N. Pappi @ Nandhakumari, W/o.A. Natarajan, Salem V. ITO, Salem

ITA 2594/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7575 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 06-09-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVA SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Revised return
• Section: 142(1); 133A; 153A; 234B; 131; 132; 2; 139

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI , . , BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO S . 2 5 9 3 AND 2 5 9 4 /MDS/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 3 - 0 4 SMT. N. PAPPI @ NANDHAKUMARI, W/O. S HRI A. NATARAJAN, 125/3, SANKAGIRI MAIN ROAD, NETHIMEDU, SALEM 638 002. [PAN: A OUPP4028H ] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD I ( 2 ) , 3, GANDHI ROAD, SALEM 636 007 . ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI G. BASKAR, ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : S HRI S HIVA SRINIVAS , J CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 20 . 02 .201 7 / DAT E OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 03 . 0 3 .201 7 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER : BOTH THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE SAME ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDER S OF THE LD. COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , SALEM BOTH DATED 29 . 0 7 .201 6 R ELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 3 - 0 4 PASSED UNDER 144 R.W.S. 263 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [ ACT IN SHORT] AS WELL AS PENALTY ORDER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED AGAINST PART CONFIRMATION OF I.T.A. NO . 2 5 9 3 & 2 5 9 4 / M/ 1 6 2 DISALLOWANCE OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS AS WELL AS CONFIRMATION OF INTEREST INCOME FROM OWN BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A. NO. 2 5 9 3 /MDS/2016 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND WIFE OF SHRI A. NATARAJAN. THE ASSESS EE S HUSBAND WAS ENGAGED IN MONEY LENDING AND TRADING IN SHARE AND ALSO A PARTNER IN THE FINANCE FIRMS NAMELY M/S. TAMILNADU FINANCE, M/S. SRI BALAJI ENTERPRISES A ND M/S. SALEM TIRUMALAI FINANCE, WHERE A SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED O N 03.03.2004 IN THESE FIRMS. ON RECEIPT OF THE REFERENCE FROM ADIT (INV.), NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 29.07.2004 T O THE ASSESSEE CALLING FOR RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RE SPONDED TO THE ABOVE NOTICE, ANOTHER NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT DATED 05.12.2005 WAS ISSUED. FURTHER NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 03.02.2006. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE RETURN OF INCOME OR T HE DETAILS AS CALLED FOR IN THE NOTICE SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMONS, THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND STATEMENT WAS RECORDED FROM H ER ON 07 .03.2006. IN HER STATEMENT, SHE HAS STATED THAT TO HAVE OBTAINED LOAN OF .4,00,000/ - FROM HER FATHER - IN - LAW AND MOTHER - IN - LAW. MEANWHILE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GATHERED DETAILS FROM THE BANKS AND STOCK BROKERS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR, A PROPOSAL UNDER SECTION 144 OF TH E ACT I.T.A. NO . 2 5 9 3 & 2 5 9 4 / M/ 1 6 3 WAS ISSUED TO H ER ON 20.03.2006, CALLING FOR OBJECTIONS, IF ANY. SH E HAS FILED H ER OBJECTION ON 23.03.2006. ACCORDINGLY, BASED ON THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE AS ON THE DATE ON RECORD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED BEST JUDGEMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT DATED 28.03.2006 BY ASSESSING TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT .9,083/ - . AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT, VIDE HIS ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DATED 05.12.2006, THE LD. CIT HAS SET ASIDE THE ORDER WITH FOLLOWING SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS. WHILE COMPARING CREDITS IN THE SYNDICATE BANK WITH LOANS FROM FATHER - IN - LAW, CREDIT SHOULD BE ALLOWED ONLY FOR THOSE LOANS WHICH WERE RECEIVED IN THE RELEVANT YEAR (AND NOT IN EARLIER YEAR) AND ROUTED THROUGH BANK ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS POSTED THE CASE FOR HEARING, BUT THE ASSESS EE FAILED TO APPEAR DESPITE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. BASED ON THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON AND IN VIEW OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT ON 30.03.2007 ASSESSING TAXABLE INCOME AT . 4,09,083 / - AFTER MAKING ADDITION TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS. 3. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSE E, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE . I.T.A. NO . 2 5 9 3 & 2 5 9 4 / M/ 1 6 4 4. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT WITHOUT GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORT UNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT WAS PASSED . 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES TO FURNISH THE DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE DETAILS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONCLUDED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT. EVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY PROOF OR EVIDENCES FOR THE DEPOSITS. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. TH US , THE LD. DR HAS PLEADED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE CONFIRMED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDE RS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSMENT WAS PASSED UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT. AGAINST THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT ON 03.03.2004 IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF ASSESSEE S HUSBAND , A SWORN STATEMENT WAS RECORDE D FROM THE ASSESSEE. AGAINST THE SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND STATEMENT WAS ALSO RECORDED FROM H ER ON 14.03.2006. IN COMPLIANCE TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT, ON VERIFICATION MADE WITH THE ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSING I.T.A. NO . 2 5 9 3 & 2 5 9 4 / M/ 1 6 5 OFFICER FOUND THAT NONE OF THE SET LOAN FROM HER PARENTS - IN - LAW WAS MADE/PASSED THROUGH HER BANK ACCOUNT ON 16.12.2002 AND ALSO FOUND THAT THEY WERE WELL BEFORE 16.12.2002, THE DATE OF INVESTMENT. FURTHER, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR FILED ANY PROOF OR ANY EVIDENCES FOR THE DEPOSITS OF .4,09,083/ - , AND THERE FORE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THE BEST JUDGEMENT ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT BY MAKING ADDITION. ON FURTHER APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY PROOF OR ANY EVIDENCE FOR THE DEPOSITS OF .4,09,083/ - AND THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. EVEN BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY PROOF OR ANY EVIDENCE FOR THE DEPOSIT OF .4,09,083/ - . ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THUS, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 7. THE NEXT GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE IN TEREST UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234C SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED TILL THE DATE OF FIRST ASSESSMENT OF 28.03.2006 AND NOT 30.03.2007 PASSED UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, ON RECEIPT OF THE REFERENCE FROM THE ADIT (INV.) WITH REGARD TO CONDUCT OF SURVEY I.T.A. NO . 2 5 9 3 & 2 5 9 4 / M/ 1 6 6 UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT IN ASSESSEE S HUSBAND S CASE, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED AND AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT ON 30.03.2007. BEFORE US, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED ON 28.03.2006, THE SAME STANDS QUASHED BY TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECKONED THE DATE OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT FOR CALCULATING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. 7.1 BY RELYING ON THE DECISI ON IN THE CASE OF MODI INDUSTRIES LTD. V. CIT 216 ITR 759 (SC), THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234C SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED TILL THE DATE OF FIRST ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT PASSE D ON 28.03.2006 AND NOT 30.03.2007 PASSED UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT. 7.2 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF MODI INDUSTRIES LTD. V. CIT (SUPRA), WHEREIN, THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT ..HAVING REGARD TO THE SCHEME OF THE ACT AND USE OF THE PHRASE REGULAR ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN USED IN NO OTHER SENSE THAN THE FIRST ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED UNDER SECTION 143 OR 144. IF ANY CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER HAS TO BE PASSED BY THE INCOME - TAX OFFICE R TO GIVE EFFECT TO AN ORDER PASSED BY THE HIGHER AUTHORITY THAT CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER CANNOT BE TREATED AS REGULAR ASSESSMENT NOR CAN THE DATE OF THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER BE TREATED AS THE DATE OF THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT . I.T.A. NO . 2 5 9 3 & 2 5 9 4 / M/ 1 6 7 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DIRECT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CHARGE THE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT TILL THE 28.03.2006 I.E., THE FIRST ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. THUS, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. I.T.A. NO.259 4 /MDS/2016 8. CONSEQUENT TO THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND LEVIED MINIMUM PENALTY OF .1,01,561/ - UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 27.09.2007. 8.1 D URING THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME, BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME. IT WAS DULY ADMITTED AS WELL AS ESTABLISHED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN SHARE BUSINESS THROUGH THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THE PARTICULARS OF WHICH HAS BEEN CONCEALED BY THE ASSESSEE. HAD THE DEPARTMENT NOT MADE A SURVEY IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE S HUSBAND UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT, THESE FACT S WOULD NOT HAVE COME TO LIGHT. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK AS WELL AS IN THE SHARES, BUT PURPOSELY CONCEALED THESE PARTICULARS TO THE DEPARTMENT. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED INCOME OUT OF SHARE BUSINESS, IT IS THE DUT Y OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE THE SAME AND FILE RETURN OF INCOME, WHICH WAS NOT DONE BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I.T.A. NO . 2 5 9 3 & 2 5 9 4 / M/ 1 6 8 THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED MINIMUM PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 8.2 THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFO RE THE LD. CIT(A) AGAINST THE PENALTY ORDER. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 8.4 WE HAVE HEARD RIVA L SUBMISSIONS. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139 OR UNDER ANY SUB - SECTION TO SECTION 139 OF THE ACT. DESPITE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME. HAD TH E DEPARTMENT NOT MADE A SURVEY IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE S HUSBAND UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT, ASSESSEE S SHARE BUSINESS AND DEPOSITS WOULD NOT HAVE COME TO LIGHT. IT HAS BEEN PROVED AND ESTABLISHED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK AS WELL AS I N THE SHARES, BUT PURPOSELY CONCEALED THESE PARTICULARS TO THE DEPARTMENT. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED INCOME OUT OF SHARE BUSINESS, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE THE SAME AND FILE RETURN OF INCOME, WHICH WAS NOT DONE BY THE ASSESSEE. UNDER T HESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED MINIMUM PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NO CASE OR CONTROVERTED THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. I.T.A. NO . 2 5 9 3 & 2 5 9 4 / M/ 1 6 9 8.5 BEFORE US, BY RE LYING ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF R.V. ELANGO V. ITO IN I.T.A. NO. 1768 TO 1779/MDS/2012 DATED 26.11.2012, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT NON - FILING OF RETURN ALONE CANNOT LEAD TO LEVY OF PENALTY. IN THE CASE LAW RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE, IN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139 OF THE ACT. CONSEQUENT TO SEARCH OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT AND IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTIC E UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HIS REVISED RETURN OF INCOME AND THE INCOME RETURNED WERE ALMOST ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE INCOMES RETURNED AS PER THE ORIGINAL RETU RNS AND AS PER THE SUBSEQUENT RETURNS, AS THE INCOME CONCEALED BY THE ASSESSEE AND LEVIED PENALTIES . IN THAT CASE THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF INCOME DECLARED IN THE SUBSEQUENT RETURN WAS WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF CASH FLOW STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DIFFERENCE CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO ANY SINGLE ITEM. THEREFORE, A CASE OF CONCEALMENT IS NOT DISCERNIBLE FROM THE RECORDS. IT IS EQUALLY TRUE TO SAY THAT ALL THE PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS ALSO DISCERNIBLE FROM THE RECORDS . IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED THAT THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT MADE OUT A FACTUAL CASE TO APPLY EXPLANATION 5A AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). THEREFORE, THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF T HE ACT WAS DELETED. I.T.A. NO . 2 5 9 3 & 2 5 9 4 / M/ 1 6 10 8.6 IN THE PRESENT CASE, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139 OF THE ACT NOR FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT DATED 29.07.2004, 05.12.2005 AND 03.02.2006. DURI NG THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY PROOF OR EVIDENCE FOR THE DEPOSIT MADE TO THE EXTENT OF .4,09,083/ - . THEREFORE, IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND THE QUANTUM ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS TRIBUNAL. UNDER THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . 9 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST PENALTY ORDER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 03 RD MARCH , 201 7 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 03. 0 3 .201 7 VM/ - I.T.A. NO . 2 5 9 3 & 2 5 9 4 / M/ 1 6 11 / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT , 2. / RES PONDENT , 3. ( ) / CIT(A) , 4. / CIT , 5. / DR & 6. / GF.