Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Panchkula V. Addl. CIT, Panchkula

ITA 554/CHANDI/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1558 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 25-05-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR AMA RVEER SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISH NAYYAR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Charitable institution; Opportunity of being heard; Capital receipt
• Section: 12A; 12AA; 10; 154; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES DB CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 554/CHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 M/S U.H.B.V.N.LTD., VS. THE ADDL. CIT SECTOR-6 PANCHKULA PANCHKULA, PAN NO. AAACU4562G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI HARISH NAYYAR RESPONDENT BY : DR. AMAR VEER SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 20/07/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 03/08/2015 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(A) PANCHKULA DT. 06/03/2009, FOR AY 2005-06. 2. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF BOTH PARTIES AND PERUSED MATERIAL ON RECORD. 3. IN THIS APPEAL ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 2 1.] THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY HAVE BEEN MADE IN A HASTE HAVING IGNORED BASIC ASPECTS AND CO NCEPTS CAUSING UNDUE HARDSHIP TO THE ASSESSEE. 2.] THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND LAW IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS. 116615528 ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION TO CAP ITAL GRANT-IN-AID RECEIVED. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS ILLEGAL, UNJUST AND NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW IN THIS REGARD. SINCE THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN AN ARBITRARY MA NNER, THE SAME DESERVES TO BE DELETED. IT IS PRAYED THAT ADDITION OF RS. 116615528 MAY KIN DLY BE ORDERED TO BE DELETED. 3] THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND LAW IN CONFIRMING OF RS. 168748548 ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION RELATABLE TO CONSUMERS CONTRIBUTION . THE ADDITION IS IMAGINARY, ILLEGAL, UNJUST AND NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW IN THIS REGARD. SINCE THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN AN ARBITRARY MA NNER, THE SAME DESERVES TO BE DELETED. IT IS PRAYED THAT ADDITION OF RS. 168748548 MAY KIN DLY BE ORDERED TO BE DELETED. 4] THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND LAW IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS. 55134381 ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION RELATAB LE TO OTHER LIABILITIES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ADDITION IS ILLEGAL, UNJUST AND NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW IN THIS REGARD. SINCE THE ADDITIO N HAS BEEN MADE IN AN ARBITRARY MANNER, THE SAME DESERVES TO BE DELETED. SINCE THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN AN ARBITRARY MA NNER, THE SAME DESERVES TO BE DELETED. IT IS PRAYED THAT ADDITION OF RS. 55134381 MAY KIND LY BE ORDERED TO BE DELETED. 5] THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND LAW IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS. 200000 ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON RESIDENTIAL HOUSES. THE ADDITION IS ILLEGAL, UNJUST AND NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE PROV ISIONS OF LAW IN THIS REGARD. SINCE THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN AN ARBITRARY MA NNER, THE SAME DESERVES TO BE DELETED. IT IS PRAYED THAT ADDITION OF RS. 200000 MAY KINDLY BE ORDERED TO BE DELETED. 6] THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND LAW IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS. 32991315 ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAYMENT ON LOANS TAKEN FROM MARKET COMMITTEE. THE ADDITION IS ILLEGAL, UNJUST AND NOT IN CONSONAN CE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW IN THIS REGARD. SINCE THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN AN ARBITRARY MA NNER, THE SAME DESERVES TO BE DELETED. IT IS PRAYED THAT ADDITION OF RS. 32991315 MAY KIND LY BE ORDERED TO BE DELETED. 7] THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND LAW IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS. 6371000 ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS ON OBSOLENCE OF STORES IN THE NATURE OF PROVI SION . THE ADDITION IS ILLEGAL, UNJUST AND NOT IN CONSONAN CE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW IN THIS REGARD. SINCE THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN AN ARBITRARY MA NNER, THE SAME DESERVES TO BE DELETED. IT IS PRAYED THAT ADDITION OF RS. 6371000 MAY KINDL Y BE ORDERED TO BE DELETED. 3 8] THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, DELETE, CONCED E, MODIFY AND ALTER ANY OR ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 4. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND HENCE NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION. 5. GROUND NO. 2 AND 3 RELATE TO DEPRECIATION TO CA PITAL GRANT-IN-AID RECEIVED AND RELATABLE TO CONSUMER CONTRIBUTION AM OUNTING TO RS. 11,66,15,528/- AND RS. 16,87,48,548/-. THE AO OBSE RVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED CAPITAL GRANT-IN-AID WHICH WAS GIVEN TO ME ET EXPENDITURE ON FIXED ASSETS. HE NOTICED THAT CAPITAL GRANT-IN-AID AMOUNT ING TO RS. 6,29,89,387/- WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE TILL DATE TO MEET A PART O F THE COST OF ASSETS INSTALLED. THE ASSETS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY FUND ED BY THE STATE GOVT. IN THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE, THE GRANT OF RS. 19,23,035/- WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THIS AM OUNT WAS NOT REDUCED FROM THE ORIGINAL COST OF THE ASSETS. THE ASSESSEE PLACE D RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF CIT VS. P.J. CHEMICALS LIMITED (AND OTHER APPEALS) 210 ITR 830 AND STATED THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED WAS A CAPITAL RECEIPT AND HENCE NOT TAXABLE. THE AO HELD THAT THE APPELLANTS RELIANCE ON THE SAID JUDG MENT WAS NOT RELEVANT AFTER THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 43(1) OF THE ACT, WHEREBY THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT SUCH GRANT IN AID FROM THE COST OF ASSETS FO R THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF DEPRECIATION, AS PER EXPLANATION 10 TO SECTION 4 3(1). IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS THE AO REDUCED THE ENTIRE CAPITAL GRANT-IN-AID AMOU NTING TO RS. 46,64,62,115/- FROM THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE ASSETS OF PLANT & MACHINERY AND ALLOWED 25% DEPRECIATION ON SAID REDUCED AMOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, A N ADDITION OF RS. 11,66,15,528/- WAS MADE. 6. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN CAPITAL RESERVE OF RS. 67 ,49,94,195/- ON ACCOUNT OF CONSUMER CONTRIBUTION FOR SERVICES OF CONNECTION , LINES AND OTHER CAPITAL 4 RECEIPTS. ON ENQUIRY BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAI NED THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS PAID BY THE CONSUMER TOWARDS COST OF ASSETS SUCH AS METER, TRANSFORMER, AND TRANSMISSION LINES SPECIFICALLY LAID DOWN BY THE CO NSUMER. IT WAS PART FUNDING OF THE ASSETS INSTALLED AT THE CONSUMERS PREMISES. TH E AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON THESE FIXED AS SETS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT REDUCED THIS AMOUNT OF CONSUMER CONTRIBUTION FROM THE ACTUAL COST OF ASSETS FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPU TATION OF DEPRECIATION. AGAIN IN THE LIGHT OF EXPLANATION 10 TO SECTION 43(1), TH E AO MADE DISALLOWANCE OF 25% DEPRECIATION ON THE SAID AMOUNT AND MADE AN ADDITIO N OF RS. 16,87,48,548/-. 7. THE ASSESSEE WENT INTO APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AND AFTER DISCUSSION, THE GROUNDS WERE DISMISSED BY HIM. 8. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, OUR ATTE NTION WAS DRAWN TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IN ITA NO. 752/CHD/2011 DT. 16/04/2014, WHEREBY BOTH THESE ISSUES WERE DEALTWITH AND DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THOUGH THIS WAS AN A PPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) QUASHING THE OR DER PASSED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 154. THE GROUND WERE RAISED ON THE LEGALITY OF ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 154 AS WELL AS ON MERITS. HONBLE ITAT WHIL E UPHOLDING THE ORDER MADE UNDER SECTION 154 ALSO ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE ON MER IT AT PAGE 4 PARA 9 AS FOLLOWS: THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IN REL ATION TO SUCH EXERCISE OF POWER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HA D REWORKED THE DEPRECIATION OF CERTAIN PORTION OF THE ASSETS WHICH WERE NOT ADMISSIBLE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 10 TO SECTION 43(1 ) OF THE ACT. THE NON- APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF THE ACT IS A MISTAKE A ND SUCH MISTAKES ARE AMENABLE TO RECTIFICATION BY EXERCISE OF POWERS UND ER SECTION 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 1961. THE COMPLEXITY OF THE WORKING OF THE ALLOWABLE DEPRECIATION TO RE-WORK VALUE OF ASSETS DOES NOT IN ANY MANNER RESTRAIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OPEN TO CARRY OUT THE RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT IN ORDER TO CORRECT AN Y MISTAKE IN APPLICATION OF 5 LAW. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. INVESTMENT T RUST OF INDIA LTD. 184 TAXMAN 381 (P&H). HOWEVER, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPUTE THE DEPRECIATION ON REDUCED VALUE OF ASSETS AFTER GIVIN G A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. THE ASSE SSE IS DIRECTED TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT DATA / MATERIAL BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IN THIS RESPECT. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE RE VENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SINCE NO CHANGE IN FACTS WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TR IBUNAL, WE ALSO DIRECT THE AO TO RECOMPUTE THE DEPRECIATION ON REDUCED VALUE OF ASSE TS AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AS WAS DECIDED AGAINST ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DECIDED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. GROUND NO. 4 RELATES TO DEPRECIATION RELATABLE TO OTHER LIABILITY SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO OBSERVED THAT IN THE BALANCE S HEET AS ON 31/03/2005, CURRENT LIABILITY AND PROVISIONS INCLUDED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 22,50,37,527/- AS DEPOSITED FOR ELECTRIFICATION AND SURVEY CONNECTION . ON AN ENQUIRY BY THE AO THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN CONTRIBUTION FROM THE CONSUMER IS RECEIVED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSTALLATION OF METER ETC., THE SAME IS KEPT UNDER THIS HEAD. SUBSEQUENTLY, WHEN CONNECTION IS ALLOWED TO THE ASS ESSEE AND THE METER IS ENERGIZED THE AMOUNT IS SHIFTED TO CONSUMER CONTRIB UTION. HOWEVER THE AO HELD THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TOWARDS MEETING THE COST OF ASSETS TO BE INSTALLED AT THE CONSUMER PREMISES. THESE ASS ETS HAVING APPEARED IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS FIXED ASSETS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HELD THAT DEPRECIATION ON THIS AMOUNT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE TO THE ASSESSEE ACCORD INGLY, HE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 5,51,34,381/-. 11. THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE ON THIS GROUND. 6 12. BEFORE US THE LD. AR MADE THE SAME SUBMISSION W HICH WERE MADE BEFORE THE AO. 13. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A). 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORDS. 15. IT IS SEEN THAT THE AMOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSI T FOR ELECTRIFICATION AND SURVEY CONNECTION INITIALLY RECEIVED ARE KEPT UNDER THE SAME HEAD IN THE BALANCE SHEET. WHEN THE WORK IS COMPLETED THE SAME IS TRANSFERRED TO CONSUMER CONTRIBUTION FOR SURVEY CONNECTION AT SCHE DULE 2 IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THUS DISALLOWANCE OF THE DEPRECIATION OF THE SAME AMOUNT UNDER THE HEAD DEPOSIT FOR ELECTRIFICATION AND SURVEY CONNEC TION AND UNDER THE HEAD CONSUMER CONTRIBUTION FOR SERVICE CONNECTION MAY RESULTS INTO DOUBLE DISALLOWANCE OF THE SAME AMOUNT. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) MAY NOT BE C ORRECT. THE ISSUE OF DEPRECIATION RELATABLE TO CONSUMERS CONTRIBUTION APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET, HAVING DEALT WITH BY US IN GROUND NO. 3, THE AO IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE FACTS AND REDECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER GIVIN G OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO ASSESSEE . THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. 16. THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED NOT TO PR ESS THE GROUND NO.5, HENCE, THE GROUND NO. 5 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED . 17. GROUND NO. 6 RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 3299131 5/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAYMENT OF LOANS TAKEN FROM MARKET COMMITTEE. 7 18. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN LOA NS OF RS. 56,65,18,628/- FROM MARKET COMMITTEE. THIS WAS THE BALANCE OUTSTAN DING AS ON 31/03/2005 AND WAS INCLUSIVE OF THE INTEREST DUE IN THE CURREN T YEAR. IN THE FINANCIAL EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3 ,29,91,315/- WAS CLAIMED AS AN EXPENDITURE. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE AMOUNT REPRESENTED ONLY ACCRUED INTEREST WHICH WAS CREDITED TO THE LOAN ACCOUNT OF THE MARKET COMMITTEE. ACTUAL PAYMENT OF THIS INTEREST WAS NOT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA), THE AO MADE DISALL OWANCE OF THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 3,29,91,315/-, AS THE ASSESSE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TAX ON THE SAID PAYMENT OF INTEREST. 19. THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE ON THIS GROUND. 20. BEFORE US LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT MARKET COMMITTEES ARE CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS WHOSE INCOME IS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THEREFORE, PROVISION OF SECTION 40( A)(IA) CANNOT BE INVOKED IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. RELIANCE WAS PLACE ON THE CIRCU LAR OF CBDT, NO. F 12/113/68-IT (A-II), DT. 28/10/1968. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE MARKET COMMITTEE HAD ALSO PROVIDED THE COPY OF ORDER OF CI T GRANTING REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, DT. 09/09/2015. 21. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A). 22. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORDS. 23. IT IS A MATTER OF FACT THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3, 29,91,315/- IS ACCRUED INTEREST ON LOAN TAKEN FROM MARKET COMMITTEE, HOWEVER, NO AC TUAL PAYMENT OF THIS 8 INTEREST AMOUNT WAS MADE. IT IS ALSO AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT NO TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED ON THE SAID INTEREST. AS PER THE ORDER OF LD. CIT DT. 09/09/2005 PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 20 THE MARKET COMMITTEE IS A CHA RITABLE INSTITUTION REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT, INCOME OF WHICH IS EXEMPTED UNDER SECTION 11. CBDT HAS ALSO ISSUED A CIRCULAR DT. 12/ 113/68-IT (A-II), DT. 28/10/1968, WHEREBY, IT HAS BEEN CLARIFIED THAT THERE IS NO NEE D TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE WHILE MAKING PAYMENT TO INSTITUTIONS WHOSE INCOME I S EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. 24. FURTHER, TDS IS ALSO NOT REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTE D FROM THE PAYMENTS CREDITED TO THE MARKET COMMITTEES SINCE THEY ARE EX CLUDED UNDER SECTION 194A(3)(III)(F) OF THE ACT, BY A NOTIFICATION NO. S .O.2203, DT. 16/06/1970, ISSUED BY THE CBDT WHEREBY MARKET COMMITTEES ARE NOTIFIED UND ER THE ABOVE SAID CLAUSE. THE NOTIFICATION READ AS UNDER : IN PURSUANCE OF SUB-CLAUSE(F) OF CLAUSE (III) OF SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 194A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961(43 OF 1961), THE C ENTRAL GOVERNMENT HEREBY NOTIFY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE SAID SUB-CLAU SE, THE MARKET COMMITTEES ESTABLISHED UNDER THE STATE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MA RKETS ACTS IN VARIOUS STATES. THUS IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, SINCE THE INCOME OF THE MARKET COMMITTEE IS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 11, AND ALSO IT COMES UNDER EXCLUSION ARY CLAUSE OF SECTION 194A, THERE IS NO NEED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON THE SAM E. THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40( A)(IA) IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE CAN BE MADE. THE AO IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 25. IN THE RESULT GROUND NO. 6 OF THE APPEAL IS ALL OWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 26. THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED NOT TO PR ESS THE GROUND NO.7, HENCE, THE GROUND NO. 7 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED . 9 27. THE GROUND NO. 8 OF APPEAL IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND HENCE NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION. 28. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03/08/2015 SD/- SD/- (T.R. SOOD) (BHAVNESH SA INI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED :03/08/2015 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR