Dr.C.Balakrishnan, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 347/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 64242 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-08-2012
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 17-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K RAJAGOPAL
• Assessee Lawyers: J PRABHAKAR F
• Keywords: Tangible material; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 32; 147; 132; 12; 2; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI. BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 347/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 DR. C. BALAKRISHNAN, FLAT NO.4, EASTLYN APARTMENTS, 76(OLD NO. 45) HALLS ROAD, KILPAUK, CHENNAI 600 010. [PAN: AAAPC3090Q] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUSINESS WARD XIII (1), CHENNAI 600 034. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) A PPELLANT BY : SHRI J. PRABHAKAR, F.C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K. RAJAGOPAL, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 21.08.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.09.2012 ORDER PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) XII, CHENNAI D ATED 21.12.2011 IN ITA NO. 152/2010-11 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 . SHRI J. PRABHAKAR, C.A. REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI K.RAJAGOPAL, JCIT REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 2. THERE TWO ISSUES IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE. THE FIRST ISSUE PERTAINS TO VALIDITY OF REOPENING O F ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AND COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.347 347347 347/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 2 WITH SECTION 147 INSTEAD OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTIO N 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. 3. THE SECOND ISSUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS TH AT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAIN ING THE ADDITION OF ` .16,22,500/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS. 4. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN A NESTHETIST, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.09.2003 FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2003-04 ADMITTING PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS AT ` .2,50,000/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT ON 28.12.2010 DETERMINING THE PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AT ` .18,72,500/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY RETURN ED PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS OF ` .2,50,000/- IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF ` .16,22,500/- ONLY BEING THE BALANCE PROFESSIONAL RE CEIPTS AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 1 32 OF THE ACT ON 12.07.2007 IN THE CASE OF DR. P. RAVICHANDRAN, A NE PHROLOGIST BY PROFESSION. BASED ON THE STATEMENTS RECORDED FROM D R. P. RAVICHANDRAN, THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT WAS TAKEN UP IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, SINCE THE BASIS FOR ASSESSMENT IS THE SEARCH CONDUC TED IN THE CASE OF DR. P. RAVICHANDRAN, THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT AND NOT BY ISSUE OF N OTICE UNDER SECTION 147 I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.347 347347 347/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 3 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONTENDED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE BASIS FOR CONSIDERING THE PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AT ` .18,72,500/- I.E. 215 OPERATIONS X ` .8,500/- IS FACTUALLY NOT CORRECT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESS MENT BY CALCULATING THE PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS AT ` .18,72,500/- ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE COLLECTED. 5. ON APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. ON THE ISSUE OF COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 INSTEAD OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTIO N 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 153C, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) HELD THAT IN EFFECT THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ W ITH SECTION 153C ONLY AND NON-MENTIONING OR WRONG MENTIONING OF SECTION I S A CURABLE DEFECT AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS FATAL TO THE ASSESSMENT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAKTHI VEL BANKERS V. ACIT [255 ITR 144 (MAD)]. THEREFORE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS) HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE TREATED AS INVA LID. 7. ON MERITS OF THE CASE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS) AGREED WITH THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN CO MPUTING THE PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS AT ` .18,72,500/- AS THIS WAS ARRIVED AT AFTER EXAMINING THE CONTENTIONS AND OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.347 347347 347/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 4 8. AGAINST THIS ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE CAME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE A SSESSMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 IS BAD I N LAW AS THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE BASED ON A SEARCH CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF ONE DR. P. RAVICHANDRAN AND CONSEQUENT TO SUCH SEARCH, THE ASS ESSMENT WAS TAKEN UP ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT RECORDED FROM DR. RAVI CHANDRAN. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE UNDER SECTION 153C , BUT NOT UNDER SECTION 147. THEREFORE, THE COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT BE CAUSE THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 147 AND NOT UNDER SECTION 15 3C, THE ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW. THE COUNSEL FURTHER RELYING ON THE SPEC IAL BENCH OF MUMBAI, ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S. ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD. V. DCIT [18 ITR (TRIB) 106] SUBMITS THAT WHEN SEARCH MATERIAL IS US ED FOR MAKING AN ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE MADE UNDER SEC TION 153C ONLY. ON MERITS, THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED NUMBER OF OPERATIONS CONDUCTED AT 214. THE COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THESE 214 CASES CONSISTS OF 9 MEDICAL AND NON-SURGI CAL ADMISSIONS, 23 POST TRANSPLANT CASES, 17 CASES WHERE PATIENTS ADMITTED FOR INVESTIGATION AND PROFILING, 25 CASES ARE REPETITION OF PATIENT NAMES AND 40 CASES ADMITTED TO THE HOSPITAL DURING THE PERIOD WHEN THE ASSESSEE WA S AWAY FROM INDIA. THE COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT ALL THESE PUT TOGETHER, I.E. 1 14 CASES SHALL HAVE TO BE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.347 347347 347/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 5 REDUCED FROM TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES OF 214 AND IN WH ICH CASE, THE CASES FOR TRANSPLANT FOR BOTH DONORS AND DONEES COMES TO 100. THE COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT AT ANY GIVEN POINT OF TIME, AN ANESTHETIST CAN ATTEND ONLY FOR EITHER DONOR PATIENT OR DONEE PATIENT BUT CANNOT ATTEND FO R BOTH DONOR AND DONEE PATIENT. ASSUMING FOR A MOMENT IN 50% OF THE CASES THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES ATTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ONLY 50 OUT OF 100 REMAINING AND THEREFORE, THE COMPUTATION MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER TAKING THE NUMBER OF CASES AT 214 IS FACTUA LLY NOT CORRECT. THE COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THOUGH ALL THESE DETAILS WERE ALREADY PROVIDED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, THESE DETAILS AND OBJECTIONS WERE NOT EXAMINED AND CONSIDERED WHILE PASSING THE ORDERS. THE COUNSEL SU BMITS THAT SINCE ALL THESE ASPECTS WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER INCLUDING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS LETTER DATE D 28.12.2010, THESE ASPECTS MAY BE EXAMINED ONCE AGAIN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE ISSUE MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 10. THE COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITS THAT NONE OF THE SEIZED MATERIALS DUE TO SEARCH IN THE CASE OF DR. P. RAVIC HANDRAN BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OF FICER INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 AND NOT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT FOR MAKING THE ASSESSMENT BRINGING TO TAX THE UNACC OUNTED PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS RECEIVED IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.347 347347 347/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 6 THE COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITS THAT THE 148 PR OCEEDINGS INITIATED IN ASSESSEES CASE ARE VALID AS THE ASSESSMENT WAS MAD E BASED ON THE POST SEARCH ENQUIRIES APART FROM THE STATEMENTS RECORDED FROM DR. P. RAVICHANDRAN AFTER THE SEARCH. 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED MATERIALS AV AILABLE ON RECORD AND ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 1 47 OF THE ACT. THIS ASSESSMENT WAS MADE PURSUANT TO SEARCH CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF DR. P. RAVICHANDRAN IN WHOSE CASE THE STATEMENT WAS RECORD ED AND POST SEARCH ENQUIRIES WERE CONDUCTED. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASS ESSEE WAS THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT IS NOT VALID SINCE THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BASED ON A SEARCH IN THE C ASE OF DR. P. RAVICHANDRAN AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD H AVE BEEN MADE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENC E, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C ARE EXTRACTED AS UNDER: 153C. NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECT ION 139, SECTION 147, SECTION 148, SECTION 149, SECTION 151 AND SECT ION 153, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT ANY MONEY, BULL ION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DO CUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BELONGS OR BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER T HAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A, THEN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON AND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED AGAINST EACH SUCH OTHER PERSO N AND ISSUE SUCH OTHER PERSON NOTICE AND ASSESS OR REASSESS INCOME O F SUCH OTHER PERSON IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A : ] I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.347 347347 347/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 7 12. AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE, AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153C IN A CASE OF ANY OTHER PERSON CAN BE MADE WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTH ER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISIT IONED BELONGS TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A I.E. THE PERSON IN WHOSE CASE THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED. IN THIS CASE, NO MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLES OR THINGS OR B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED IN THE CASE OF DR. P. RAVICHANDRAN BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH EVI DENCE FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH, WHICH BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 BUT NOT UNDER SECTION 153C. IN THIS CASE, SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 132 O F THE ACT ON 12.07.2007 IN THE CASE OF DR. P. RAVICHANDRAN BASED ON NEWSPAP ER REPORTS AFTER THE ARREST OF DR. P. RAVICHANDRAN BY MUMBAI POLICE CRIM E BRANCH AT CHENNAI. THE ALLEGATION WAS THAT HE WAS DOING ILLEGAL KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATIONS AND EARNING HUGE MONEY FROM THESE TRANSPLANTS. HE WAS U SING THE FACILITIES AT ST. THOMAS HOSPITAL, CHENNAI FOR PRE AND POST TRANSPLAN T CHECK-UPS AND TREATMENT FOR KIDNEY FAILURE PATIENTS AND ALSO FOR KIDNEY DONORS. THE FACILITIES AT BHARATHIRAJA HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE WERE U TILIZED FOR KIDNEY TRANSPLANT OPERATION. DR. P. RAVICHANDRAN WAS ASSIS TED BY A TEAM CONSISTING OF TWO SURGEONS AND TWO ANESTHETISTS. DR. L. SRINIV ASAN WAS DOING SURGERY ON THE RECIPIENTS OF KIDNEY AND DR. L. DEEPAK LAMEC H OPERATED ON THE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.347 347347 347/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 8 DONORS OF KIDNEY. TWO ANESTHETISTS DR. C. BALAKRISH NAN, THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US AND DR. R. URUDHIMOZHI ASSISTED THE SURGE ONS. THE STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED FROM DR. P. RAVICHANDRAN ON 28.11.200 7 FROM DR. L. SRINIVASAN ON 20.12.2007. IN THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY DR. P. RAVICHANDRAN, IT WAS STATED THAT HE DID NOT KNOW WHO DR. BALAKRISHNA N IS AND HE STATED THAT THE ANESTHETISTS WERE CALLED BY THE DONOR/RECIPIENT SURGEONS FROM THE EMPANELLED TEAM OF ANESTHETISTS. BASED ON THE STATE MENT RECORDED AND THE POST SEARCH ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER CAME TO KNOW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RECEIVING PROFESSIONAL INCOME IN CA SH, WHICH IS NOT REFLECTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTIO N 147 AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ASSESSING THE PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS AT ` .18,72,500/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECEIVED TANGIBLE MATERIALS O N RECORD THOUGH AFTER THE SEARCH SHOWING ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS R IGHTLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 148 AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSM ENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THE GROUND S OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED ON THIS ISSUE. 13. COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, WE FEEL IT N ECESSARY TO REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER/ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DID NOT CONSID ER VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD T O NUMBER OF CASES I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.347 347347 347/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 9 ADMITTED AS MEDICAL AND NON-SURGICAL ADMISSIONS, AD MISSIONS OF POST TRANSPLANT CASES, CASES ADMITTED ONLY FOR INVESTIGA TION AND PROFILING CASES, CASES ADMITTED IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE FROM INDIA, ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL EXAMINE ALL THE ISSUES IN D ETAIL WITH REGARD TO THE NUMBER OF OPERATIONS ATTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE TAKIN G INTO CONSIDERATION VARIOUS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO PLACE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALL HIS OBJECTIONS LIKE NUMBE R OF CASES ADMITTED IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE OUT OF INDIA, REPETITION OF PATIENTS, CASES ADMITTED FOR POST TRANSPLANT PROBLEMS, ETC. WHICH WERE PLACE D BEFORE US. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL EXAMINE ALL THESE OBJECTION S AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING ADEQU ATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 14. WITH REGARD TO THE DECISION RELIED ON BY THE A SSESSEE IN THE CASE OF ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD. V. DCIT (SUPRA), WE CO ULD SEE THAT THE QUESTION BEFORE THE SPECIAL BENCH WAS TO DECIDE WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT OF TOTAL INCOME UNDER SECTION 153A AND FIRST PROVISO THEREON. THE ISSUE BEFORE THE SPECIAL BENCH WAS NOT THAT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSMENTS TO BE MADE UNDER SECTION 153C WHEN SEARCH MATERIAL WAS USED FOR MAKING AN ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE MADE ONLY U NDER SECTION 153C. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, NOTHING WAS FOUND IN T HE COURSE OF SEARCH EXCEPT A STATEMENT RECORDED FROM DR. P. RAVICHANDRA N AND THIS ALONE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.347 347347 347/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 10 CANNOT BE A BASIS FOR MAKING AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SE CTION 153C IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R DID NOT INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C AS THE INGREDIENTS OF SE CTION 153C ARE NOT ATTRACTED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT IS UPHELD. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTL Y ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 14 TH OF SEPTEMBER, 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 14.09.2012 VM/- TO: THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.