Chime Gatsal Ling Monastery, Kangra V. ITO, Dharamashala

ITA 218/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 21821514 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DINESH SOOD
• Keywords: Capital receipt; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 12A; 12AA; 147; 148; 12; 11

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT & MS. ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 218 TO 221/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 TO 2009-10 CHIME GATSAL LING MONASTERY, VS. THE ITO, DHARAMSHALA, DHARAMSHALA DISTT. KANGRA (H.P.) PAN NO. AAAAC8633Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. DINESH SOOD RESPONDENT BY : SH. SUSHIL KUMAR DATE OF HEARING : 19.10.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.11.2015 ORDER PER H.L.KARWA, VP THESE FOUR APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGA INST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF CIT(A), SHIMLA DATED 28.1.2015 RELATING T O ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2009-10. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED AND, THEREFORE, THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPO SED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE MAIN ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THESE A PPEALS IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE ORDERS OF AS SESSING OFFICER IN MAKING ADDITIONS OF RS. 34,12,190/- RS. 38,54,316/-, RS. 1 5,07,190 AND RS. 5,91,855/- RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008 -09 AND 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY. 2 THE ASSESSEE IS A BUDDHIST TEMPLE WHICH WAS UNDER C ONSTRUCTION DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE ASSESSEE IS REGISTER ED AS A SOCIETY UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT. THE ASSESSEE APPLIED FO R GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S 12A / 12AA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT ') WHICH WAS NOT GRANTED. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED RETURN OF INCOME FOR ALL THE YEA RS UNDER CONSIDERATION DECLARING NIL INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE HUGE INVESTMENTS ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUDDHIST TEMPLE. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, THE MATTER WAS REFERRED FOR VALUATION TO THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER (DVO) A ND AS PER ITS REPORT, THE YEAR WISE BREAK UP OF COST DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE VIS- -VIS COST DETERMINED BY DVO WAS AS UNDER:- F.Y. A.Y. DECLARED AMOUNT PERCENTAGE PROGRESS ESTIMATED COST BY DVO DIFFERENCE 2004-05 2005-06 1623672 17.14 3561148 1937476 2005-06 2006-07 2859567 30.19 6272523 3412956 2006-07 2007-08 3230582 34.10 7084898 3854316 2007-08 2008-09 1262360 13.33 2769551 1507191 2008-09 2009-10 496851 5.24 1088706 591855 TOTAL 9473032 100 20776826 11303794 3. THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE IN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTI ON DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AS ESTIMATED BY THE DVO AS PER THE ABOVE DETAIL S. SINCE, THE REPORT OF THE VALUATION OFFICER WAS RECEIVED ON 25.11.2011 I.E. A FTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07, 2007-0 8 AND 2008-09, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED AGAIN U/S 147 OF THE ACT BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AFTER RECORDING REASONS FOR REOPENING. SIMILAR LY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2009-10. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS LETTER D ATED 5.12.2013 SUBMITTED THAT RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 FILED ON 28. 7.2010 MAY BE TREATED AS RETURN 3 IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 ISSUED ON 7.3.2013. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUPPLIED A COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING OF THE A SSESSMENTS TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ITS OBJECTIONS TO THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENTS STATING THAT THE CASE HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED AFTER REOPENING U /S 147 /148 AND ORDERS PASSED U/S 143(3) AS SUCH REOPENING OF THE CASE AGAIN IS B AD IN LAW. THE NEXT OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT ONLY REASON FOR REOPENING THE CASE AS PER THE SAID REASONS WAS THAT AS PER INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE DEP ARTMENT, THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEARS RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEARS UN DER CONSIDERATION HAS DECLARED COST OF BUILDING LESS THAN THE COST DETERMINED BY D VO. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT REOPENING OF THE CASE BASED ON THE O PINION OF THE DVO WAS BAD IN LAW AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. DHARIYA CONSTRUCTION CO. [(2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC)]. THE ASS ESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED A REPLY DATED 16.1.2014 WHICH READS AS UNDER:- (I) THE ASSESSEE IS BUILDING A TEMPLE FOR PUBLIC DEVOTI ON AND HOLDING PUBIC TEACHINGS OCCASIONALLY. (II) DETAILS OF THE PUBLIC DONATION RECEIVED FOR T HE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE DURING THE YEAR ALREADY FILED AND COPIES OF THE SAME ATTACHED. (III) AS THE TEMPLE A PLACE FOR PUBLIC WORSHIP WAS BUILT ENTIRELY WITH THE PUBLIC DONATIONS AND MUCH OF THE CONSTRUCTION MATER IALS WERE OFFERED ON THE SPOT AND MAJOR OF THE LABOUR WORKS WERE DONE BY THE KARSEVAKS THEMSELVES. IN ADDITION TO THESE, STONES EXCAVATED FROM THE SITE WERE USED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION ITSELF. ADDITION OF THE D IFFERENCE SHOWN IN ESTIMATE OF THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER TO T HE INCOME IS NOT WARRANTED AS THE AMOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IS ALREADY UT ILIZED. (IV) THE ASSESSEE BEING A TEMPE FOR PUBLIC DEVOTI ON AND THERE IS NO ISSUE OF PROFIT SHARING INVOLVED. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE INVESTMENT IN BUILDING AS DETERMINED BY THE DVO , BUT HAS GIVEN EXPLANATION REGARDING THE DIFFERENCE IN THE INVESTMENT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE 4 INVESTMENT ESTIMATED BY THE VALUATION OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS WHICH ARE STATED TO BE THE DIFFERENCE IN THE INVESTMENTS DECL ARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND INVESTMENT ESTIMATED BY THE VALUATION OFFICER. 5. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL . 6. BEFORE US, SHRI DINESH SOOD, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MADE TWOFOLD ARGUMENTS. FIRSTLY, HE SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENTS EVEN IF THE VALUATION MADE BY THE DVO IS ADMITTED, IT WOULD ONL Y MEAN THAT AMOUNTS SPENT DIRECTLY BY THE CONTRIBUTORS ON CONSTRUCTION BY WAY OF LABOUR AND MATERIAL IN CONSTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE WOULD BE IN THE NATURE O F CAPITAL RECEIPT AND THAT TOO UTILIZED TOWARDS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AS SUCH THERE WOULD BE NO TAXABLE INCOME. SHRI DINESH SOOD, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURT HER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSTRUCTING A TEMPLE PURELY ON PUBIC CONTRIBUT ION AND AFTER ISSUE OF PROPER RECEIPTS FOR THE SAME, THE RECEIPT BOOKS WERE GOT S PECIFICALLY PRINTED FOR SAID PURPOSE. THE AMOUNT COLLECTED AS DONATION FOR CONST RUCTION WAS STRICTLY USED TOWARDS THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION ONLY. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING ANY OTHER INCOME AND IT HAS PREPARED THE BALANCE SHEET AND THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENT ACCOUNT. ALL THE RECEI PTS OF THE ASSESSEE INSTITUTION WERE OF CAPITAL IN NATURE AND ALL THE EXPENSES INCU RRED ALSO QUALIFY AS A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. HE HAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT ONCE THE REGISTRATION U/S 12A WAS REFUSED, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE APPLIED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT ASSESSEE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF MONASTERY DURING THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND, THEREFORE, NO INCOME HAD STARTED TO ACCRUE TO THE ASSESSEE. THERE BEING NO INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE TAXABLE INCOME WAS RIGHTLY DECLARED A S NIL FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. SHRI DINESH SOOD LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE 5 CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY TH E CIT(A) AND THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 TO 2008-09. THE TRIBUNAL V IDE ITS ORDER DATED 28.10.2014 IN ASSESSEES CASE IN ITA NO. 216 TO 219/CHD/2012 W HILE CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 28.11.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-0 6 AND 2008-09, HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BO TH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD THE LE ARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE RECEIPTS IN THE NATURE OF CORPUS ARE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAVE BEEN RIG HTLY TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS AN AOP. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RE ITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW A ND SUBMITTED THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY TH E I.T.A.T. AGRA BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. M/S GAUD IYA GRANTH ANUVED TRUST, MATHURA IN ITA NO.386/AGRA/201 2 VIDE ORDER DATED 2.8.2013 AND ON IDENTICAL FACTS, T HE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL. THE COPY OF THE ORDER IS PLACED ON RECORD. 8. IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND FA CTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED C IT (APPEALS), WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTE RFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRING TO PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 12(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT CONSIDERED THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME. THE LEARNED C IT (APPEALS), THEREFORE, CORRECTLY HELD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS ASSESSED AS AN AOP AND NO REGISTRATION UNDER SEC TION 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT HAS BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12 O F THE INCOME TAX ACT WOULD NOT APPLY IN THE CASE OF THE A SSESSEE. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WILL ONLY APPLY IF THE ASSESSEE IS REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THEREFORE, ON THIS RE ASON ITSELF, THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DIS MISSED. FURTHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK THE STATUS OF TH E ASSESSEE TO BE AOP BUT IT IS A FACT ESTABLISHED ON RECORD 6 THAT THE ASSESSEE COLLECTED THE DONATION FOR CONSTR UCTION OF TEMPLE AND USED THE SAME DONATION SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION ONLY. THUS NO INCOME ACCR UES OR ARISES TO THE ASSESSEE AND NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BRO UGHT ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE STARTED DOING ANY ACTIVITY WHICH YIELDED ANY INCOME TO THE ASSESSEE. THE WORD ASSOCIATION MEANS TO JOIN IN COMMON PURPOSES, OR TO JOIN IN AN ACTION. THEREFORE, ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS , AS USED IN INCOME TAX ACT, MEANS AN ASSOCIATION IN WHICH TW O OR MORE PERSONS JOIN IN A COMMON PURPOSE OR COMMON ACT ION AND AS THE WORDS OCCURS IN INCOME TAX ACT, WHICH IM POSES A TAX ON INCOME, THE ASSOCIATION MUST BE ONE THE OBJE CT OF WHICH IS TO PRODUCE INCOME, PROFITS OR GAINS. WE RELY UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. INDIRA BALKRISHNA [39 ITR 546 (SC)]. THE LEAR NED CIT (APPEALS) CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD GAVE A SPECIFIC FINDING OF FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS MEANT FOR CHARITABLE AND RELIGIOUS PURPOSES AND WAS TOTALLY D EVOTED TO THE BUDDHIST TEMPLE/MONASTERY IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE WAS THUS AT THE STAGE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE AND HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY OTHER PROFESSION OR OCCUPATION FOR EARNING THE INCOME. THEREFORE, NO INCOME ACCRUES TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE H AS ALSO SPECIFICALLY PLEADED THAT THE DONATIONS WERE RECEIV ED AS CORPUS TOWARDS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE. THE REFORE, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO RECEIPTS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE NATURE OF INCOME. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RIGHTLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T., AGRA BENCH I N THE CASE OF ITO VS. M/S GAUDIYA GRANTH ANUVED TRUST, MATHURA (SUPRA), IN WHICH IDENTICAL QUESTION WAS INVOLVED I N WHICH THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS ALSO NOT REGISTERED UNDER SE CTION 12A OF 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND THE TRIBUNAL REFERRING TO OTHER DECISIONS OF OTHER BENCHES OF TH E TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL. COPY OF THE OR DER IS PLACED ON RECORD. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T., AGRA BENCH.CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE DEPA RTMENTAL APPEAL AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 7 7. IN THE ABOVE ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS CATEGORICAL LY HELD THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASSESSED THE ASSESSEE IN THE STATUS OF AOP AND IT STANDS ESTABLISHED ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COLLECTED THE DONATION FOR CO NSTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE AND USED THE SAME DONATION SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF C ONSTRUCTION ONLY. THUS, NO INCOME ACCRUES OR ARISES TO THE ASSESSEE AND NO MAT ERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT ASSESSEE HAS STARTED DOING ANY ACTIVITY WHICH YIELDED ANY INCOME TO IT. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AT THE STAGE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE AND HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY OTHER PROFESSION OR OCCUPATION FOR EARNING THE INCOME. THEREFORE, NO I NCOME ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO STATED THAT THERE WERE NO RECEIPT S IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE NATURE OF INCOME. IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF T HE TRIBUNAL DATED 28.10.2014, PASSED IN ASSESSEES CASE REFERRED TO ABOVE, THE A CTION OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS CANNOT BE HELD JU STIFIABLE. THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS FULLY APPLICABLE TO THESE YEARS BECAUSE THE ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED VIDE ORDER DATED 28.10.2104. ON THIS SCORE ALONE, THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS ARE LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 8. AT THE SAME TIME, IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED BY THE L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE REOPENING OF THE CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EARS UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS NOT VALID. THE ONLY REASON FOR REOPENING THE CASE AS P ER THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE IN VA LUATION OF BUILDING AS ASSESSED BY THE DVO AND AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. SHRI D INESH SOOD, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT REOPENING OF THE ASSES SMENT BASED ONLY ON THE OPINION OF THE DVO IS BAD IN LAW. RELIANCE WAS PLAC ED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. DHARIYA CONST RUCTION CO. (2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC), WHEREIN THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS H ELD THAT THE OPINION GIVEN BY THE DVO IS NOT PER-SE INFORMATION FOR THE PROPOSES OF REOPENING ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE HON'BLE SUPREM E COURT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT 8 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO APPLY HIS MIND TO THE INFORMATION, IF ANY, COLLECTED AND MUST FORM A BELIEF THEREON. IN THE INSTANT CASE , THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE INFORMATION, IF ANY, COLLECTED FOR FORMATION OF HIS BELIEF U/S 147 OF T HE ACT THAT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YE AR. THUS, THE REASONS FOR THE BELIEF OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ANY INCOME CHA RGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR MUST EXIST AND M UST BE RECORDED BEFORE ISSUING ANY NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND BEFORE MAKING ANY ASSESSMENT, RE-ASSESSMENT OR COMPUTATION OF INCOME U/S 147 OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE HOLD THAT REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT FOR ALL THE Y EARS UNDER CONSIDERATION IS NOT VALID, AND HENCE ON THIS SCORE ALONE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. ON MERITS ALSO, WE HAVE ALREADY OBSERVED HEREIN ABO VE THAT ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATI ON DESERVE TO BE ACCEPTED. 9. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26.11.2015 SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA) (H.L.KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 26 TH NOV., 2015 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR