Shri C. Krishnamurthy, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 3101/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8032 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 07-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVA SRINIVAS
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Wrong claim; Bad and doubtful debts; Difference of opinion
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 271(1)(c); 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92; 143(1)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI , ! ' . #$ % &' BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.3101/MDS./2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SHRI C.KRISHNAMURTHY , 74,NATTUMUTHU STREET, TEYNAMPET,CHENNAI 600 018. VS. THE ITO, BUSINESS WARD XV(4), CHENNAI -34. [PAN AAOPK 8159 L] ( () / APPELLANT) ( *+() /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.P.VARUNAN,ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHIVA SRINIVAS, JCIT D.R / DATE OF HEARING : 28 - 12 - 2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : - 01 - 2017 , / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-4,CHENNAI DATED 09.09.2016 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPE AL IS WITH REGARD TO LEVY OF PENALTY OF ` 4 LAKHS U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF WRONG CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS. ITA NO.3101/16 :- 2 -: 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLA IMED BAD DEBTS OF ` 14,79,035/- IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE AS SESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPUTING THE ASSESSMENT ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AT ` 2,72,093/- AS BAD DEBT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 -07. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY AN AMOUNT OF ` 2,72,093/- HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR ENDING ON 3 1.3.2005 AND HENCE, DISALLOWED THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF ` 12,06,942/- AS NOT OUTSTANDING AS BAD DEBT AS ON 31.3.2006. AGGRIEVE D, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA X(APPEALS). 4. BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT EVERY YEAR THE ASSESSEE EXAM INES OUTSTANDING OF SUNDRY DEBTORS AND WHEN HE FINDS THAT CERTAIN AM OUNTS ARE DOUBTFUL OF RECOVERY, HE DOES NOT STRAIGHTAWAY WRITE IT OFF TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS EXPENDITURE INCURRED, BUT IT WAS TAKEN T O THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT. HE PASSES THE ENTRY BY DEBITING DRAWINGS ACCOUNT AND CREDITING IN THE CLIENTS OUTSTANDING ACCOUNT AND BE CAUSE OF THIS METHOD, THE AMOUNT OF CLIENTS WHICH ARE DOUBTFUL, D OES NOT APPEAR IN THE SUNDRY DEBTORS ACCOUNT, AS IT WAS REDUCED FROM THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT. THIS METHOD OF ACCOUNTING IS FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE CONSISTENTLY FROM YEAR TO YEAR. ACCEPTING THIS MET HOD, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) ALLOWED THE CLA IM OF ASSESSEE. AGAINST THIS, THE REVENUE CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE TRI BUNAL. ITA NO.3101/16 :- 3 -: 5. ON FURTHER APPEAL OF REVENUE TO THE TRIBUNAL I N ITA NO.1166/MDS./2014 VIDE ORDER DATED 5 TH JUNE, 2015, THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED THAT:- 5. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT WRITTEN OFF BAD DEBTS AGAINST SUNDRY DEBTORS OF EARLIER PRE VIOUS YEARS BUT DEDUCTED AS DRAWINGS FROM THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND C REDITING THE OUTSTANDING CUSTOMERS ACCOUNT. IN OUR OPINION, THI S METHOD SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ACTUALLY WRITTEN O FF THE DEBTS INSTEAD THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE DEBTS AS HIS PER SONAL DEBTS BY DEBITING DRAWINGS ACCOUNT FROM WHICH THE ASSESSE E DERIVED BENEFIT RATHER INCURRING ANY BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. TO ALLOW DEDUCTION AS BAD DEBT, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS TO BE SATISFIED: 36(1)(VII) : IF ANY DEBT OR PART THEREOF WHICH IS WRITTEN OFF AS IRRECOVERABLE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR T HE PREVIOUS YEAR, HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN COMPUTING THE INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR, IN WHICH IT IS WRI TTEN OFF OR OF IN AN EARLIER PREVIOUS YEAR OR IF IT REPRESENTS MONEY LENT IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS OR MONEY LENDING BUSINE SS WHICH IS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS NO MATERIAL TO SU GGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN OFF DEBTS BY PASSING A PROPER ENTRY I.E. BY CREDITING IN THE RESPECTIVE PARTY ACC OUNT. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS TO BE SHOWN AS DRAWINGS VIS--VIS CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND CREDITING IN THE PARTYS ACCOUNT WHICH IS NOT ACCEPTED METHOD OF ACCOUNTING RECOGNISED BY ANY AUT HORITY. BEING SO, ARBITRARY METHOD FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NO LEGAL SANCTION. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WIT H THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) IN ALLOW ING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AS BAD DEBT. THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) WRONGLY OBSERVED THAT THE ASSES SEE IS COMPLIED WITH THE CONDITIONS AS STIPULATED IN SEC.3 6(1)(VII) READ WITH SEC.36(2) OF THE ACT. AS A MATTER OF FACT, LE GAL REQUIREMENT ITA NO.3101/16 :- 4 -: IS THAT THE AMOUNT OF BAD DEBT MUST HAVE GONE INTO THE COMPUTATION OF THE ASSESSEES INCOME. THUS, IN THE CASE OF A TRADER, IF THE SALES HAVE BEEN MADE ON CREDIT AND C ORRESPONDING DEBT BECOMES IRRECOVERABLE, THE SAID DEBT CAN BE AL LOWED AS BAD DEBT, AS SALES HAVE GONE INTO THE COMPUTATION OF TH E ASSESSEES INCOME. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE IS NO MATERIAL TO SUGGEST THAT THE DEBT WAS INCURRED IN ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINES S AND CORRESPONDING AMOUNT HAS GONE INTO THE COMPUTATION OF THE ASSESSEES INCOME AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ESTABLIS HED BEYOND ANY DOUBT THAT THE DEBT WAS INCURRED IN NORM AL COURSE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE METHOD FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IN WRITING OFF DEBT IS NOT CORRECT. I N VIEW OF THIS, WE REVERSE THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) ON THIS GROUND. 6. CONSEQUENTLY, THE AO TOOK UP THE ISSUE FOR LE VY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 16.12.201 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE PENALTY ORDER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY ON THIS ISSUE. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFO RE US. 7. IT WAS REPRESENTED BY THE LD.A.R BEFORE US THAT THE DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED AS BAD DEBTS UNDER THE BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT IT WAS ALLOWABLE. THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSE E WAS REJECTED BY THE AO ON THE REASON THAT ASSESSEES EXPLANATION WA S NOT BONA FIDE . ACCORDING TO LD.A.R, THE ASSESSEE FILED ALL RELEVAN T DETAILS ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS AND ITA NO.3101/16 :- 5 -: THE CLAIM WAS ALSO MADE ON A BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT IT WAS ALLOWABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT BRING ON RECORD ANY M ATERIAL WHICH COULD ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A FALSE OR INF LATED CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION. THERE WAS ONLY A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION R EGARDING THE ALLOWABILITY OF THE CLAIM. ACCORDING TO LD.A.R, THE PENALTY WAS NOT IMPOSABLE AND PRAYED TO CANCEL THE SAME. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD.D.R RELIED ON THE ORDER O F LOWER AUTHORITIES AND PRAYED THAT PENALTY TO BE CONFIRMED . 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS A WELL SETTLED POSITION THAT ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DIFFERENT IN NATURE AND THAT THE FI NDINGS GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THOUGH MAY CONSTITUTE GOOD EVIDENCE, CANNOT CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE FOR THE PURPOSES OF LEVYING PENALTY (PLEASE SEE CIT V. ANWAR ALI [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC), CIT V. KHODAY ESWARSA AND SONS [1972] 83 ITR 369 (SC) AND ANANTHARAM VEERASIN GHAIAH AND CO. V. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 457 (SC). IT IS ALSO WELL SETTLE D THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE MERE MAKING OF AN INCORRECT CLAIM DOES NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME. WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED ALL THE MATERIAL AND RELEVAN T FACTS RELATING TO THE CLAIM AND HAS MADE A COMPLETE DISCLOSURE, BUT TAKES A LEGAL CONTENTION OR POSITION THAT A PARTICULAR RECEIPT IS NOT TAXABLE A S INCOME OR THAT A PARTICULAR EXPENDITURE OR LOSS IS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION, THE MERE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK A DIFFERENT VIEW OF THE ALLO WABILITY OF THE EXPENDITURE ITA NO.3101/16 :- 6 -: OR LOSS OR THE TAXABILITY OF THE RECEIPT, WITHOUT A NYTHING MORE AND WITHOUT UNEARTHING ANY NEW MATERIAL OR FACT KEPT BACK BY TH E ASSESSEE, CANNOT INVITE PENALTY ON THE GROUND OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PART ICULARS OF INCOME. REFERENCE IN THIS CONNECTION MAY BE MADE TO THE FOL LOWING JUDGMENTS : (1) CEMENT MARKETING CO. OF INDIA LTD. V. ASSISTANT CST [1980] 124 ITR 15 (SC) ; (2) ITO V. BURMAH SHELL OIL STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTIN G CO. OF INDIA LTD. [1987] 163 ITR 496 (CAL) ; (3) DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS CO. LTD. V. CIT [ 1986] 157 ITR 822 (DELHI) ; AND (4) CIT V. G. D. NAIDU [1987] 165 ITR 63 (MAD). 10. IN CIT V. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS P. LTD. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC), THE SUPREME COURT EXPLAINED THE MEANING OF THE TERM 'FU RNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS'. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT 'INACCURATE PART ICULARS' MEANS THE DETAILS SUPPLIED IN THE RETURN WHICH ARE NOT ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT, NOT ACCORDING TO TRUTH, OR ERRONEOUS. IT WAS HELD THAT MAKING A CLAIM WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, CANNOT, BY ITSELF, AMOUNT T O FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION CAN IT BE HELD THAT MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM IN LAW WOULD TA NTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS, PROVIDED THE STATEMENT OR D ETAILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE FACTUALLY INCORRE CT. ITA NO.3101/16 :- 7 -: 11. IT IS TRUE THAT MERE SUBMITTING A CLAIM WHICH IS INCORRECT IN LAW WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO GIVING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THAT THE CLAIM MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE NEEDS TO BE BONA FIDE. IF THE CLAIM BESIDES BEING INCORRECT IN LAW IS MALA FIDE, EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1) WOULD COME INTO PLA Y AND WORK TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. THE COURT CANNOT OVERLOOK THE FACT THAT ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE INCOME-TAX RETURNS ARE PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY. IF T HE ASSESSEE MAKES A CLAIM WHICH IS NOT ONLY INCORRECT IN LAW BUT IS ALSO WHOL LY WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY HIM FOR MAKING SUCH A CLAI M IS NOT FOUND TO BE BONA FIDE, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO SAY THAT HE WOU LD STILL NOT BE LIABLE TO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IF WE T AKE THE VIEW THAT A CLAIM WHICH IS WHOLLY UNTENABLE IN LAW AND HAS ABSOLUTELY NO FOUNDATION ON WHICH IT COULD BE MADE, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE LIABLE TO IMPOSITION OF PENALTY, EVEN IF HE WAS NOT ACTING BONA FIDE WHILE MAKING A CLAIM OF THIS NATURE, THAT WOULD GIVE A LICENCE TO UNSCRUPULOUS ASSESSEES TO M AKE WHOLLY UNTENABLE AND UNSUSTAINABLE CLAIMS WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY BA SIS FOR MAKING THEM, IN THE HOPE THAT THEIR RETURN WOULD NOT BE PICKED UP F OR SCRU TINY AND THEY WOULD BE ASSESSED ON THE BASIS OF SELF-ASSESSMENT U NDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT AND EVEN IF THEIR CASE IS SELECTED FOR SCRU TINY, THEY CAN GET AWAY MERELY BY PAYING THE TAX, WHICH IN ANY CASE, WAS PA YABLE BY THEM. THE CONSEQUENCE WOULD BE THAT THE PER SONS WHO MAKE CLA IMS OF THIS NATURE, ACTUATED BY A MALA FIDE INTEN TION TO EVADE TAX OTH ERWISE PAYABLE BY THEM ITA NO.3101/16 :- 8 -: WOULD GET AWAY WITHOUT PAYING THE TAX LEGALLY PAYAB LE BY THEM, IF THEIR CASES ARE NOT PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY. THIS WOULD TA KE AWAY THE DETERRENT EFFECT, WHICH THESE PENALTY PROVISIONS IN THE ACT H AVE. 13. IN OUR OPINION, WHEN THE CLAIMS WERE FOUND TO BE SO UNTENABLE AS TO FALL WITHIN THE MISCHIEF OF THE EXPRESSION FURNISH ING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. A LINE OF DISTINCTION WAS DRAWN IN Z OOM COMMUNICATION [2010] 327 ITR 510 (DELHI) SO AS TO PREVENT MISINTERPRETAT ION OF THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE SUPREME COURT IN RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC). IN OUR VIEW, THE PRESENT CASE FALLS WITHIN THE RATIO O F THE JUDGMENT OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN ZOOM COMMUNICATION [2010] 327 ITR 510 (DELHI) AND NOT UNDER THAT OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC), AS THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION WOULD SHOW. 14. AS SEEN FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IF WE LOOK AT THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT TH AT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE NAME OF THE DEBTORS. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THOSE PARTIES AS GONE TO THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS WRONGLY DEDUCTED T HE DEBTS AS BAD DEBTS FROM THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. AS SUCH IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN QUANTUM APPEAL CASE THA T THE METHODOLOGY BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT APPROPRIATE AND PROVISIONS OF THE ITA NO.3101/16 :- 9 -: SECTION 36(1)(VII) R.W.S.36(2) WAS NOT COMPLIED WIT H. AS SEEN FROM THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL, ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN EVEN AT T HE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS THAT THE DEBT HAD BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOU NT IN COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE EARLIER YEAR OR YEARS OR OF THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE CONDITION LAID DOWN IN SECTION 3 6(1)(VII) R.W.S.36(2) OF THE ACT DID NOT STAND FULFILL, THOUGH ALL THE RE LEVANT FACTS WERE WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT PLACED EVIDE NCE BEFORE THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES, NOT ABLE TO CONVINCE THE AUTHORITIES AS BAD DEBTS. 15. BEFORE US, LD.A.R PLEADED THAT IT MAY BE A TRA DING LOSS FOR WHICH ALSO AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF ASSESSEE CO ULD NOT PLACE ANY CONVINCING ARGUMENTS OR REPLY. THIS ONLY SHOW THAT THE ALTERNATIVE PLEA OF ASSESSEE WAS AN ACT OF DESPAIR. THE ENTIRE APPR AISAL OF THE MATERIALS ON RECORD WHICH WOULD ESTABLISH THAT ASSE SSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IT IS NOT A CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING FILED ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS RELATING TO THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS AND TAKING A POSITION WITH WHICH THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHO RITIES HAVE NOT AGREED. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE COMPLETE FACTS RELATING THE CLAIM BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES. THERE WAS A LACK OF BONA FIDE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR OPINION, FALSEHOOD IN ACCO UNTS CAN TAKE ONLY TWO FORMS: ITA NO.3101/16 :- 10 - : I) EITHER AN ITEM MAY BE SUPPRESSED DISHONESTLY O R AN ITEM MAY BE CLAIMED FRAUDULENTLY, AND IN PENALIZING CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF THE ONES INCOME AS WELL AS FURNISHING OF INACCU RATE PARTICULARS AND SEC.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT PENALIZE BOTH THE FORM S OF FALSEHOOD. 16. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT HAS BEEN FOUND THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS DELIBERATELY CLAIMED FALSE DEDUCTION WHICH WAS NOT EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AO WITH BONA FIDE REASONS FOR SUCH WRONG CLAIM. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS KIND OF CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE WARRANTS LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. HENCE, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 20 TH JANUARY, 2017, AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ! ' # . $ %& ' ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) ) % / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER () / CHENNAI *+ / DATED: 20 TH JANUARY, 2017. K S SUNDARAM +,-- ./-0/ / COPY TO: - 1 . / APPELLANT 3. - 1-!' / CIT(A) 5. /23- 4 / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. - 1 / CIT 6. 3&-5 / GF