Vibgyor Education Society, New Delhi V. DIT (Exemptions), New Delhi

ITA 2251/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 225120114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 07-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R S MEENA
• Keywords: Accommodation entries; Assessment record; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 12A; 148; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI B.C. MEENA ITA NO. 2251/DEL/2012 ASSTT. YR: 2002-03 VIBGYOR EDUCATION SOCIETY, VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOM E-TAX (E), E-1, (BASEMENT), PREET VIHAR, AAYKAR BHAWAN (3 RD FLOOR), DELHI-110092. LAXMI NAGAR DISTT. CENTRE, DELHI. PAN: AAATV 5566 C ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.P. RASTOGI ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.S. MEENA CIT (DR) O R D E R PER R.P. TOLANI, J.M : THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12-3-2012 PASSED BY THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS) U/S 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 RELATING TO A.Y. 2002-03. FOLLOWING GROUNDS AR E RAISED: 1. THAT THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) BY THE CIT IN RESPEC T OF REASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30 TH DECEMBER 2009,WHICH ITSELF IS ILLEGAL, IS BAD IN LAW. 2. THAT THE REASSESSMENT ORDER 30 TH DECEMBER 2009 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 147/143(3) OF THE ACT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSUMPTION OF JUR ISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE VERY SAME REASSESS MENT ORDER IS ALSO WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 2 3. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUNDS NO. 1 AND 2 AB OVE, THE REASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30 TH DECEMBER 2009, PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER MAKING DETAILED AND PROPER ENQUIRY, WAS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST O F REVENUE AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY CIT U/S 263 IS ARBITRARY, UNJUST, ILLEGAL AND IS BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW. 4. THAT HE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT PASSED BY THE C IT, BASED ON THE PROPOSAL OF THE SUCCEEDING ASSESSING OFFICER , WITHOUT EXAMINING THE ASSESSMENT RECORD AND HOLDING THAT TH E REASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30 TH DECEMBER 2009 IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 5. THAT THE CIT HAS ABDICATED HIS SATISFACTION, CON TEMPLATED U/S 263 OF THE ACT, TO THE SUCCESSOR ASSESSING OFFI CER AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 263 ON SUCH ABDICATED SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BAD IN LAW. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A CHARITABLE SOCIETY, REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT U/S 12A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE TRUST IS TO PROMOTE EDUCATION FROM NURSERY LEVEL TO HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL. RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. A.Y. 2 002-03, DECLARING A LOSS OF RS. 188/-, WAS FILED ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT AUD IT REPORT. THIS RETURN WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSM ENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED FOR DETAILS OF CORPUS DONATIONS ALONG WITH TH E ADDRESSES, PAN NUMBER AND WARD/CIRCLE OF EACH DONOR. THE DETAILS WERE DU LY FILED WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREAFTER ON VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS ABOUT THE CORPUS 3 FUNDS/ DONATIONS THEIR CONFIRMATIONS ETC. THE ASSES SMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. 2.1. THEREAFTER THE SAID COMPLETED ASSESSMENT U/S 1 43(3) WAS REOPENED U/S 148 BY RECORDING THE REASONS ABOUT VERIFYING CORPUS DONATIONS AGAIN. THE ASSESSEE AGAIN FILED DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER AND THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE DROPPED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFIC ER BY AN ORDER DATED 19- 12-2008. 2.2. AGAIN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE REOPENED U/S 148 ON THE SAME ISSUE I.E. VERIFICATION OF THE CORPUS DONATIONS. TH E ASSESSEE AGAIN COOPERATED AND FILED ALL THE DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO THE CORPUS DONATIONS. DURING THE COURSE OF THIRD ROUND OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SUMMONS U/S 133(6) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT ON THE CORPUS DONO RS, WHICH WERE DULY REPLIED ON 22-12-2009. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THIRD ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE SAME YEAR ACCEPTING THE CORPUS DONATIONS. A FTER THREE ROUNDS OF THE ASSESSMENT I.E. ONE ORIGINAL SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AN D TWO REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE DIT(E) ISSUED NOTICE U/S 263 DATED 3-12-2012 BY STATING FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. NO OFFICE NOTE HAS BEEN LEFT BY THE AO AS TO WH Y THE CASE HAS BEEN SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND HOW HE HA DEALT THOSE POINTS. 2. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAV E TAKEN THE CORPUS DONATION OF RS. 16,50,000/- AND THIS ISS UE WAS 4 REQUIRED TO BE INVESTIGATED BY THE AO BEFORE ACCEPT ING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT IT APPEARS FROM THE ABOV E THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN A VERY CASUAL MANNER WI THOUT MAKING ANY ENQUIRY ON THE PART OF AO TO EXAMINE TH E CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONORS. AO SHOULD HAVE RECO RDED THE STATEMENT OF THE DONORS BEFORE ACCEPTING THE CORPUS DONATION. MERE FILING OF CONFIRMATION AND OBTAINING THEIR BAN K STATEMENT DO NOT ESTABLISH THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. FURTHER PERUSAL OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ALLEGED DONORS IT IS TRANSPIRED TH AT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN CREDITED IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNT ONE OR TWO DAYS BEFORE THE SAME ARE TRANSFERRED OUT TO THE BEN EFICIARY I.E. VIBGYOR EDUCATION SOCIETY. EVEN THE AO HAS NOT OBTA INED THE BANK STATEMENTS FROM THE BANKS OF THE ALLEGED DONOR S TO VERIFY THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE BANK STATEMENTS FILED BY TH ESE DONORS. THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR THE SCRUTINY TO VERIFY TH E GENUINENESS OF THE CORPUS DONATIONS BUT AO HAS NOT MADE ANY EFFORT TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE CORPUS DONA TION. EVEN AO HAS FAILED TO NOTICE THAT NO PURPOSE HAS BEEN S PECIFIED FOR WHICH THE CORPUS DONATION ARE TO BE USED, ON THE CO NFIRMATION LETTER FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. I AM, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSMENT OR DER PASSED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTER EST OF THE REVENUE. YOU MAY, THEREFORE, SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER SHOULD NOT BE SET ASIDE TO BE MADE DE NOVO. 2.3. THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE 263 PROCEEDINGS ON FOL LOWING GROUNDS: (I) THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CAPACITY OF THE DONOR S HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE SUCCESSIVE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THR EE DIFFERENT OCCASIONS AND THEY WERE ACCEPTED AFTER DUE VERIFICA TION THEREOF. (II) VARIOUS COURTS HAVE HELD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE REQUISITE INFORMATION AND ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER H AVING RECORDED THE SATISFACTION ABOUT IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CA PACITY OF THE DONORS, HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AFTER DUE VERI FICATION OF THE 5 RECORD, SUCH ASSESSMENT DID NOT BECOME ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE AS THE CIT HOLDS A DIFF ERENT VIEW ABOUT THE WAY OF CONDUCTING INQUIRY OR ON THE GROUND THAT PROPER INQUIRIES WERE NOT MADE. THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON VAR IOUS JUDGMENTS WHICH ARE MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSEES LETTER DATED 17-2-2012. 2.4. THE DIT(E), HOWEVER, HELD THE ORDER TO BE ERRO NEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE AND SET ASIDE THE ASSES SMENT DATED 30-12-2009 BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: THE ABOVE FACTS CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE ASSESSMENT O RDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 DATED 31-12-2009 WAS FRAMED IN A HURRIED AND CASUAL MANNER WITHOUT ANY APPLICATION O F MIND, WITHOUT MAKING PROPER INQUIRIES AND WITH SCANT REGA RD TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE ABOVE M ENTIONED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30-12-2009 IS, THEREFORE, HE LD TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENU E. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2002-03 PA SSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 30-12-2009, I S, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE U/S 263 OF THE ACT WITH THE DI RECTIONS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, TRUST CIRCLE-IV, NEW DELHI TO EX AMINE THE ISSUES DISCUSSED IN THIS ORDER AND PASS A FRESH ASS ESSMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. 3. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE FACT S AND CONTENDS THAT THE ISSUE ABOUT CORPUS DONATIONS WAS EXAMINED NOT BY ON E OFFICER BUT BY WAY OF ONE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND TWO SUBSEQUENT REASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ISSUE ABOUT CORPUS DONATIONS, IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CAPACITY OF THE 6 DONORS WAS DULY EXAMINED. THE ASSESSEE FILED ALL T HE REQUISITE CONFIRMATIONS, PAN, ADDRESSES AND THE 133(6) NOTICE WERE ISSUED BY ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH DULY COMPLIED WITH BY RESPE CTIVE DONORS. THUS, PROPER INQUIRIES WERE CONDUCTED BY ASSESSING OFFICE R ON THREE OCCASIONS AND AFTER DUE VERIFICATION THEREOF, ACCEPTED THESE DONA TIONS BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: AS PER DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE DIT(INV.), NEW DEL HI, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF CORPUS DONATION AT RS. 16,50,000/- AS PER CHART GIVEN BELOW:- S. NO. DATE ON WHICH ENTRY RECEIVE. NAME OF THE DOOR AMOUNT (RS) 1. 12-11-2001 AJAY BANSAL 5,00,000/- 2. 12-11-2001 RAMNIK AGGARWAL 50,000/- 3. 12-11-2001 SHYAM LAL GOYAL 50,000/- 4. 12-11-2001 VINOD LAL AGGARWAL 50,000/- 5. 15-12-2001 K.R. FINCAP PVT. LTD. 2,50,000/- 6. 15-12-2001 PERFORMANCE TRADING & INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. 2,50,000/- 7. 18-12-2001 SEKHAWATI FINANCE PVT. LTD. 2,00,000 /- 8. 20-12-2001 BIC. CONSULTANT PVT. LTD. 2,00,000/- 9. 20-12-2001 SPERO MARKETING PVT. LTD. 1,00,000/- TOTAL 16,50,000/- ACCORDINGLY NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE DONORS TO CONFIRM THE AMOUNT OF DONA TION AND TO EXPLAIN THE MODE OF PAYMENT PURPOSE OF DONATION AND PANO/WARD/CIRCLE WHERE THEY ARE ASSESSED TO TAX ALO NG WITH COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SLIP FOR HAVING FILED THE R ETURN. THE DONORS FILED THE SAID INFORMATION/ DOCUMENTS VIDE LETTER(S) DATED 22-12-2009 FROM WHERE THE DONATIONS ARE VERIF IABLE. 7 LETTERS INTIMATIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN SENT TO THE CONC ERNED. ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE RESPECTIVE DONORS TO VERIF Y THE GENUINENESS DONATIONS AT THERE AND ALSO. 3.1. LD. COUNSEL CONTENDS THAT THIS IS AN EXCLUSIV E CASE WHERE AFTER ONE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND TWO 148 PROCEEDINGS, WHICH WERE CARRIED OUT TO INQUIRE ABOUT THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER I.E. VERACITY OF THE CORPUS DONATIONS, DESPITE SUCH ELABORATE INQUIRES STILL THE DEPARTME NT WENT AHEAD TO SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT WHICH IS IRONICAL. 3.2. IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF NO INQUIRY. BY AN EXTREME STRETCH OF IMAGINATION IT MAY BE PRESUMED OR ASSUME D THAT INADEQUATE INQUIRIES WERE CARRIED OUT BY THREE ASSESSING OFFIC ERS. IN THIS EVENTUALITY ALSO THE LAST ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH SPECIFICALLY DEALS WITH THESE CORPUS DONATIONS CAN NEITHER BE CALLED ERRONEOUS NOR PREJU DICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. IT IS ONLY IN THE CASE OF NO INQUIRY THAT REVISIONAL POWERS CAN BE EXERCISED AND NOT ON THE ALLEGATION OF INADEQUATE I NQUIRIES AS WHAT IS ADEQUATE AND INADEQUATE BECOMES A QUESTION OF PERCE PTION WHICH MAY VARY FROM PERSON TO PERSON. ON ASSUMPTION OF INADEQUATE INQUIRY, THE CIT CANNOT REVISE THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITY AS HELD BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SUNBEAM AUTO 332 ITR 167 (DEL). 3.3. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE DIT(E)S ORDER THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS BEING HELD AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTE REST OF REVENUE AS IT WAS 8 OBSERVED THAT THE ORDER WAS PASSED IN HURRY AND CAS UAL MANNER WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND, WITHOUT MAKING PROPER INQUIRES WITH SCANT REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME-TAX ACT. THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY DIT(E) ARE SWEEPING AND GENERAL IN NATURE AND SELF CONTRADICTO RY. THE FACT THAT THE VERIFICATION WAS DONE THREE TIMES, IT CANNOT BE ALL EGED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS FRAMED IN CASUAL AND HARRIED MANNER. SINE INQUIRES ARE CONDUCTED, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THERE IS NO APPLICATION OF MIND OR PROPER INQUIRIES AND WITH SCANT REGARD OF THE PROVISIONS. 3.4. THE OBSERVATIONS OF DIT(E) RATHER INDICATE THA T HE HAS HELD THE ORDER AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REV ENUE WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY INSTANCE OF ERROR OR PREJUDICE TO THE REVENUE. THE OBSERVATIONS ARE FIGMENTS OF IMAGINATION AND SWEEPING ASSUMPTIONS. F URTHER RELIANCE IS PLACED ON HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT IN TH E CASE OF VIKAS POLYMERS 194 TAXMANN 57. FURTHER RELIANCE IS PLACED ON HONBLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIES 24 0 ITR 83 FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT IF ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADOPTED O NE OF THE POSSIBLE AND PLAUSIBLE VIEWS, SUCH ORDER CANNOT BE HELD ERRONEOU S MERELY BECAUSE THE HIGHER AUTHORITY HOLDS ANOTHER VIEW IN THIS REGARD. 4. LD. CIT(DR) ON THE OTHER HAND CONTENDS THAT THE INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT THAT ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT WA S REOPENED. THE RECORD 9 STANDS TESTIMONY TO THE FACT THAT PROPER INQUIRIES WERE NOT MADE OUT AND WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THERE WERE SERIOUS ALLEGA TIONS OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES, THE ASSESSEES VERSION WAS ACCEPTED. 4.1. FOR THE ERROR OF THE DEPARTMENTAL OFFICERS, AS SESSEE HAS NUMEROUS REMEDIES I.E. APPEAL, RECTIFICATION, WRIT JURISDICT ION AND 264 ETC. WHEREAS DEPARTMENT AHS ONLY LIMITED REMEDY BY WAY OF 263. S INE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DID NOT CA RRY OUT PROPER INQUIRIES PURSUANT TO NOTICE U/S 133(6), THEREFORE, DIT(E) HA S RIGHTLY EXERCISED HIS REVISIONAL JURISDICTION. 5. LD. COUNSEL, IN REPLY, CONTENDS THAT ASSESSEE H AS FILED LETTERS OF THE DONORS WITH ASSESSING OFFICER PURSUANT TO 133(6) NO TICES. BESIDES, MERELY BECAUSE THERE IS AN ALLEGATION FROM THE DIT(E), AT THE MOST IT MAY BE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF VERIFICATION AND SUCH INFORMATION DOS NOT BECOME A PROOF SO AS TO ENABLE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ABDICATE H IS POWER OF INQUIRIES AND ACCEPT THE INFORMATION CONTRADICTING THE MATERIAL C OLLECTED BY INQUIRY. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO FORCE IN SAYING THAT INQUIR ES WERE NOT CONDUCTED. THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CIT(DR)S CONTENTION THAT ASSESSEE HAS 4 REMEDIES AND DEPARTMENT HAS ONE REMEDY, THEREFORE SOME CONCE SSION SHOULD BE GIVEN ON STATUTORY PROVISION. THIS CONTENTION IS DEVOID O F MERIT. 6. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE ENTIRE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FACTS ABOUT THIS CASE HAVE BE EN NARRATED ABOVE IN DETAILS. FROM THREE SUCCESSIVE ASSESSMENT ORDERS IT EMERGES THAT INQUIRIES WERE CONDUCTED, INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM DIT(E) WA S IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUCCESSIVE OFFICERS, THEREFORE, NO PRESUMPTION CAN BE MADE THAT THE OFFICERS WERE OBLIVIOUS OF THE INFORMATION AND SCOP E OF DIT(E)S INFORMATION. THEREFORE, WE ARE UNABLE TO GIVE ANY C REDIENCE TO THE PROPOSITION THAT DESPITE THE INFORMATION, THREE SUC CESSIVE ASSESSING OFFICERS 10 WERE IGNORANT AND DID NOT TAKE IT INTO CONSIDERATIO N. THE FACTUM OF INQUIRES AND CONFIRMATION BY DONORS IS WRITTEN AT LARGE IN T HE ASSESSMENT ORDERS AND WE SEE NO JUSTIFICATION IN DIT(E)S VENTURE TO SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT BY EXERCISING HIS REVISIONAL POWERS AS NO CRITERIA EX ISTS WHICH MERITS THE ACTION OF THE DIT(E). THE LANGUAGE USED BY THE DIT(E) IN H OLDING THE ORDER AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL ITSELF IS VAGUE, SWEEPING WITHOUT ANY SPECIFIC FACT. IN VIEW THEREOF, WE HOLD THAT THE REVISIONAL POWER HAD BEEN EXERCISED BY DIT(E) WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATION, THE SAME IS QUASH ED. 7. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 13-09-2013. SD/- SD/- ( B.C. MEENA ) ( R.P. TOLANI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 13 TH SEPT. 2013. MP COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR