Smt. T.V. Nagasena, Bangalore V. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 296/BANG/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 60741 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SARAVANAN
• Assessee Lawyers: R CHANDRASHEKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Source of fund; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 234B; 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH A BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.296/BANG/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) SMT. T.V. NAGASENA, NO.53, RAJATHADRI, 6 TH CROSS, HVR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 079 . APPELLANT. PAN ABBPN4668B VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 13(1), BANGALORE. .. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI R. CHANDRASHEKAR. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B. SARAVANAN. DATE OF HEARING :29.05.2012. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.5.2012. O R D E R PER SHRI JASON P. BOAZ : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-V, BANGALORE DATED 4.3.2011 FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE AS UNDER : THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, EMPLOYED AS STENOGRAPHER WITH THE OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E), BANGALORE FILED HER RETUR N OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON 17.7.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 79,410. ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD IN THE RELEVANT PERIOD SOLD A PROPERTY MEASURING 30 X 40 SQ. FT. SITUATED AT WARD 34, RAILWAY PIPE LINE C HORD ROAD LAYOUT B ASO ASSOCIATION, HOUSE NO.358, BANGALORE ON 3.7.2007 TO M/S. GRAVITY INDIA TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD, BANGALORE FOR A SUM OF RS. 8 LAKHS, SCRUTINY PROCEE DINGS WERE INITIATED BY ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) ON 13.8.2009. ON THE BASIS OF THE DETAILS IN THE SALE DEED AND ON 2 ITA NO.296/BANG/11 INFORMATION OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE SUB-REGISTRARS OFFICE, VIJAYANAGAR, THE GUIDELINE VALUE FOR THE PROPERTY F OR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES ON THAT DATE WAS RS. 27,60,000. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKED THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED AS 'THE ACT') REJECTED THE ASSESSEES OBJECTIONS TO SUBSTITUTING THE SALE CONSIDERATION W ITH THE GUIDELINE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND COMPUTED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS (LTCG) ON THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS. 17,96,160. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON EXAMINATION OF THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT WITH KARNATAKA BANK LTD FOUND THAT THERE WAS SEVERAL CAS H DEPOSITS THEREIN AND ON THIS COUNT BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE ASSESSEES HANDS AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,77,000 AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY COMPLE TED THE ASSESSMENT BY AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 22.4.2010 DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 20,25,570. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) SUBSTANTI ALLY UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWING MARGINAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFO RE US. INITIALLY THE ASSESSEE RAISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL BUT SUBSEQUENTLY ON 18.5.2012 AMENDED GRO UNDS OF APPEAL WERE FILED WHICH ARE AS UNDER : 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORD ER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN APPELLANTS CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADD ITION UNDER LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS, WHEN IT IS ON RECORD THAT LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ISSUED NOTICE TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE REMITTED THE MATTER TO THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO PROVIDE AN OP PORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT ARE INVOKED. 4. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE REFERRED THE ISSUE OF DETERMINATION OF MARKET VALUE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADD ITION MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS. 1,77,000 UNDER OTHER SOUR CES IN RESPECT OF DEPOSITS IN SAVINGS BANK A/C., IGNORING THE EXPLANATION AND ALSO WITHUT CONSIDERING WHETHER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE W ARRANTS SUCH AN ADDITION, KEEPING IN VIEW THAT THE APPELLANT IS AN EMPLOYEE I N THE OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERALS OFFICE AND HAS TO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME. 3 ITA NO.296/BANG/11 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADD ITIONS, WHICH ARE UNWARRANTED AND EXCESSIVE. 7. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B OF THE ACT, SINCE THE ADDITIONS MADE TO RETURN ED INCOME ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF CURRENT INCOME, WHICH ARE TO BE CONSIDERE D FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTATION OF ADVANCE TAX. 4. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED AT S.NOS.1 AND 6 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE NO ADJUDICATION IS CALLED FOR THEREON. 5. THE GROUND RAISED AT S.NO.7 IN RESPECT OF CHARGING OF INTEREST IS CONSEQUENTIA L AND MANDATORY AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO DISCRETI ON IN THE MATTER. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION IS HELD TO B E IN ORDER. 6.1 IN THE GROUNDS RAISED AT S.NOS.2 TO 4 , THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGES THE CIT(A)S ACTION IN CONFIRMING THE COMPUTATION OF LTCG BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6.2 THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT IN THE RELEVANT PERIOD, THE ASSESSEE, A LADY, HAD SOLD A 3 0 X 40 SQ. FT. PROPERTY BY REGISTERED SALE DEED DT.3.7.2007 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 8 LAKHS, SINCE AS PER THE ASSESSEES CALCULATION, AFTER INDEXATION, NO LTCG WAS PAYABLE, NO CLAIM WAS MADE. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE THAT THE PURCHASER HAD PAID STAMP DUTY ON THE GUIDE LINE VALUE OF RS. 26,40,000 NOR OF THE CONSEQUENCES THER EOF. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEES OBJECTION TO COMPUTATION OF LTCG ADOPTING THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION OF RS. 26,40,000 IN PLACE OF THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 8 LAKHS AS PER SALE DEED WAS R EJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HE OUGHT TO HAVE (I) PROVIDED THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUN ITY OF BEING HEARD AND PUT ON NOTICE BEFORE INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF TH E ACT AND (II) IN VIEW OF THE ASSESSEES OBJECTIONS THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE REFERR ED THE PROPERTY FOR VALUATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C(2)(A) OF THE ACT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS PRAYED THAT THE MATTER OF COMPUTATION OF LTCG O N SALE OF THE CONCERNED PROPERTY SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE ON 3.7.2007 BE REMITTED BACK T O THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER 4 ITA NO.296/BANG/11 FOR RECOMPUTATION AFRESH AFTER REFERRING THE SAID P ROPERTY FOR VALUATION BY THE VALUATION OFFICER OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. 6.3 THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STR ONGLY OPPOSED THE ARGUMENTS PUT FORTH BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTING THAT THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT IN THE ACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS TO PUT THE ASSES SEE ON NOTICE BEFORE INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER C ONTENDED THAT THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN COMPUTING THE LTCG ON SALE OF THE SAID PROPERTY BY SUBSTITUTING THE GUIDE LINE VALUE FOR STAMP DUTY PAYMENT IN PLACE OF THE STATED CONSIDERATION IN THE SALE DEED WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 50C OF THE ACT AND WAS THEREFORE FULLY JUSTIFIED. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, HE SU PPORTED THE FINDING OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND PRAYED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) BE UPHELD. 6.4 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND HAVE CAREFUL LY PERUSED AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD A 30X40 SQ. FT PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 8 LAKHS AS PER SALE DEED DT.3.7.2007 WHEREAS THE GUIDELINE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES WAS RS. 26, 40,000. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE ISSUED NOTIC E AND GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT IS, IN OUR VIEW, NOT TENABLE. ON THIS POINT, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH T HE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT IN THE ACT FOR THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TO PUT THE ASSESSEE ON NOTICE BEFORE INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50 C. HOWEVER, A CAREFUL READING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT AND MORE PART ICULARLY SUB-SECTION (2) THEREOF HOLDS RELEVANCE IN THE INSTANT CASE AND THEREFORE IT WOUL D BE IN THE FITNESS OF THINGS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION BE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER F OR THE SAKE OF CLARITY. 50C (1) (2) W ITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION ( 1), WHERE (A) THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE ANY ASSESSING OFFICE R THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED [ OR ASSESSABLE ] BY THE STAMP VALUATION A UTHORITY UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY A S ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER. 5 ITA NO.296/BANG/11 (B) THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED [ OR ASSESSAB LE ] BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) HAS NOT BEEN DISPUT ED IN ANY APPEAL OR REVISION OR NO REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE BEFORE ANY OTHER AUTH ORITY, COURT OR THE HIGH COURT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF T HE CAPITAL ASSET TO A VALUATION OFFICER AND WHERE ANY SUCH REFERENCE IS M ADE, THE PROVISIONS OF SUB- SECTION (2), (3), (4), (5) AND (6) OF SECTION 16A, CLAUSE (I) OF SUB-SECTION (1) AND SUB-SECTIONS (6) AND (7) OF SECTION 23A, SUB-SECTIO N(5) OF SECTION 24, SECTION 34AA, SECTION 35 AND SECTION 37 OF THE WEALTH TAX A CT, 1957 (27 OF 1957), SHALL, WITH NECESSARY MODIFICATIONS, APPLY IN RELAT ION TO SUCH REFERENCE AS THEY APPLY IN RELATION TO A REFERENCE MADE BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 16A OF THAT ACT. (3) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB-SECT ION (2), WHERE THE VALUE ASCERTAINED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) EXCEEDS THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY REFERRED TO IN SUB-SE CTION (1), THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED [OR ASSESSABLE] BY SUCH AUTHORI TY SHALL BE TAKEN AS THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER. FROM A READING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C(2), IT IS CLEARLY MANDATED THAT SHOULD AN ASSESSEE CHALLENGE OR OBJECT TO THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ADOPTING THE GUIDELINE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES IN PLACE OF THE ST ATED CONSIDERATION IN THE SALE DEED FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING LTCG, THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO REFER THE PROPERTY FOR VALUATION TO THE VALUATION OFFICER OF THE INCOM E TAX DEPARTMENT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEES OBJECTION, TO THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ADOPTION OF THE GUIDELINE VALUE OF RS. 26,40,000 IN PLACE OF THE ST ATED CONSIDERATION OF RS. 8 LAKHS IN THE SALE DEED, WERE REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER A ND THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C(2) (A), HE SHOULD HAVE MADE A REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT FOR VALUATION OF THE SAID PROPERTY. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C(3), THEN COME INTO PL AY STIPULATING THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND MANNER FOR ADOPTING THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY (I.E. GUIDELINE VALUE OR AS PER VALUATION REPORT) IN COMPUTING THE LTCG. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IN NOT COMPLYING WITH THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C(2)(A) OF THE ACT OF MAKI NG A REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER FOR VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE LEARNED CIT(A ) IS NOT DIRECTING HIM TO DO SO WHEN THE MATTER WAS IN APPEAL, IN OUR OPINION, HAVE BY SUCH ACTION DENIED THE ASSESSEE HER RIGHT 6 ITA NO.296/BANG/11 TO HAVE THE PROPERTY VALUED BY THE VALUATION OFFICE R OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS ACTION BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IS VIOLATIVE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C(2) OF THE ACT. SINCE THI S GOES TO THE VERY ROOT OF THE MATTER IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AN D EQUITY REMIT THE ISSUE OF COMPUTATION OF LTCG ON SALE OF PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE ON 3.7. 2007 TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION BY MAKING A REFER ENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT TO VALUE THE SAID PROPERTY AN D TO COMPUTE THE LTCG AFTER RECEIPT OF THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE SAID PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO CO-OPERATE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE VALUATION CELL OF THE DEPARTMENT TO GET THE VALUATION CARRIED OUT EXPEDITIOUSLY. 7.1 THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED AT S.NO.5 CHALLENGES THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,77,000 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT IN KAR NATAKA BANK LTD, AMARJYOTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE IN THE RELEVANT PERIOD ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH DETAILS REGARDING THE SOURCE OF SUCH DEPOSITS. IT WAS SUBM ITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN SUMMARILY REJECTING AND NOT ACCEPTING THE EXPLANATION THAT THESE CASH DEPOS ITS WERE OUT OF SAVINGS FROM MONEY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND SRI SHIVARAMAIAH, W HO IS AN ASSESSED TO TAX AND CARRIED ON BUSINESS IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. S.V.B.S. POL YMERS AT KAMAKSHIPALYA, BANGALORE WITH A TURNOVER OF NEARLY RS. 1.25 CRORE, WITHOUT EXAMIN ING THE MATTER FURTHER IN RESPECT OF THE SOURCES OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND IF HE HAD ANY DOUBTS ABOUT THEM. 7.2 THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUP PORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND PRAYED THAT THEY BE CONFIRMED AS THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THE SOURCES OF THE CASH DEPOSITS IN HER BANK ACCOUNT WI TH KARNATAKA BANK. 7.3 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PE RUSED AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTING THE FACT THAT THE AS SESSING OFFICER ON EXAMINATION OF THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT WITH KARNATAKA BANK FOUND T HAT THERE WERE A NUMBER OF CASH 7 ITA NO.296/BANG/11 DEPOSITS THEREIN AND BRINGING TO TAX A SUM OF RS. 1 ,77,000 AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS RE GARDING SOURCE THEREOF. WE FIND THAT BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THESE CASH DEPOSITS ARE SAVINGS OUT OF MONEY GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR EXPENSES BY HER HUSBAND WHO IS ASSESSED TO TAX. IT IS SEEN THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WITHOUT EXAMININ G THE VERACITY OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM BRUSHED IT ASIDE, MERELY STATING THAT AS NO FURTHER EVIDENCE IS PRODUCED, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONFIRMED. WE FIND IT STRANGE THAT NO REPORT IN THE MATTER WAS CALLED FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING THE GEN UINENESS OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM AS TO THE SOURCE OF THESE CASH DEPOSITS. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ISSUE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE ASSESSEES BANK A CCOUNT WITH KARNATAKA BANK IN THE RELEVANT PERIOD HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED PROPERLY BY T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THEREFORE REMIT THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER FOR RE-EXAMINATION AND RECONSIDERATION AS TO THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SOURCES OF THE CASH DEPOSITS ARE OUT OF SAVINGS FROM MONEY GIVEN T O HER FOR EXPENSES BY HER HUSBAND. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 1 ST MAY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE GEORGE K) (JASON P BOAZ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER BANGALORE, DATED:31.5.2012. *REDDY GP COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, - A BENCH. 6. GUARD FILE.