD SHR I K.K. SINGH, LEARNED CIT DR AND SHRI AJAY CHHAJED, LEARNE D COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. AT THE OUTSET IT WAS POI NTED OUT THAT THERE IS NO PERMISSION FROM THE COD WITH THE DEPARTMENT, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE MA Y BE DISMISSED. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AL SO FURNISHED A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22 ND JULY, 2009 IN ITA NOS. 122/IND/08 AND 1/IND/09 AND ITA NOS. 94/IND/08 (IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON IDENTICAL FACTS), ALONG WITH ITA NOS. 03/IND/2009 AND 485 & 486/IND/2008. THIS FACT UAL MATRIX WAS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE. WE AR E REPRODUCING THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE AFORESAID O RDER DATED 22 ND JULY, 2009 :- THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FILED IN ITA NOS. 122/IND/2008 AND 01/IND/2009 ARE DIRECT ED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-I, BHOPAL, DATED 19.12. 2007 AND 24.10.2008 AND RELATE TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 & 2004- 05 RESPECTIVELY AND CROSS APPEAL FILED IN ITA NO. 9 4/IND/08 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-I, BHO PAL, DATED 19.12.2007 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. APP EAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 03/IND/09 IS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-I, BHOPAL, DATED 20.10.2008 RELATIN G TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND APPEALS FILED BY THE RE VENUE IN ITA NOS. 485 & 486/IND/08 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 11.9.2008. DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARE THERE IN ALL THESE APPEALS. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. IT IS NOTICED THAT IN TH ESE APPEALS, THE ASSESSEES ARE GOVERNMENT UNDERTAKINGS/CONCERNS, WHEREIN COMMITTEE ON DISPUTE S PERMISSION IS REQUIRED. SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECI DED BY THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 17.07.0 9 IN ITA NOS. 221 & 269/IND/2009 IN THE CASE OF M.P. RAJYA V AN VIKAS NIGAM, BHOPAL, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998- 99 AND 2006-07 AND RELEVANT FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN IN PARA S 2 & 3 WHICH READ AS UNDER :- 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT WAS A DMITTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A STATE GO VERNMENT UNDERTAKING, THEREFORE, THESE ARE REQUIRED TO SEEK PERMISSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON DISPUTES, BUT IT WAS 7 BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE THAT NO PERMISSION TO PURSUE THESE APPEALS HAD BEEN ACCORDED TILL NOW BY THE COMMITTEE ON DISPUTES . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, BOTH THESE APPEALS BY THE DEPART MENT DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF NECESSARY PERM ISSION FROM THE COMMITTEE ON DISPUTES WITH THE RIDER THAT IN CASE CLEARANCE IS OBTAINED FROM COMMITTEE ON DISPUTES, A PPEALS SHALL BE RESTORED AND DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE WIT H LAW. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, WE ARE FORTIFIED BY THE FOLLO WING DECISIONS :- (I)OIL & NATURAL GAS COMMISSION V. COLLECTOR, CENTR AL EXCISE (1994) 70 ELT 45 (S.C.) (II)OIL & NATURAL GAS COMMISSION V. COLLECTOR, CENT RAL EXCISE (1995) SUPPLEMENTARY (4) SCC 541 (III) CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS V. COLLECTOR (20 03) 3 SCC 472 (IV) MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED V. CBDT; 267 ITR 362 (MAD.) (V) CIT V. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPN. LTD. (2007) 293 I TR 362 (MAD.) (VI)OIL &NATURAL GAS CORPN. LIMITED V. CITY & INDUS TRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION MAHARASHTRA LIMITED & OTHER S (2007) 7 SCC 39. 2. WE ALSO THINK IT APPROPRIATE TO REPRODUCE THE D ECISION OF ITAT, PUNE BENCH, PUNE, IN THE CASE OF MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED VS. DY. CIT, REPORT ED IN (2009) 122 TTJ (PUNE) 865, IN WHICH IT IS HELD AS U NDER :- AS A SMALL PART OF THIS JUDICIAL SYSTEM, TRIBUNAL IS DUTY BOUND TO FOLLOW THE DECISIONS OF THE HIGHER TIRES O F THIS SYSTEM. ONCE MADRAS HIGH COURT TAKES A STAND IN TH E MATTER, AND THERE IS NO CONTRARY STAND AVAILABLE FR OM ANY OTHER HIGH COURT, TRIBUNAL IS DUTY BOUND TO FOLLOW THE SAME. THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT, AND WOULD NOT, SIT IN JUDGMENT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE COURTS ABOVE WERE JUSTIFIED IN T AKING THE STAND THAT THEY DID SUCH AN APPROACH WILL LEAD TO U TTER CHAOS AND INDISCIPLINE. THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT PROCEE D ON THE 8 BASIS THAT THE DIRECTIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT ARE MERELY RECOMMENDATORY OR HAVE BEEN IGNORED BY THE APPROPRI ATE AUTHORITIES. THERE IS NO WARRANT FOR SUCH A PRESUMP TION. THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO REASONS TO DOUBT THAT DIRECTIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT HAVE NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT, IN ANY EVENT, IF A COMMITTEE HAS NOT COME INTO EXISTENCE D ESPITE THE CLEAR DIRECTIONS OF SUPREME COURT TO THE EFFECT THAT SUCH A COMMITTEE BE CONSTITUTED FORTHWITH, THE REMEDY DO ES NOT LIE WITH THE TRIBUNAL. OF COURSE, AS THE COUNSEL SU GGESTS, IN CASE SUCH A COMMITTEE IS NOT REALLY FORMED WHICH HA S THE MANDATE TO RESOLVE DISPUTE OF A STATE PSU WITH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, IT WOULD INDEED BE EXPECTING THE ASSESSEE PSU TO DO THE IMPOSSIBLE ACT OF TAKING CLE ARANCE FROM A COMMITTEE WHICH DOES NOT EXIST. HOWEVER, THE RE HAS TO BE SOME AUTHORITATIVE EVIDENCE OF THE FACT THAT SUCH A COMMITTEE DOES NOT EXIST. THE EVIDENCE HAS TO BE SO METHING MORE THAN BALD STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND PERHA PS BY WAY OF A CONFIRMATION FROM A RESPONSIBLE FUNCTIONAR Y IN THE STATE GOVERNMENT. IN ANY EVENT, THERE IS NO AUTHORI TATIVE MATERIAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THAT SUCH A COMMITTEE DOES NOT EXIST. THE ASSESSEES CASE IS THAT SINCE CEO OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS NOT YET INFORMED ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMITTEE, AND AS PER SUPREME C OURTS DIRECTION, HE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE, IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE COMMITTEE IS NOT YET CONSTITUTED, BUT THEN THIS SUBMISSION PROCEEDS ON T HE FALLACY THAT CEO OF EVERY STATE PSU IS TO BE A MEMB ER OF A STANDING COMMITTEE TO RESOLVE SUCH DISPUTES. THE CEO OF A STATE PSU COMES TO BE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ONLY WHEN SUCH A PSU IS PARTY TO THE DISPUTE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE. THE CEO OF THE ASSESSEE MAKES A REFERENC E OF A DISPUTE TO THE COMMITTEE, AND ADMITTEDLY NO SUCH RE FERENCE IS YET MADE. NO DOUBT WHEN A JUDICIAL PRECEDENT IS LAID DOWN WITHOUT BENEFIT OF PROPER ASSISTANCE, IF THAT BE SO, MANY SUFFER UNDULY DUE TO SUCH MISHAP. THE SOLUTION , HOWEVER, IS NOT AT A LOWER LEVEL OF JUDICIAL MACHI NERY. THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT AND CANNOT, RULE OUT THE POSSIBIL ITY THAT IF THE HIGH COURT HAD AN OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE ARGU MENTS, WHICH THE COUNSEL HAS ADVANCED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL , HIGH COURTS CONCLUSIONS MAY HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT, BUT TH EN JUST 9 BECAUSE PRESENTATION BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS PERCEI VED TO BE MORE COMPREHENSIVE AND THOUGHTFUL, THIS TRIBUNAL CA NNOT DECLINE TO FOLLOW A BINDING JUDICIAL PRECEDENT. AS FOR THE FACT THAT COD (CABINET SECRETARIAT) HAS TURNED DOWN ASSE SSEES REQUEST TO GRANT CLEARANCE, IN THIS TRIBUNALS HUMB LE UNDERSTANDING THE ASSESSEE IS A STATE GOVERNMENT UNDERTAKING, FORMED AND INCORPORATED UNDER A LEGISL ATION OF THE MAHARASHTRA STATE WITH 50 PERCENT SHAREHOLDING BY THE STATE GOVERNMEBNT DIRECTLY, AND IT IS INDEED NOT CO VERED BY THE MANDATE OF COD (CABINET SECRETARIAT) IN TERMS O F SUPREME COURTS DIRECTIONS. THE REQUIREMENT OF THE COD COMES INTO PLAY BECAUSE OF THE SUPREME COURTS LATE R DIRECTIONS FOR SEEKING COD CLEARANCE IN RESPECT OF DISPUTES INVOLVING STATE GOVERNMENT AND STATE GOVERNMENT BOD IES. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE AS ALSO THE REVENUE OUGHT T O HAVE TAKEN THE CLEARANCE OF THE COD AND IN THE ABSENCE O F SUCH A CLEARANCE, THE APPEALS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE. THE AP PEALS ARE DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE THOUGH WITH A LIB ERTY TO REVIVE THESE APPEALS UPON OBTAINING THE CLEARANCE O F THE COD OR WITH THE EVIDENCE THAT SUCH A COMMITTEE DOES NOT EXIST OR IS IN THE PROCESS. 4. SO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID ORDER DA TED 17 TH JULY, 2009 (SUPRA), ALL THESE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED . 5. IN THE RESULT, THE ALL THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED . THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED ON 22 ND JULY, 2009. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID ORDER AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY DECISION BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY EITHER S IDE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBU NAL, THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH THE SIDES ON 26 TH NOVEMBER, 2009. 4. IT IS SEEN THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M.P. STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION (SUPRA) HAS FOLLOWED THE ANOTH ER DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHEREIN ALSO, OTHER CASES HAVE BEEN 10 RELIED UPON AS MENTIONED AT PAGE 7 OF THIS ORDER. S INCE NO CONTRARY DECISION WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY EITH ER SIDE, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, THESE A PPEALS OF THE REVENUE DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED AS NO PERMISSI ON HAS BEEN ACCORDED BY THE COMMITTEE ON DISPUTES TO PURSU E THESE APPEALS, CONSEQUENTLY, THESE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES AT THE CONCLU SION OF THE HEARING ON 21 ST DECEMBER, 2009. SD SD (V.K. GUPTA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 29.12.2009 {VYAS} COPY TO: APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS/CIT/ CIT(A)/DR