Smt. Uma Devi Singodia, CHURU V. CIT-III, JAIPUR

ITA 255/JODH/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4750 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 14-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 25-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALKA R JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: SURESH OJHA SH D S BOHRA
• Keywords: Business income; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI B.P JAIN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.255/JODH/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010 - 11 SMT. UMA DEVI SINGODIA VS. THE CIT - III PROP. M/S BALAJ I ART & HANDICRAFTS JAIPUR RAMGARH ROAD, RATANNAGAR CHURU PAN NO. ATNPS0062N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. SURESH OJHA SH. D.S. BOHRA RESPONDENT BY : SMT. ALKA R. JAIN DATE OF HEARING : 14/12 /2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMEN T : 16/12/16 ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY , JM THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BEFORE US BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT - III DT. 30/03/2015, UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 DATED 30/03/2015 PASSED BY THE WORTHY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - III, JAIPUR IS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND BASED ON MERE CHANGE OF OPINION. 2 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) DATED 29/01/2013 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 3. THAT ON THE MERITS THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE WORTHY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X ARE VAGUE AND CONTRARY TO LAW. 4. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PRACTICE FOLLOWED BY THE APPELLANT BECAUSE IN THE PAST THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED IT AS BUSINESS INCOME AND IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 THE SAME WAS ALSO TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME, HENCE, ALL THE EXPENSES CLAIMED ARE ALLOWABLE UNDER LAW AND SAME HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 5. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN PARA 1 HAS PREDETERMINED THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPEARED TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE WITHOUT MENTIONING ANY COGENT REASON. 6. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ON ONE HAND STATED IN PARA 2 THAT AFTER DETAILED DISCUSSION AND PRO PER ENQUIRY AND EXAMINATION OF EXPENDITURE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED A TOTAL SUM OF RS. 24,42,725/ - AGAINST THE RENT RECEIVED OF RS. 41,76,000/ - AND ON THE ORDER, SHE MENTIONED IN PARA 5 THAT ISSUE OF EXPENDITURE HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF S ECTION 57(III) WHICH IS TOTALLY CONTRARY AND NOT SUSTAINABLE. 7. THAT THE ORDER MADE UNDER SECTION 263 IS CONTRARY TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S MALABAR INDUSTRIAL COMPANY VERSUS CIT, 243 ITR, PAGE 83 AND 51 ITR, PAGE 353 AN D ALSO HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (2013), 84 ITR, PAGE 449(RAJ.), (2014), 360 ITR, PAGE 225 AND THEREFORE, WHEN TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE EVEN OTHERWISE PROVISION OF SECTION 263 CANNOT BE INVOKED. 8. THAT HONBLE APEX COURT IN 115ITR, PAGE 519 HAS HELD THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT ANY INCOME SHOULD IN FACT HAVE BEEN EARNED AS A RESULT OF THE EXPENDITURE. WHAT SECTION 57(III) REQUIRES IS THAT THE EXPENDITURE MUST BE LAID OUT OR EXPENDED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING OR EAR NING INCOME. 9. THAT THE TEST OF ALLOWABILITY UNDER SECTION 57(III) IS THAT THE EXPENDITURE MUST E FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING OF MAKING THE INCOME AND IN THE PRESENT CASE HAD THE FACTORY OR MACHINERIES WAS 3 NOT IN EXISTENCE, THEN NO RENTAL INCOME COULD HAVE BEEN EARNED, HENCE, EXPENSES CLAIMED ARE LEGALLY ALLOWABLE. 10. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN REPLY FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND HER OBSERVATION REGARDING ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND THE SAID VIEW APPLIED TO IS NOT LEGAL AND PROPER AND FROM THE ORDER IT IS NOT ESTABLISHED ANYWHERE THAT IT WAS ERRONEOUS ORDER OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 IS NOT TENABLE IN LAW AN D SHOULD BE CANCELLED. 11. THAT THE APPELLANT KEEPS HERE RIGHTS EITHER TO AMEND ANY GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE TRIBUNAL. 2. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED MULTIPLE GROUNDS OF APPEAL HOWEVER THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IN THE GROUND OF APPEA L IS WHETHER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT UNDER SECTION 263 IS MAINTAINABLE. THAT SINCE THE GROUNDS ARE RELATED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, THE MATTER IS DEALT TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. THE BRIEF FAC TS APPEARING IN THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME SHOWING RS. 3,88,280/ - WHICH THE AO HAS ASSESSED AT RS. 4,71,610/ - . THE ASSESSEE IS THE SOLE OWNER OF A FACTORY PREMISES WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN ON RENT TO M/S INTRADING CO. PVT. LTD. THE ASSESSEE RETURNED THE RENTAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION AND CLAIMED CERTAIN EXPENDITURE AGAINST THE SAME. AFTER DETAILED DISCUSSION, THE A.O. TREATED THE INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES UNDER SECTION 56(2)(III) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLET ED UNDER SECTION 143 (3) OF THE ACT. 4 4. THAT THE LD. CIT IN HIS ORDER OBSERVE D THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO APPEARED TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE IN SO MUCH THAT THE AO HAS ALLOWED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 14,11,91 4/ - UNDER THE HEAD INTEREST PAYMENT AND RS. 1,90,000/ - UNDER OTHER EXPENDITURE RELATING TO TELEPHONE EXPENSES, AUDIT FEE, OFFICE EXPENDITURE ETC. WITHOUT EXAMINING THE ALLOWABILITY UNDER SECTION 57(II) OF THE ACT EVEN THOUGH HE HAD ASSESSED THE INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THAT FURTHER THE LD. CIT IN HIS ORDER PERUSED THE RENT DEED WHEREIN IT IS CLEARLY STATED THAT THE EXPENDITURE FOR DAY TO DAY MAINTENANCE OF THE BUILDING WAS TO BE BORNE BY THE TENANT. THE RELEVANT PARAS OF THE SAID RENT DEED F INDS PLACE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND IS ON RECORD. THAT THE LD. CIT OPINED THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE VIEWED IN LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 57(III)OF THE ACT WHICH THE AO HAS NOT DONE. EXPENDITURES RELATING TO INTERES T, INSURANCE CHARGES, OTHER EXPENDITURE AND INTEREST PAYMENTS ARE ON PERSONAL LOANS HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. THE AO HAS NOT EXAMINED THESE IN THE LIGHT OF SECTION 57 (III) OF THE ACT. THESE EXPENDITURES DID NOT RELATE WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY TO EARNING THE RENTAL INCOME. THESE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. ACCORDINGLY THE LD. CIT HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS THEREFORE ERRONEOUS AND 5 PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE IN TERMS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT WAS SET ASIDE. 5. THA T BEING FURTHER AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US. THAT AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT AND AT THE SAME TIME REFERRED IN DETAILS TO THE PAPER BOOK FILED IN THIS CASE. THAT SPECIF ICALLY REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE PAGES 34 & 35 WHEREIN DETAILS WERE ASKED BY THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, PAPER BOOK PAGE 36 , THE ANSWER OF THOSE QUERIES BY THE ASSESSEE AND PAGES 38 & 39 OF THE PAPER BOOK AS WELL. THE LD. AR FURTHER RELIED ON VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS WHICH ARE IN THE PAPER BOOK AND HENCE ON RECORD AND MORE SPECIFICALLY THE LD. AR RELIED ON CASE OF RAKESH KUMAR SINGODIA VS. CIT - III IN ITA NO.259/JODHPUR/2015. 6. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD . CIT. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND WE OBSERVED FROM THE PAPER BOOK FILED THAT RELEVANT ENQUIRY AS REGARDS THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED BY THE AO. THAT IN THE QUES TIONNAIRE FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSEE POINT NO. 15 SPECIFICALLY 6 ASKED FOR THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES CLAIMED ALONGWITH RELEVANT VOUCHERS. THAT IN THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO POINT NO. 15 STATES THAT DETAILS OF EXPENSES ARE ENCLOSED HEREWIT H. THAT THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER VERY METICULOUSLY CALLED FOR EVIDENCE IN RELATION TO EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE HEREIN. THE LD. CIT WHILE INVOKING JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 HAS NOT STATED WHY THESE ENQUIRIES WERE NOT SUFFICIENT OR WHE THER THERE WAS ANY LACUNA IN THE ACTION OF THE AO CALLING FOR THESE DETAILS. THE LD. CIT IN HIS ORDER HAS SIMPLY STATED THAT AO HAS NOT CONDUCTED PROPER EXAMINATION IN THE LIGHT OF SECTION 57(III) OF THE ACT. THAT HOWEVER EVIDENCE ON RE CORD SUGGESTS OTHERW ISE AND WE FIND THAT DUE ENQUIRY RELATING TO THE EXPENSES CLAIMED WERE CONDUCTED BY THE AO IN THIS CASE. THAT FURTHERMORE OBSERVING THE CASE REFER TO BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 259/JODHPUR/2015 WHEREIN THE FACTS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE ASS ESSEE. THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT, JODHPUR WHILE QUASHING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 7. BEFORE US BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE REITERATED THEIR EARLIER STAND. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ORAL AS WELL AS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE US. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED CAREFULLY THE ENTIRE EVIDENCES AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS TRITE THAT AN ORDER CAN BE REVISED ONLY AND ONLY IF TWIN CONDITIONS OF ERROR IN THE ORDER AND PREJUDICE CAUSED TO THE REVENUE CO - EXIST. THE SUBJECT OF REVISIONI UNDER SECTION 263 HAS BEEN VASTLY EXAMINED AND ANALYZED BY VARIOUS COURTS INCLUDING THAT OF HONBLE APEX COURT. THE REVISIONAL POWER CONFERRED ON THE CIT VIDE SECTION 263 IS OF VIDE AMPLITUDE. IT ENABLES THE CIT TO CALL FOR AN EX AMINE THE RECORDS OF ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THE ACT. IT EMPOWERS THE CIT TO MAKE OR CAUSE TO BE MADE SUCH AN ENQUIRY AS HE DEEMS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO FIND 7 OUT IF ANY ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTER ESTS OF THE REVENUE. THE ONLY LIMITATION ON HIS POWERS IS THAT HE MUST HAVE SOME MATERIAL(S) WHICH WOULD ENABLE HIM TO FORM A PRIMA FACIE OPINION THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. ONCE HE COMES TO THE ABOVE CONCLUSION ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, THE CIT IS EMPOWERED TO PASS AN ORDER AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE MAY WARRANT. HE MAY PASS AN ORDER ENHANCING THE ASSESSMENT OR HE MAY MODIFY THE ASSESSMENT. HE IS ALSO EMPOWERED TO CANCEL THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECT TO FRAME FRESH ASSESSMENT. HE IS EMPOWERED TO TAKE RECOURSE TO ANY OF THE THREE COURSES INDICATED IN SE CTION 263. THE CIT IS REQUIRED TO EXERCISE REVISIONAL POWER WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW AND HAS TO SATISFY THE NEED OF FAIRNESS IN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION AND FAIR PLAY WITH DUE RESPECT TO THE PRINCIPLE OF AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM AS ENVISAGED IN THE CONSTITUTIO N OF INDIA AS WELL AS IN SECTION 263. AN ORDER CAN BE TREATED AS ERRONEOUS IF IT WAS PASSED IN UTTER IGNORANCE OR IN VIOLATION OF ANY LAW; OR PASSED WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS OR BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION IRRELEVANT FACTS . THE REVISION HAS TO BE DONE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SETTING RIGHT DISTORTIONS AND PREJUDICES CAUSED TO THE REVENUE IN THE ABOVE CONTEXT. THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES WHICH EMERGE FROM THE SEVERAL CASES REGARDING THE POWERS OF THE CIT UNDER SECTION 263 MAY BE SU MMARIZED BELOW: (I) THE CIT MUST RECORD SATISFACTION THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. BOTH THE CONDITIONS MUST BE FULFILLED. (II) SECTION 263 CANNOT BE INVOKED TO CORRECT EACH AND EVERY TYPE OF MISTAKE OR ERROR COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IT IS ONLY WHEN AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS, THAT THE SECTION WILL BE ATTRACTED. (III) AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACTS OR AN INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW WILL SUFFICE FOR THE REQUIREMENT OR ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS. (IV) IF THE ORDER IS PASSED WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND, SUCH ORDER WILL FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF ERRONEOUS ORDER. (V) EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND IF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW UNDER WITH WHICH THE CIT DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER, UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE UNDER THE LAW. (VI) IF WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINES THE ACCOUNTS, MAKES ENQUIRIES, APPLIES HIS MIND TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND DETERMINES THE INCOME, THE CIT, WHILE EXERCISING HI S POWER UNDER SECTION 263, IS NOT PERMITTED TO 8 SUBSTITUTE HIS ESTIMATE OF INCOME IN PLACE OF THE INCOME ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. (VII) THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXERCISE QUASI - JUDICIAL POWER VESTED IN HIM AND IF HE EXERCISE SUCH POWER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ARRIVES AS A CONCLUSION, SUCH CONCLUSION CANNOT BE TERMED TO BE ERRONEOUS SIMPLY BECAUSE THE CIT DOES NOT FEEL SATISFIED WITH THE CONCLUSION. (VIII) THE CIT, BEFORE EXERCISING THE JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263, MUST HAVE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO ARRIVE AT A SATISFACTION. (IX) IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ENQUIRIES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE RELEVANT ISSUES AND THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN DETAILED EXPLANATION BY A LETTER IN WRITING AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED THE CLAIM ON BEING SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE DECISION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS SIMPLY BECAUSE IN HIS ORDER HE DOES NOT MAKE AN ELABORATE DISCUSSION IN THAT REGARD. 8. ADVERTING TO THE FACTS OF THE GIVE N CASE, WE ARE CONVINCED THIS IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING A FACTORY HAVING LAND AND BUILDING, MACHINERY, GENERATOR SET ETC AND WAS MANUFACTURING WOODEN ARTICLES AND THE INCOME WAS ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME. SUBSEQUENTLY, ALL THESE A SSETS WERE LEASED OUT FOR BETTER EXPLOITATION OF COMMERCIAL ASSETS, AND INCOME WAS OFFERED AS BUSINESS INCOME. EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR EARNING THE INCOME WAS CORRECTLY ALLOWED BY AO. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF ADMITTED THE INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER TWO YEARS AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND THERE WAS NO MATERIAL CHANGE DURING THE YEAR. AFTER MAKING DETAILED VERIFICATION THE AO HAD ALLOWED THE EXPENSES WHICH WERE INCURRED FOR EARNING THE INCOME AND DISALLOWED SOME OF THE EXPENDITURE DEEMED P ROPER BY HIM AND, AS SUCH, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE WAS LACK OF ENQUIRY AT THE END OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS SUCH WE SEE NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE LD. CIT TO EXERCISE THE POWER U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND HOLDING THE ORDER AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE SO FAR AS IT PERTAINS TO ALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE SO INCURRED FOR EARNING THIS INCOME. THE CASES RELIED BY THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE ARE APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND, AS SUCH, WE HEREBY QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD . CIT - III, JAIPUR UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE . 8. THAT ON BASIS OF THESE FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS WE ACCORDINGLY QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE. 9 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/ - SD/ - (B.P. JAIN) ( PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 16/12/2016 A G COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR