M/s. Malar Hospitals Limited (Now called as Fortis Malar Hospitals Limited), CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 2117/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90523 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-11-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S DASGUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: T VASUDEVAN
• Keywords: Bad and doubtful debts; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 37; 28

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHE NNAI , . !' !' !' !' , # # # # $% $% $% $% BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO.2117/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009-10 M/S. MALAR HOSPITALS LIMITED, (NOW CALLED AS FORTIS MALAR HOSPITALS LIMITED), 52, FIRST MAIN ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, ADYAR, CHENNAI 600 020. [PAN: AAACM6891Q] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE IV(1), CHENNAI. ( &' &' &' &' /APPELLANT ) ( ()&' ()&' ()&' ()&' / RESPONDENT ) &' * + / APPELLANT BY : SHRI T. VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE ()&' * + / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. DASGUPTA, JCIT * , / DATE OF HEARING : 29.04.2015 -./ * , /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.06.2015 0 0 0 0 / O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) V, CHENNAI DATED 21.09.2012 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S RUNNING A HOSPITAL FILED IS RETURN OF INCOME BY ADMITTING LOSS OF .1,11,55,985/-. INITIALLY, THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 1 43(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS SELE CTED FOR SCRUTINY AND I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .2 22 21 11 117 1717 17/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 2 ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF TH E ACT DATED 27.12.2011. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT IN THE ANNUAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, IT WAS FOU ND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED AN AMOUNT OF .2,89,43,000/- AS 'ADVANCES WRITTEN OFF' IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AFTER THE NET PROFIT ( .1,61,06,570/-). AFTER DEDUCTING THIS EXTRAORDINARY ITEM FROM THE NET PROFIT, THE AS SESSEE HAS ARRIVED AT A LOSS OF .1,28,36,588/-. FURTHER, IN THE COMPUTATION STATEME NT, AS PER THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEGIN THE COMPUTATI ON WITH THE NET LOSS OF .1,28,36,588/-. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ADDED BACK THE 'ADVANCES WRITTEN OFF' IN THE COMPUTATION STATEMENT FOR THE P URPOSE OF INCOME-TAX ACT. AS PER THE NOTES TO ACCOUNTS, THIS EXTRAORDINARY IT EM IS EXPLAINED AS UNDER: 'IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT OF .489.43 LAKHS PAID TO TWO COMPANIES INCLUDED IN THE REGISTER MAINTAINED U/S.301 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, THE COMPANY HAS WRITTEN OFF AN AMOUNT OF .289.43 LAKHS AS NOT RECOVERABLE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BASED ON THE CO NCLUSION OF DISCUSSIONS AND ON THE BASIS OF THE FINAL AWARD OF ARBITRATION (AS ACCEPTED AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS). THE COMPAN Y IS CONFIDENT OF RECOVERING THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF .200 LAKHS RECOVERABLE FROM THE TWO COMPANIES AS PER THE TERMS OF THE ARBITRATION AWARD ... SINCE THIS AMOUNT IS ADVANCE GIVEN TO TWO COMPANIES AND HAS BEEN WRITTEN OFF ON THE BASIS OF A FINAL AWARD OF ARBITRATION, T HE LOSS SEEM TO BE OF A CAPITAL LOSS. HENCE, A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 15/12/2011 ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION RE GARDING THE NATURE OF THE ADVANCES AS WELL AS TO EXPLAIN WHY THE AMOUNT SHOUL D NOT BE DISALLOWED SINCE THE AMOUNT IS A CAPITAL LOSS AND WILL NOT COM E UNDER THE AMBIT OF SECTION 36(1)(VII)? IN ITS REPLY DATED 20/12/2011, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT, 'THE FORTIS MALAR HOSPITALS LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MALAR HOSPITALS LTD) HAS WRITTEN OFF .2,89,43,158/- AS NOT RECOVERABLE FROM TWO COMPANIE S, I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .2 22 21 11 117 1717 17/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 3 WITH WHOM WE HAD FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS. THESE AMOU NTS WERE ADVANCED IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS. ALL THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE HAPPENED ABOUT MORE THA N 10 YEARS PRIOR TO THE FINANCIAL YEAR AND THE ARBITRATION WAS PENDING FOR MORE THAN FOUR YEARS. INSTEAD OF CARRYING AMOUNT IN THE BOOK AS RECEIVABLE, AND NOT UTILIZING THE FUNDS, IT WAS AGREED TO SETTLE THE DI SPUTE AND REALIZE THE MONEY. HENCE, DURING THE COURSE OF THE ARBITRATION IT WAS DECIDED TO REALIZE A PART AND WRITE OFF THE BALANCE. THE AMOUNT WRITTEN OFF IS NOT A CAPITAL LOSS, BUT O NLY REVENUE IN NATURE, SINCE THE AMOUNTS WERE ADVANCED IN THE ORDI NARY COURSE OF BUSINESS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT AMOUNT WRITTEN OFF I S ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS LOSS.' 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER CONSIDERING THE EX PLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, A LETTER DATED 21/12/2011 WAS SENT TO ASS ESSEE, CALLING FOR THE DETAILS REGARDING THE NATURE OF ADVANCE, AND PURPOS E FOR WHICH THE SUM WAS ADVANCED. IN RESPONSE TO THE LETTER, THE ASSESSEE H AS SUBMITTED REPLY VIDE LETTER DATED 23.12.2011, WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UND ER: '1. DURING THE PROJECT EXPANSION STAGE, MALAR HOSPI TALS BORROWED MONEY FROM THE SAID TWO COMPANIES, TO FINANCE THE P ROJECT. THESE TWO COMPANIES WERE RAISING SHORT TERM FUNDS FROM THE MA RKET AND ADVANCING THE SAME TO OUR COMPANY. THOSE COMPANIES ONLY ACTIV ITY WAS TO RAISE FUNDS FROM THE MARKET AND ADVANCE THE FUNDS TO MALA R AS INTER CORPORATE DEPOSIT AND REPAY THE SHORT TERM FUNDS WITH THE FUN DS RETURNED BY MALAR. 2. THE COMPANIES WERE MALAR FINANCE P. LTD. AND MA LAR GAUTHAM HOTELS P. LTD. 3. THE PURPOSE OF THE ADVANCE WAS TO LIQUIDATE THE SHORT TERM FUNDS RAISED FOR MALAR. 4. THE SAID COMPANIES WERE CONTENDING THAT NO MONEY IS DUE TO MALAR AND THE FUNDS RECEIVED BY MALAR WERE USED/SOL ELY FOR LIQUIDATING THE SHORT TERM FUNDS RAISED FOR MALAR. IN THE PRESE NCE OF THE ARBITRATION IT HAS AGREED THAT LOSS ARISING FROM THE TRANSACTIONS BE SHARED BY BOTH AND MALAR RECEIVED .2.00 CRORES AND WRITE OFF THE BALANCE .... ' I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .2 22 21 11 117 1717 17/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 4 FROM THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING T HE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS FROM THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS , THE FOLLOWING FACTS WERE ASCERTAINED: TWO COMPANIES MALAR FINANCE P. LTD AND MALAR GAUTHA M HOTELS P. LTD HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED SPECIFICALLY TO SOURCE FUNDS FOR MALAR HOSPITAL FOR THE HOSPITALS PROJECT EXPANSION. FUNDS WERE BORROWED BY THESE TWO COMPANIES AS SHORT TERM FUNDS FROM THE MA RKET AND ADVANCED CERTAIN PORTION TO MALAR HOSPITAL. THE FUNDS RECEIV ED FROM THE TWO COMPANIES WERE USED BY MALAR HOSPITAL FOR THE PROJE CT EXPANSION (I.E., EXPANSION OF HOSPITAL FROM 150 BEDS TO 250 BEDS), W HICH IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAPITAL ACQUISITIONS. WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES AROSE TO REPAY THE FUNDS IN THE MARKET, MALAR HOSPITAL REPAID THE SUM ON BEHALF OF THESE TWO COMP ANIES AND THE DIFFERENCE IN THE SUM (THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY MALAR HOSPITAL FROM THE TWO COMPANIES AND THE AMOUNT REPAID BY MALAR HOSPITAL O N BEHALF OF THE TWO COMPANIES) HAS BEEN HELD AS 'RECEIVABLE' FROM THESE TWO COMPANIES IN THE BALANCE SHEET. OUT OF WHICH, ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS W RITTEN OFF A SUM OF .2, 98,43,000/- DURING THIS YEAR. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER CONSIDERING THE EX PLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS OBSERVED THAT THE SUM IS ADVANCED IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPT ABLE AND IT IS NOT A BUSINESS LOSS OF THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE INCOME-TA X ACT, A BAD DEBT IS ALLOWABLE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE ONLY IF, THE AMOUN T HAS BEEN OFFERED AS INCOME IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR. HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE, THE SUM HAS BEEN ADVANCED AS LOAN TO ITS SISTER CONCERN FOR THE REPA YMENT OF ITS LOAN. SINCE, ASSESSEE IS NOT THE BUSINESS OF MONEY LENDING, THE SUM ADVANCED AS A LOAN AND SUBSEQUENT NON-RECOVERY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS BAD DEBTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(VII) OF THE ACT. THE AS SESSING OFFICER, FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE SUM ADVANCED AS A LOAN TO ITS SIS TER CONCERN IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF LIQUIDATING THE SHORT TERM FUNDS RAISED FOR MALAR HOSPITAL, WHICH I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .2 22 21 11 117 1717 17/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 5 CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE IN THE ORDINARY COURSE O F BUSINESS. HENCE, THE EXPENSES CLAIMED DO NOT SATISFY THE PROVISIONS UNDE R SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF .2,89,43,000/- WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER BY OBSERVING THAT THE ADVANCE WRITTEN OFF BY THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y AMOUNTING TO .2,89,43,000/- IS NEITHER BAD DEBT NOR DOES IT FALL IN THE CATEGORY OF A BUSINESS LOSS. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER OBSERVED AS UNDER: '* THE AFORESAID TWO COMPANIES THOUGH ARE SISTER CO NCERNS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY, BUT FOR ALL LEGAL PURPOSES THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT AND INDEPENDENT LEGAL ENTITIES INCORPORATED UNDER T HE INDIAN LAWS. THESE COMPANIES BORROWED MONEY FROM THE MARKET, A P ORTION OF WHICH WAS ADVANCED TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY. WHATEVER MONEY WAS BORROWED BY THE APPELLANT FROM T HE TWO COMPANIES HAS, ADMITTEDLY, REPAID BY THE APPELLANT. THE LIABILITIES OF THE AFORESAID TWO COMPANIES VIS- A-VIS THEIR CREDITORS ARE THEIR OWN LIABILITIES AND THE APPELLA NT IN NO WAY CAN BE SAID TO BE CONNECTED WITH THE LIABILITIES OF THE SE TWO COMPANIES EVEN IF THE PART PURPOSE OF THESE BORROWINGS MIGHT HAVE BEEN TO FINANCE THE APPELLANT COMPANY. THE LIABILITY OR THE OBLIGATION OF THE APPELLANT CO MPANY IS TOWARDS THESE TWO COMPANIES FOR THE REPAYMENT OF LOAN TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY FROM THE TWO COMPANIES. THE APPEL LANT COMPANY HAS NO LIABILITY OR OBLIGATION TOWARDS THE CREDITORS OF THE AFORESAID TWO COMPANIES FOR THE BORROWINGS THESE CO N1PANIES HAD MADE FROM THE MARKET (THEIR CREDITORS). THE APPELLANT COMPANY BY NO STRETCH OF THE LEGAL PR OVISIONS COULD BE MADE PARTY TO THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS BETWEE N THE AFORESAID TWO COMPANIES AND THEIR CREDITORS AND THE PARTICIPA TION OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY IN THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS IN A DISPUTE FOR RECOVERY BETWEEN THE AFORESAID TWO COMPANIES AND TH EIR CREDITORS AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE ARBITRATION AWARD BY THE APPE LLANT COMPANY CANNOT BE SAID TO BE AT ARM'S LENGTH. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .2 22 21 11 117 1717 17/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 6 THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED BOTH BEFORE THE AO AS A LSO BEFORE ME THAT THE AFORESAID LOSS IS IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF APPELLANTS BUSINESS, HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW AS TO HOW THIS IS A LOSS IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE APPELLANT IS N OT IN THE BUSINESS OF MONEY LENDING. THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THESE TWO COMPANIES WERE INCO RPORATED OR CREATED WOULD NOT ALTER THE POSITION OF LAW. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION I HOLD THAT THE CLA IM OF THE APPELLANT WITH REGARD TO 'ADVANCES WRITTEN OFF AMOUNTING TO RS. 2 ,89,43,000/CANNOT BE ALLOWED EITHER UNDER SECTION 28 OR UNDER SECTION 36 (1)(VII) OR EVEN UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. I THEREFORE CONFIRM THE ACTI ON OF THE AO IN DISALLOWING THE ABOVE SAID CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT A ND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT ARE DISMISSED. 6. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MA TTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MALAR HOSPITAL TO RAISE FUNDS FOR EXPANSION OF CAPI TAL FORMED TWO GROUP COMPANIES M/S. MALAR FINANCE PVT. LTD. AND M/S. MAL AR GAUTHAM HOTELS PVT. LTD. THESE TWO COMPANIES BORROWED FUNDS FROM THE MA RKET AND ADVANCED CERTAIN PORTION TO THE MALAR HOSPITAL. WHEN THE ASS ESSEE IS REPAYING THE AMOUNTS TO THE TWO SISTER COMPANIES, THE ASSESSEE H AS PAID EXCESS AMOUNTS. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE IT IS A BUSINESS LOSS AND IT HAS TO BE ALLOWED. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THA T HE ASSESSEE HAS BORROWED FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPANSION OF THE HOSPITAL FROM 150 BEDS TO 250 BEDS, WHICH IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAPITAL AC QUISITION. THEREFORE, IT IS A I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .2 22 21 11 117 1717 17/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 7 CAPITAL LOSS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE REPAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN RESPECT OF THE FUNDS BORROWED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ONLY FUNDS BORROWED BY TWO COMP ANIES M/S. MALAR FINANCE PVT. LTD. AND M/S. MALAR GAUTHAM HOTELS PVT . LTD. FROM THIRD PARTIES AND THE ASSESSEE PAID AMOUNTS TO THOSE THIRD PARTIE S. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNTS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED A S INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE E AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IT HAS ESTABLISHED TWO COMPANIES I.E., M/S. MALAR FINA NCE PVT. LTD. AND M/S. MALAR GAUTHAM HOTELS PVT. LTD. FOR THE PURPOSE OF B ORROWING FUNDS FROM THE MARKET TO EXPEND THE HOSPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS REPAID THE AMOUNT EXCESS THAN BORROWED FROM THE TWO COMPANIES NAMELY M/S. MALAR FINANCE PVT. LTD. AND M/S. MALAR GAUTHAM HOTELS PVT . LTD. TO THIRD PARTIES ON BEHALF OF THE TWO COMPANIES. WE FIND THAT THE ASSES SEE MALAR HOSPITAL IS A DIFFERENT LEGAL ENTITY AND M/S. MALAR FINANCE PVT. LTD. AND M/S. MALAR GAUTHAM HOTELS PVT. LTD. ARE TWO DIFFERENT LEGAL EN TITIES. THE AMOUNT DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT RELATING TO THE LOAN BORROWED FROM THE ABOVE TWO COMPANIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED ONLY THE REPAID AMOUNT TO THIRD PARTIES ON BEHALF OF THE TWO COMPANIES. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAI N AS TO WHY THE ASSESSEE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .2 22 21 11 117 1717 17/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 8 HAS REPAID THE AMOUNTS TO THIRD PARTY ON BEHALF OF THE TWO COMPANIES. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SAYS THAT THE PAYMENT IS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN EXCESS TO THE FUNDS BORROWED AND THEREFORE, THER E IS AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE TWO SISTER COMPANIES. WHEN WE SPECIFICALLY ASKED ABOUT THE DIRECTORS OF THE SISTER CONCERN AND THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FAIRLY ACCEPTED THAT BOTH ARE ONE AND THE SAME. WE FIND THAT THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE THIRD PARTIES ON BEHALF OF THE TWO COMPANIES I.E., M/S. MALAR FINANCE PVT. LTD. AND M/S. MALAR GAUTHAM HOTELS PVT. LIMITE D WERE NOT CONNECTED WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IT IS NEITHER ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VII) NOR UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS CORRECT AN NO INTERFERENCE IS REQ UIRED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 25 TH OF JUNE, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 25.06.2015 VM/- I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .2 22 21 11 117 1717 17/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 9 0 * (#,12 32/, /COPY TO: 1. &' / APPELLANT, 2. ()&' / RESPONDENT, 3. 4 ( ) /CIT(A), 4. 4 /CIT, 5. 25! (#,# /DR & 6. !6' 7 /GF.