DCIT, Patiala V. M/s Mohindra Precision Tools Pvt. Ltd., Patiala

ITA 460/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 77194 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 460/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2010-11 D.C.I.T. CIRCLE, PATIALA V M/S MOHINDRA PRECISION TOOLS PVT LTD. C-160, FOCAL POINT PATIALA AABCM 8727A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI R AJIV SALDI DATE OF HEARING 10.7.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 24.7.2014 O R D E R PER T.R. SOOD, A.M THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28. 2.2014 OF THE LD CIT(A), PATIALA. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOW ING GROUNDS: 1 IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT SUSTAINING THE ACTION OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER REGARDING REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT AND THEREBY DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1982056/- IGNO RING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUPPRESSED THE PROFIT BY NOT SHOWING/MAINTAINING THE STOCK/PRODUCTION REGISTERS, QUANTITATIVE TALLY OF SALES AND CONSUMPTION OF RAW MATERIAL IN T ERMS OF WEIGHT, EVIDENCE OF WASTAGE CLAIMED BY IT TO SUBSTANTIATE T HE QUANTUM OF PRODUCTION AS DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 2 IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 11700 00/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS SALARY PAID TO TWO DIRECTORS HAVI NG SHAREHOLDING IN EXCESS OF 20% IN THE COMPANY, WITHOUT APPRECIATI NG THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ADDUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT SALARY PAID BY IT TO THE DIRECTOR S WAS COMMENSURATE WITH THE MARKET VALUE OF SERVICES REND ERED BY THEM, AS THEY WERE SIMPLY DIPLOMA HOLDERS. 3 GROUND NO. 1 - AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAINING STOCK REGISTER AND PRODUCTION REGISTER. THE ASSESSEE ALSO COULD NOT FILE ANY EVID ENCE ON 2 ACCOUNT OF WASTAGE CLAIMED AND QUANTITATIVE DETAIL S, THEREFORE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE REJECTED. THEREAFTER THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE PROFITS BY OBSERVING THAT ASS ESSEE HAS SHOWN GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 43.90% BUT AFTER THE JOB RECEIPTS OF RS. 3949929/- WERE REDUCED THEN GROSS PROFIT RATE W OULD COME TO 39.4%. THEREAFTER ADDITION WAS WORKED OUT AS UN DER: AS STATED ABOVE, AFTER REDUCING THE JOB WORK DONE BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS. 39,49,929/- AND PROPORTIONATE EXPE NSES, THE GROSS PROFIT COMES TO RS. 31.4% AS AGAINST 43.90% ARRIVED ABOVE BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. THIS MEANS, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOW N ITS GROSS PROFIT RATE IN THE NORMAL COURSE LESSER BY 13.78% (43-90% - 31-4%) ON THE TURNOVER OF RS. 14383572/- (RS. 18332864 RS. 3949 929/-). THEREFORE ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT COMES TO RS. 1982056/- WHI CH IS MADE TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW G.P. 4 ON APPEAL IT WAS MAINLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WITHOUT A NY BASIS AND WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT. THERE WERE NO SALES OR PURCHASES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS. THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS SAME AS IN THE EARLIER YEARS. THEREFORE THERE WAS NO REASON TO DISTURB THE GROSS PROFIT RATE. 5 THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER EXAMINING THE SUBMISSIONS, F OUND MERIT IN THE SAME AND DECIDED THE SAME IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 6 BEFORE US. THE LD. D.R. FOR THE REVENUE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 7 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A) AND SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 8 AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIND T HAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS UNDER: 4.4 I HAVE CONSIDERED HE SUBMISSIONS MADE. THE AS SESSING OFFICER ON PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REFE RRED TO THE REMARK OF THE AUDITOR IN COLUMN NO. 28 WHEREIN IT IS SAID THAT WE ARE INFORMED THAT ON THE ACCOUNT OF MULTIPLE PRODU CTS IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN SUCH RECORDS. IT IS ALSO NO TED FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE THAT FINI SHED PRODUCTS 3 OF VARIOUS SIZES ARE BEING MANUFACTURE BY THE APPEL LANT. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY COURTS THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CAN NOT B E REJECTED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF NON MAINTENANCE OF STOCK REGISTER. SECONDLY REGARDING NON MAINTENANCE OF CERTAIN REGISTERS LIKE PRODUCTION REGISTER ETC. THE APPELLANT HAS CLEARLY CONTENDED T HAT SUCH REGISTERS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED UNDER T HE EXCISE ACT BY THE SSI UNIT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF ON PAGE 17 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER REFERRED TO THE NOTE AND CONTENDED THAT THE NOTE CLEARLY MENTIONS THAT THE WON RECORDS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ADEQUATE FOR EXCISE PURPOSES. ON PERUSAL OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND DULY REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS NOTED THAT ALL THE PURCHASES AND SALES ARE DULY VOU CHED AND THEY WERE LYING WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICAT ION. THE COMPLETE WEIGHT WISE DETAILS OF SALES, PURCHASE OPE NING AS WELL AS CLOSING STOCK HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT A ND HE HAS DULY WORKED OUT THE WASTAGE IN TERMS OF WEIGHT ON THE BA SIS OF SUCH DETAILS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED TH IS FACT. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW ANY INCORRECT ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR THAT THE PURCHASE OR SALES ARE NOT VOUCH ED PROPERLY. THE CLOSING AND OPENING STOCK DETAILS HAVE BEEN WOR KED OUT BY THE APPELLANT IN TERMS OF WEIGHT FROM THE DETAILS MAINT AINED BY HIM. THEREFORE IN MY OPINION, THERE IS NO GROUND FOR REJ ECTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON THIS BASIS. NOW COMING TO THE GROSS PROFIT EARNED FOR THIS BUSINESS THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDE D THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY COMPUTED THE GROSS PR OFIT ON ACCOUNT OF MANUFACTURING OF GOODS AT 31.8%. IN THI S PROCESS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SEGREGATED THE EXPENSES ON THE BA SIS OF GROSS RECEIPT FROM JOG WORK AND SALES WHICH IS NOT CORREC T AND IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DONE ON THE BASIS OF GOODS MANUFACTUR ED / PROCESSED E.G. BY COMPANY MIGHT HAVE MANUFACTURED 1 000KG IN A YEAR AND SALES MIGHT BE 100KG ONLY IN THE SAME YEAR . I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE APPELLANT THAT SEGREGATION OF EX PENSES IN THIS CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE ON THE BASIS OF QUANTITY MANUFACTURED AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF SALE AS DONE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. THE APPELLANT HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CONSUM ABLE EXPENSES SHOULD ALSO BE APPORTIONED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPU TATION OF GROSS PROFIT SEPARATELY FROM THE MANUFACTURING WORK DONE. AS PER SUBMISSION OF APPELLANTS, THE APPORTIONMENT OF EXPE NSES AS DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AS PER THE APPELLANT B ASED ON FIGURE FROM PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IS AS UNDER: CHART SHOWING APPORTIONMENT OF DIRECT EXPENSES DIRECT EXPENSES AMOUNT (RS) ASPER ASSESSING OFFICER A ELECTRICITY AND FUEL 386532.00 B LABOUR CHARGES 320256.00 C WAGES 894315.00 SUB TOTAL 1601103.00 APPORTIONED ONLY THIS THAT TOO IN SALES RATIO D CONSUMABLE EXPENSES 2458054.00 ADDED TOTAL AMOUNT TO WON PRODUCTION OWN QUANTITY PROCESSED 53043.00 JOB WORK QUANTITY PROCESSED 47395.00 TOTAL QUANTITY PROCESS D=(B+E) 100438.00 APPORTIONMENT OF EXPENSES ACTUAL AS EPR ASSESSING OFFICER A TOTAL ELECTRICITY, LABOUR AND WAGES 1601103.00 1601103.00 APPOINTMENT 4 OWN PRODUCTION 845569.00 1184817.00 JOB WORK 755534.00 416286.00 B TOTAL CONSUMABLES 2458054.00 2458054.00 APPOINTMENT OWN PRODUCTION 1298140.00 2458054.00 JOB WORK 1159914.00 NIL THUS THE GROSS PROFIT ON ACCOUNT OF MANUFACTURING U NITS AS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT IS AS UNDER: ADJUSTED MANUFACTURING 7 TRADING ACCOUNT OF OWN PRODUCTION O. STOCK SALES 14382934.00 RAW MATERIAL 687551.00 WORK IN PROGRESS 90770.00 CLOSING STOCK PACKING MATERIAL 28,000.00 RAW MATERIAL 552356.00 FINISHED GOODS 146653.00 WORK IN PROGRESS 137813.00 SCRAP 13471.00 PACKCING MATERIAL 15917.00 FINISHED GOODS 55615.00 RAW MATERIAL PURCHASE 6070172.00 SCRAP 48800.00 CONSUMABLE CONSUMED 1298140.00 OTHER DIRECT EXPENDITURE 844569.00 GROSS PROFIT 6013109.000 15193435.00 15193435.00 GROSS PROFIT RATIO 41.81 LOOKING INTO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I AM IN AGREEME NT WITH THE APPELLANT THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEGREGATION OF EX PENSES BOTH DIRECT EXPENSES AND CONSUMABLE EXPENSES HAS TO BE T AKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AND FURTHER THAT THESE EXPENSES SHOU LD BE APPORTIONED ON THE BASIS OF QUANTITY PRODUCED,. O N THIS BASIS THE GROSS PROFIT IN RESPECT OF MANUFACTURING IS COMING TO 41.81% AS AGAINST 31.8% ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS THERE IS HARDLY ANY DIFFERENCE FROM THE GROSS PROFIT IN THE CONSOLIDATED MANUFACTURING A TRADING ACCOUNT WHICH AS THE PRIMA RY REASON FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. LOOKING INTO THE EN TIRETY OF THE CASE, IT IS THEREFORE SEEN THAT FIRSTLY THERE IS NO ADVERSE REFERENCE REGARDING THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE APPELLANT HAS DULY MAINTAINED THE BOOKS FROM WHICH THE GROSS PRO FIT AS WELL AS QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF OPENING AND CLOSING STOCK E TC. CAN BE INFERRED. THE VOUCHERS FOR PURCHASE AND SALE A RE DULY MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND PRODUCED BEFORE THE AS SESSING OFFICER AND NO DISCREPANCY WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN FOUN D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE APPELLANT HAS DULY COMPUTED WASTAGE GENERATED OUT OF THE BUSINESS PART OF WHICH IS STAT EDLY USED FOR LAND FILLING ETC AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT COME OUT WITH ANY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. THE GROSS PROFIT AS SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT FROM THE MANUFACTURING UNIT IS NEARLY SAME AS IN THE CONSOLIDATED FIGURES. THEREFORE IN MY OPINION THE REJECT ION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE A DDITION OF RS. 1982056/- CAN NOT BE SUSTAINED AND THE ADDITION IS, THEREFORE DELETED. 5 IN OUR OPINION, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY DECIDE D THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE ALL THE DETAILS W ERE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND EVEN THE DETAILS F OR WASTAGE WERE DULY FILED. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO CORRECTLY OBSERVED THAT ALL THE EXPENSES, BOTH DIRECT AND INDIRECT HAV E TO BE CONSIDERED. THEREFORE IN OUR VIEW THE LD. CIT(A) H AS ALSO WORKED OUT GROSS PROFIT RATE IN DETAIL. THESE ARE FACTUAL FINDINGS AND THE LD. D.R FOR THE REVENUE HAS NOT PO INTED OUT ANY ERROR IN THESE FINDINGS. THEREFORE WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 9 GROUND NO. 2 - AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OF FICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID SALARY TO THE DI RECTORS S/SHRI KAMAL MOHINDER SINGH AND YASH MOHINDER SINGH @ 11,85,000/- PER ANNUM . IT WAS FURTHER NOTED THAT IN THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR SALARY PAID WAS RS. 9.00 L AKHS PER ANNUM, THEREFORE INCREASE WAS FOR RS. 23,750/- PER MONTH. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE WHY EXCESSIVE SALA RY SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NAME S OF CERTAIN COMPANIES WERE ALSO GIVEN WHERE IN THE SIMILAR LINE OF BUSINESS LESSER SALARIES WERE GIVEN TO THE DIRECTORS. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT VARIOUS COMPANIES MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER WERE ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION WORK WHICH WAS BEING DONE ON AUTOMATIC PLANTS. THEREFORE SAME COULD NOT COMPARE D WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IN RESPECT OF ESGI TOOLS PVT LTD IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THIS COMPANY IS MANUFACTURING DIFF ERENT PRODUCTS AND THEREFORE GROSS PROFIT RATE 33.9% WHIC H WAS LOWER THAN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THEREFORE SAME WERE NOT 6 COMPARABLE. IN RESPECT OF OTHER COMPANIES ALSO IT WAS STATED THAT GROSS PROFIT WAS LOWER AND THEREFORE SAME WAS NOT COMPARABLE. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSES SEE COMPANY WAS IN TOTALITY PAYING HIGHER TAXES THEN OT HER COMPANIES MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT S/SHRI KAMAL MOHINDER SINGH AND YASH MOHINDER SINGH WERE HOLDING SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN THE COMPANY AS BOTH HAD MORE THAN 20% SHARE HOLDING. F URTHER TWO COMPANIES I.E. ESGI TOOLS PVT LTD, FOCAL POINT , PVT LTD. AND SUPER HOB AND BOARACHES PVT LTD, PATIALA HAD AL SO PAID SALARY TO THE DIRECTORS WHICH WAS MUCH LESS. ULTIM ATELY HE INVOKED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) AND ALLOWE D SALARY @ RS. 50,000/- PM TO EACH OF THE DIRECTOR AND DISALLO WED A SUM OF RS. 1170,000/- I.E. RS. 11,70,000/- (RS. 23,70,0 00 12,00,000/-). 10 ON APPEAL IT WAS MAINLY SUBMITTED THAT THE DIREC TORS WERE IN THE HIGHER TAX BRACKET AND WERE NOT SAVING ANY T AXES AND THEREFORE EFFECT TO THE REVENUE WAS NIL AND DISALLO WANCE COULD NOT BE MADE. IN THIS REGARD RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF CIT V SHIA RAM GARG (HUF), 237 CTR 321 (PH). IT WAS CONTENDED THAT EVEN IF ALLOWANCE PRESCRIBED U/S 40A(2)(B) WAS CONSIDERED EVEN THEN SALARY WOULD BE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF THAT SECTION. FURTHER THE DIREC TORS WERE WELL QUALIFIED AND WERE ENGAGED IN THE MARKETING WORK. N O OTHER HIGHLY STAFF WAS BEING PAID HIGH SALARY AND THE SAL ARY WAS JUSTIFIED. AS AN EXAMPLE IT WAS CONTENDED THAT M/S TRIDENT HAD EMPLOYED FRESHER EMPLOYEES AT RS. 40,000 PM. 11 THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER EXAMINING THE SUBMISSIONS, FOUND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS AND DELETED THE SAME. 7 12 BEFORE US. THE LD. D.R FOR THE REVENUE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 13 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A) AND SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 14 AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED VIDE PARA 6.3 WHICH IS A S UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE. IT IS NOTE D THAT IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR SALARY TO THE TUNE OF RS . 9.00 LAKHS WAS GIVEN TO THE DIRECTORS. IN THIS YEAR THERE IS A N INCREASE IN THE SALARY TO THE TUNE EXTENT OF RS. 1185000/-. BOTH DI RECTORS ARE FULL TIME DIRECTOR. THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS EARNED GRO SS PROFIT OF AROUND 44% OUT OF THE OPERATIONS. THE APPELLANT HA S DULY SUBMITTED THAT IN THE OTHER COMPANIES REFERRED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE GROSS PROFIT RATE IS LOW. THE APPELLA NT HAS FURTHER CITED SOME OTHER CASES TO JUSTIFY THE GROSS PROFIT. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THERE IS NO LOSS TO THE REV ENUE AS BOTH THE DIRECTORS ARE IN THE HIGH TAX BRACKET AND EVEN U/S 40(B) IN THE CASE OF FIRMS, THE SALARY ALLOWED TO PARTNERS WILL BE HI GHER. LOOKING INTO THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS IN MY OPINION FOR THE TW O FULL TIME DIRECTORS SALARY OF RS. 98,750/- PER ANNUM IS NOT E XCESSIVE. LOOKING INTO THE FACT OF THE CASE THIS ADDITION IS DELETED. IN OUR OPINION, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY ADJUDI CATED THE ISSUE. APART FROM THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT (A), WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT IS PREROGATIVE OF ASSESSEE C OMPANY TO FIX THE SALARY. SECTION 40A(2)(B) CANNOT BE INVOKED BEC AUSE THE SALARY OF A DIRECTOR CANNOT BE COMPARED WITH ANY OT HER PERSON UNLESS OTHER PERSON IS ALSO OF SAME QUALIFICATION A ND SAME TEMPERAMENT. OTHERWISE ALSO SALARY TO THE TUNE OF RS. 9.00 LAKHS WAS GIVEN IN THE EARLIER YEAR AND AN INCREMEN T FOR THIS YEAR HAS TO BE GIVEN WHICH SEEMS TO BE REASONABLE. THEREFORE WE FIND NOTHING WRONG IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND CO NFIRM THE SAME. 15 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24.7.2014 SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 24.7.2014 SURESH COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT/THE C IT(A)/THE DR 8