ACIT, Faridabad V. Sh. Prahlad, Ballabgarh

ITA 4036/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3857 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 08-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 31-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ANJU JAI SINGH
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Assessment record
• Section: 54B; 54F; 148

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 4036/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 4036/DEL/2010 AY: 20 07-08 ACIT, VS SHRI PRAHLAD, CIRCLE II, S/O SHRI RAM CHANDER, B- BLOCK, VILLAGE SIHI, CGO COMPLEX, BALLABGARH. NH-IV, FARIDABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI ATIQ AHMAD, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SMT. ANJU JAISINGH, CA ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 28.06.2010 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-FAR IDABAD WHEREIN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL PERTAINING TO ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2007-08 WAS PARTLY ALLOWED. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM DDIT (INV.) THAT CAPITAL GAINS TAX WAS NOT PAI D BY SOME FARMERS OF FARIDABAD ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER OF LAND TO M/S BPTP LTD. AND ITS GROUP CONCERNS. THE LIST OF SUCH FARM ERS WHO HAD SOLD THEIR LAND TO THE SAID CONCERN WAS ALSO PROVID ED. ON THE ITA NO. 4036/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 2 BASIS OF THIS INFORMATION, A LIST OF SUCH PERSONS O F BALLABHGARH TEHSIL AS MENTIONED IN THE LIST WAS OBTAINED FROM SUB-REG ISTRAR, BALLABHGARH AND AS PER THE SAID LIST, THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED RS. 5,86,43,750/- ON 12.06.2006 AS SALE CONSIDERATI ON OF HIS LAND FROM M/S FRAGRANCE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI. AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME DEC LARING THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING OUT OF SALE CONSIDERATION, REA SONS WERE DULY RECORDED ON 13.03.2009 AND A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED 'THE ACT') WAS ISSUED . 2.1 IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FI LED HIS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 33,59,917/- WHICH INCLUDED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 7,43,889/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1 ST APRIL, 1981 MAY NOT BE TAKEN AT RS. 55,000/- PER ACRE INSTEAD O F RS. 80,000/- PER ACRE AS THE CIRCLE RATE ON 1.4.1987 WA S RS. 80,000/- PER ACRE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ASKED TO PROVIDE D OCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 1,06,62,500/- WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM AGRICULTURE. IN RESPONSE, THE CONTENTION OF THE AS SESSEE BEFORE THE AO WAS THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF ANOTHER PIECE O F LAND IN THE ITA NO. 4036/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 3 SAME AREA ON 20.7.1981 WAS RS. 1,64,571/- PER ACRE AND, THEREFORE, THE VALUE TAKEN AT RS. 80,000/- PER ACRE WAS APPROPRIATE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NO T ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION AND CALCULATED THE INDEXED CO ST OF ACQUISITION AT RS. 15,21,448/- INSTEAD OF RS. 45,53 ,571/- AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. WHILE DOING SO THE AO RE LIED ON THE REGISTERED SALE DOCUMENT OF ANOTHER PIECE OF LAND W HICH, AS PER THE AO, WAS SOLD @ RS. 50,000/- PER ACRE. THE ASSES SING OFFICER ALSO TREATED THE INCOME OF RS. 1,06,62,500/- SHOWN AS HAVING RECEIVED FROM SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BY THE ASS ESSEE AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE A NY EVIDENCE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BEING IN HIS NAME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO DISALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT, AMOUNTING TO RS. 30,50,600/- AND U/S 54F OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 57,41,940/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AT AN IN COME OF RS. 2,42,80,390/-. 2.2 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEF ORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) WHO DELETED THE ADDI TION OF RS. 1,28,739,999/- BEING THE DIFFERENCE DUE TO DIFFEREN CE IN INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (A) ALSO DIRECTED DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 1,06,62,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF ITA NO. 4036/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 4 AGRICULTURAL INCOME BEING TREATED AS LONG TERM CAPI TAL GAIN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ALSO DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE DE DUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 54B OF THE ACT. THE AS SESSING OFFICER WAS ALSO DIRECTED TO ALLOW A FURTHER CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54F AMOUNTING TO RS. 19 LAKH. 2.3 AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (A), THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOW APPROACHED THE ITAT AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN WOR KING OUT THE INDEX COST OF THE LAND AT RS. 45,53,571/- INSTE AD OF RS. 15,21,448/- TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE CIRCLE RATE CIRCULATED BY THE D.C. FARIDAB AD AS ON 01.04.1987 WAS RS. 80,000/- PER ACRE AND AS PER A R EGISTRY MADE IN THE YEAR 1981 IN WHICH RATE WAS EVEN LESS THAN RS.50,000/- PER ACRE, THUS SUSTAINED THE CIRCLE RAT E OF LAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GIVING ANY LOGIC. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DELETING TH E ADDITION OF RS. 1,06,62,500/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS SHOWN AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME B Y THE ASSESSEE WHICH REMAINED UNSUBSTANTIATED. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN ALLOWING TH E DEDUCTION AMOUNTING TO RS. 30,50,600/- U/S 54B OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON THE LAND IN QUESTION EVEN T HOUGH THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SATISFY THE CONDITIONS AS LAID DOW N IN SECTION 54B(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WHEREIN INVESTMENT WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE WITHIN TWO YEARS OF THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH HAD NOT DONE WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 4036/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 5 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN ALLOWING DE DUCTION AMOUNTING TO RS. 19,00,000/- U/S 54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT IN PURCHASING OF TWO PLOTS IN THE NAME OF HIS CHILDREN AND IN CONSTRUCTION ON THE SAID PLOTS EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SATISFY THE CONDIT IONS AS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1 WHEREIN DEDUCTION FOR THE AMOUNT SPENT ON CONSTRUCT ION OF ANY PROPERTY WHICH IS NOT IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE D O NOT QUALIFY FOR THE DEDUCTION U/S 54F AND EVEN WITHOUT DISCUSSING ANY EVIDENCE WHICH MAY PROVE THAT SELF O CCUPIED PROPERTY ACTUALLY BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES FOR THE PERMISSION TO AD D, DELETE OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 3. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED TH AT THE LD. CIT (A) HAD NOT CORRECTLY APPRECIATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE WHILE DELETING THE ADDITIONS. HE READ OUT EXTENSIV ELY FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE DETAILED RE ASONING APPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD BEEN IGNORED B Y THE LD. CIT (A) WHILE DELETING THE ADDITIONS. IT WAS PRAYED TH AT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 4. IN RESPONSE, THE LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE O RDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND SUBMITTED THAT AS FAR AS GROUND NO. 1 OF THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IS CONCERNED, THE FAIR MARKET V ALUE OF THE LAND AS ON 1.4.1981 HAD BEEN CALCULATED BY THE ASSE SSING ITA NO. 4036/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 6 OFFICER BY MAKING A BACKWARD CALCULATION FROM THE R ATES AS ON 1.4.1987. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR THAT THE COST INFLATION INDEX COULD NOT BE APPLIED IN A REVERSE DIRECTION A ND PLACED RELIANCE ON A JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAGAT MOHAN KAPUR VS WTO REPORTED IN 211 IT R 721 (CAL) AND ALSO CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 754 DATED 10.6.199 7. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT CUTTACK SP ECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF HEERA LAL LOKCHANDANI VS ITO IN ITA NO. 5555/ CTK/2002 REPORTED IN 290 ITR 258 (CTK). IT WAS ALS O SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT EVEN CONFRONTED WITH THE COPY OF THE REGISTRY, WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER CLAIMED TO HA VE BEEN REGISTERED AT RS. 50,000/- PER ACRE, AND ON WHICH T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RELIED AND, THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAD RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. 4.1 WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO.2, THE LD. AR SUBMITTE D THAT IT WAS UNDISPUTED THAT THE LAND EXISTED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE COPIES OF JAMBANDI WERE ALSO FILED AS A PROOF OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND BEING REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT (A) WAS CORREC T IN NEGATING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE INCOME OF RS.1,06,62,500/- HAD TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM C APITAL GAINS. ITA NO. 4036/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 7 4.2 ON GROUND NO. 3, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT AS F AR AS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT WAS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE HAD GOT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND REGISTERED I N HIS NAME ON 28.5.2009. AN AGREEMENT HAD BEEN ENTERED INTO FOR THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WITH MR. SUMER SINGH SAINI ON 14.05.2007 AND THE LAND WAS AGREED TO BE REGISTERED BY 20.3.2008. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO CE RTAIN PROBLEMS, THE LAND COULD NOT BE REGISTERED BY THE A GREED DATE AND A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WAS SIGNED BETWEE N THE PARTIES ON 20.03.2008 WHEREIN THE PHYSICAL POSSESSI ON WAS TRANSFERRED AND THE AGREED DATE WAS SHIFTED TO 30.0 5.2009. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LAND WAS FINALLY REGISTE RED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE ON 28.5.2009 BY PAYING THE BAL ANCE AMOUNT WHICH WAS CREDITED IN CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT S CHEME TILL THAT DATE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE FACT THAT IT WAS A CONDITIONAL REGISTRY HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE REGI STRY ITSELF. 4.3 LD. AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT GROUND NO. 4 RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT WAS INFRUCTUOUS AND LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AS THIS ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS FAR AS GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ITA NO. 4036/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 8 DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IS CONCERNED, THE LD. CIT (A) H AS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION OF REDUCING THE COST OF ACQUISITION AND THEREBY THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION COULD N OT BE SUSTAINED AS IT HAD NO BASIS. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS NOTED THAT THE FACT THAT THE COPY OF REGISTRY WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER CLAIMED TO REFLECT THE COST PER ACRE AT RS. 50,000/- PER AC RE WAS NEVER PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR HIS COMMENTS AND, THER EFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICERS RELIANCE ON THE SAME WAS NOT JU STIFIED. THE LD. CIT (A) AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE HAVE ALSO PLACE D RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE KOLKATA HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF JAGAT MOHAN KAPUR (SUPRA) AS WELL AS ORDER OF THE C UTTACK SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF HEERA LAL LOKCHANDANI VS ITO (SUPRA) FOR HOLDING THAT THE COST INFLATION INDEX C ANNOT BE APPLIED IN THE REVERSE DIRECTION. THE LD. DEPARTMEN TAL REPRESENTATIVE, IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY JUDGMENT TO THE CONTRARY FAVOURING TH E REVENUE IN THIS REGARD. THEREFORE, IN SUCH A CIRCUMSTANCE, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT ( A) ON THIS ISSUE AND WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 5.1 AS FAR AS SECOND GROUND REGARDING AGRICULTURAL INCOME BEING TREATED AS LONG TERM GAINS IS CONCERNED, IT I S SEEN THAT THE ITA NO. 4036/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 9 LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING OF FACT IN PARA 12 O F THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE LD. CIT (A), WHILE DELETING THE ADDITIO N, HAS RECORDED THAT HE HAS PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS OF THE A SSESSEE AND NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER ALL THE RELEVANT EVIDENCES IN RESPECT OF AG RICULTURE LAND FROM THE LAND IN ACQUISITION IN THE SHAPE OF JAMBANDI AND GIRDAWARI AND WHICH WERE AVAILABLE ON THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS . THE LD. CIT (A) HAS FURTHER NOTED THAT AS PER THESE TWO DOCUMENTS, IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE POSSESSION OF LAND WAS WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ALSO REFERRED TO THE JAMBANDI AND HAS NOTED THAT THE SAME CLEARLY EVIDENCES THE POSSE SSION OF LAND BY THE ASSESSEE HAVING THE 1/4 TH , 1/5 TH , 1/6 TH AND 1/8 TH PART OF THE FOUR AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN QUESTION WHICH WERE SUBJECTED TO SELF-CULTIVATION AND ACCORDINGLY THE CROPS AND TREE S PRODUCED BY THIS LAND YIELDED THE INCOME OF RS. 1,06,62,500/-. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, T HOUGH TRIED TO VERIFY THE AUTHENTICITY OF JAMBANDI, GIRDAWARI, FURD, INTKAL OF THE LANDS MENTIONED IN THE REGISTRY FROM THE TEHSIL DAR, BALLABGARH, THE SAME WAS NOT ACTIVELY PURSUED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ORDER WAS FINALLY PASSED WITHOUT AN Y FURTHER ACTION IN THE MATTER. THIS FINDING OF THE LD. CIT ( A) COULD NOT BE ITA NO. 4036/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 10 NEGATED BY THE DEPARTMENT EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US. THE LD. SR. DR HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND OUT ANY FACTUAL ERROR IN THE FINDINGS AS RECORDED B Y THE LD. CIT (A) AND, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO REASON FOR US TO IN TERFERE ON THIS ISSUE ALSO AND THE SAME IS BEING LEFT UNDISTURBED B Y US. 5.2 AS FAR AS GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL IS CONCERN ED, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUE IN PARA 12 OF THE O RDER WHEREIN HE HAS NOTED THAT AS PER REVISED AGREEMENT DATED 20 .03.2008, THE DATE OF POSSESSION WAS SHIFTED TO 3.5.2009. HE HAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE LAND WAS FINALLY REGISTERED ON 28.05 .2009 IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE PAYMENTS TILL THEN WER E KEPT BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME. L D. CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS MADE FIRST AND TH E POSSESSION WAS TRANSFERRED AS PER THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT A ND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT AN YTHING ADVERSE OR DEFECTIVE IN THAT AGREEMENT. THE LD. CI T(A) HAD ALSO REFERRED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 53A OF THE TR ANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT AND PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47)(V) APP LICABLE TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN QUESTION AND HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE SATISFIED ALL THE CONDITIONS FOR CLAIMING OF DEDUCT ION U/S 54B OF THE ACT. THIS FACTUAL FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A) C OULD NOT BE ITA NO. 4036/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 11 NEGATED BY THE LD. SR. DR DURING THE COURSE OF PROC EEDINGS BEFORE US. THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POI NT OUT ANY FACTUAL OR LEGAL DEFECT IN THE ACTION OF THE LD. CI T (A) IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U /S 54B. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE W ITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. 5.3 AS FAR AS GROUND NO. 4 OF THE DEPARTMENTS APPE AL IS CONCERNED, WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. AR THAT THE SAME IS INFRUCTUOUS AS THIS ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). THEREFORE, THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED AS IN FRUCTUOUS. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT STAN DS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH OCTOBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (S UDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 25 TH OCTOBER, 2017 GS ITA NO. 4036/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 12 COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR