Jones Manasha, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 612/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 95829 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N MADHAVANJCIT
• Assessee Lawyers: K BALASUBR AMANIAN
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Question of law; Difference of opinion; Notional interest
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , D B ENCH, CHENNAI . , ' $ , % ' BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO . 612/MDS/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) MR.JONES MANASHA 2, MOOVARASAMPET MAIN ROAD, MADIPAKKAM, CHENNAI-600 091. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-II(3), CHENNAI-34. PAN:AAJPJ5610N ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR.K.BALASUBRAMANIAN, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR. N.MADHAVAN,JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 18 TH JUNE, 2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 TH AUGUST, 2015 / O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JM: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, CHE NNAI DATED 17.01.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. T HE ONLY ISSUE IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITI ON MADE UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOME T AX RULES. 2. AT THE OUTSET, COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT IN THIS CASE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY DIVIDEND IN COME WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION IN THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2 ITA NO.612 /MDS/2014 2010-11. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCE S WHEN NO DIVIDEND INCOME WAS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND M ADE ANY CLAIM, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL H ELD THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A HAVE NO APPLICATION IN TH E CASE OF ACIT VS. M.BASKARAN IN ITA NO.1717/MDS/2013 DATED 31.07.2014, A COPY OF THE SAID ORDER IS PLACED ON R ECORD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITS THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL INVES TMENTS OF ` 6,08,78,812/-, ` 4,94,78,812/- REPRESENTS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WITH JONES FOUNDATION PVT. LTD. WHICH IS NOT AN INVESTMENT OR ASSET YIELDING TAX FREE INCOME BUT IS ONLY A DEBT DUE TO THE ASSESSEE TILL THE DATE OF ALLOTMENT OF S HARES, THEREFORE THE SAME WOULD HAVE TO BE EXCLUDED IN WO RKING OUT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D. FOR THIS PROPOSITIO N, COUNSEL PLACES RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RAINY INVESTMENTS P. LTD. V S. ACIT (30 TAXMANN.COM 169). THE COUNSEL FURTHER REFERRING TO BALANCE SHEET FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 , PARTICULARLY SCHEDULE V, SUBMITS THAT AS ON 31.03.2 010 INVESTMENT OF ` 4,94,78,812/- IS STILL LYING AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. THUS, HE SUBMITS THAT IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, SHARE APPLICATION MONEY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS INVESTMEN T FOR 3 ITA NO.612 /MDS/2014 THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D. 3. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTS THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE O RDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE DECISIONS RELIED ON. I N THE CASE OF ACIT VS. M.BASKARAN(SUPRA), THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH F OLLOWING VARIOUS DECISIONS OF HIGH COURTS DELETED THE DISALL OWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 14A FOR THE REASON THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT EARNED ANY EXEMPT INCOME. ADMITTEDLY, IN THIS CASE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY EXEMPT INCOME DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, THEREFORE THIS DECISION I S SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE C O-ORDINATE BENCH WHILE HOLDING THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A HAVE NO APPLICATION, WHEN NO EXEMPT INCOME IS RECEIVED IN T HE PREVIOUS YEAR HELD AS UNDER:- 5. HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AN D THE DECISIONS IN RELIED ON. NO DOUBT IN THE DECISIO N OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF DELHI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CHEM INVEST LTD. VS. ITO (SUPRA), THE SPECIAL BENCH HELD THAT DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A CAN BE MADE EVEN IN THE YEAR IN WHICH NO EXEMPT INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED OR RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH 4 ITA NO.612 /MDS/2014 OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN IMPLIEDLY OVERRULED BY THE DECISIONS OF HIGH COURTS IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: 6. IN THE CASE OF M/S. SHIVAM MOTORS P.LTD. (SUPRA ), BEFORE THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, THE REVENUE RAISE D THE FOLLOWING QUESTION OF LAW:- WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW, THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTI FIED IN UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF CIT(A) IN DELETING THE DI SALLOWANCE OF ` 2,03,752/- U/S.14A IGNORING THE FACT THAT THERE IS DIFFERENCE OF OPINION OF VARIOUS COURTS ON THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ITAT THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF TAX FREE INCOME, NO DISALLOWANCE U/S .14A IS PERMISSIBLE. 7. THE HIGH COURT WHILE ANSWERING THE SAID QUESTION HELD AS UNDER:- AS REGARDS THE SECOND QUESTION, SECTION 14A OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING THE TOT AL INCOME UNDER THE CHAPTER, NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT. HENCE, WHAT SECTION 14A PROVIDES IS THAT IF THERE I S ANY INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE INCOME UNDER THE ACT, THE EXPENDITURE WHICH IS INCURRED FOR EARNING THE I NCOME IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION. FOR THE YEAR IN QUESTION, T HE FINDING OF FACT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT EARNED ANY TAX FR EE INCOME. HENCE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY TAX FREE INCOME, THE CORRESPONDING EXPENDITURE COULD NOT BE WORKED OUT F OR DISALLOWANCE. THE VIEW OF THE CIT(A), WHICH HAS BEE N AFFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL, HENCE DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW. HENCE, THE DELETION OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,03,752/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS IN ORDER. 8. THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. C ORRTECH ENERGY PVT. LTD.(SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER:- WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE F ACTS 5 ITA NO.612 /MDS/2014 AND THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE ID AR. THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD . REPORTED AT (2009) 3191TR 204(P&H) HAS HELD THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE , ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION . IN SUCH A SITUATION, SECTION 14A COULD HAVE NO APPLICATION. I N THIS CASE ALSO , THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY EXEMPT INCOME IN THIS YEAR . THEREFORE , RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGEMENT OF HON ' BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD. (SUPRA) , WE HEREBY ALLOW THIS GROUND AND DIRECT THE AO TO DE LETE THE ADDITION . THEREFORE , GROUND NOS 1 TO 1 . 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION ARE ALLOWED .' 4. COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER AS WELL AS CIT(APPEALS) HAD APP L IED FORMULA OF RULE 80 OF THE INCOME TAX RULES , SINCE THIS CASE AROSE AFTER THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20092010 . SINCE IN THE PRESENT CASE , WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20092010 , SUCH FORMULA WAS CORRECTLY APPLIED BY THE REVENUE. WE HOWEVER , NOTICE THAT SUBSECTION (1) OF SECTION 14A PROVIDES T HAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING TOTAL INCOME UNDER CHAPTER IV OF THE ACT , NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED I N RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE I N RELAT I ON TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT . IN THE PRESENT CASE , THE TRIBUNAL HAS RECORDED THE FINDING OF FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION OF ANY INCOME FROM PAYMENT OF TAX . IT WAS ON THIS BASIS THAT THE TRIBUNA L HELD THAT DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE MADE . IN THE PROCESS TRIBUNAL RELIED ON THE DECISION OF DIVISION BENCH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HI GH COURT IN CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V WINSO ME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD REPORTED IN (2009) 319 ITR 2 04 (PUNJ&HAR) IN WHICH ALSO THE COURT HAD OBSERVED AS UNDER : ' 7 . WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS SUBMISSION . THE JUDGEMENT OF THIS COURT IN ABHISHEK INDUSTRIES LTD (2006) 286 ITR 1 WAS ON THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY O F INTEREST PAID ON LOANS GIVEN TO SISTER CONCERNS, WI THOUT INTEREST . IT WAS HELD THAT DEDUCTION FOR INTEREST WAS PERMISSIBLE WHEN LOAN WAS TAKEN FOR BUSINESS PURPOS E 6 ITA NO.612 /MDS/2014 AND NOT FOR DIVERTING THE SAME TO SISTER CONCERN WI THOUT HAVING NEXUS WITH THE BUSINESS. THE OBSERVATIONS MADE THEREIN HAVE TO BE READ IN THAT CONTEXT . IN THE PRESENT CASE, ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSE DID NOT MAKE A NY CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION. IN SUCH A SITUATION SECTION 1 4A COULD HAVE NO APPLICATION . ' 5 . WE DO NOT FIND ANY QUESTION OF LAW ARISING, TAX APP EAL IS THEREFORE DISMISSED . 9. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DELITE ENTERPRISES(SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER:- THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL ON THE FOLLOWING QUESTION S:- ' WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE HON 'BLE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER OF INTEREST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON BORROWE D FUNDS AMOUNTING TO RS.241.10 LAKHS OVERLOOKING THE FACT THAT THE BORROWED FUNDS WERE USED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO INVEST IN THE CAPITAL OF ANOTHER PARTNER SHIP FIRM AND SINCE PROFITS DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY FROM A PARTNERSHIP FIRM WERE EXEMPT FROM TAX U/S.10 (2A) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, THE INTEREST EXPENSE RELATED TO SUCH TAX FREE PROFITS IS TO BE DISALLOWED U/S.14A O F THE INCOME TAX ACT? (B) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT CONSIDER NOTIONAL INTEREST ON DEPOSI T RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHILE ARRIVING AT THE FAIR MAR KET VALUE U/S.23(1) (A) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT?' 2. IN SO FAR AS QUESTION (A) IS CONCERNED, ON FACTS WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO PROFIT FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. HENCE THE QUESTION AS FRAMED WOULD NOT ARISE. 10. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBE PUNJA B & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. LAKHANI MARKETIN G INCL. IN ITA NO.970 OF 2008 DATED 2.4.2014. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WHILE AFFIRMING THE DECISIONS OF 7 ITA NO.612 /MDS/2014 CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL IN DELETING THE DISA LLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 14A OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 7. AFTER HEARING LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEALS. 8. THE PRIMARY ISSUE THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IN THESE APEPALS IS WHETHER THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL WERE RIGHT IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF INTEREST LIABIL ITY OUT OF OTHER INCOME AND THE CLAIM OF THE REVENUE TO DISALL OW THE SAME UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT WAS JUSTIFIED. 9. THE CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 24.6.2004 ANNEXURE A .II RECORDED AS UNDER:- '7.2 KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IT IS HELD THAT THE AO WAS NOT CORRECT IN APPLYING SECTION 14A OF THE IT ACT IN DISALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST AMOUNTING TO ` 46,91,684/-. IT WAS INCUMBENT ON THE AO TO ESTABLISH A NEXUS BETWEEN THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED AND THE INCOME WHICH WAS EXEMPT UNDER THE ACT. FACTS CLEARLY DO NOT SUPPORT THE ACTION OF THE AO. DISALLOWANCE IS ACCORDINGLY DELETED. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO RECOMPUTED THE INCOME ACCORDINGLY.' 10.VIDE ORDER DATED 16.5.2008, ANNEXURE A.III, THE TRIBUNAL ON APPEAL BY THE REVENUE WHILE UPHOLDING THE FINDING R ECORDED BY THE CIT(A) NOTICED AS UNDER:- 'WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. FROM THE READING OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT, IT IS CLEAR THAT BEFORE MAKING ANY DISALLOWANCE THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO EXIST: - A) THAT THERE MUST BE INCOME TAXABLE UNDER THE ACT, AND B) THAT THIS INCOME MUST NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT, AND C) THAT THERE MUST BE AN EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND D) THAT THE EXPENDITURE MUST HAVE A RELATION TO THE INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL 8 ITA NO.612 /MDS/2014 INCOME UNDER THE ACT. 9. THEREFORE, UNLESS AND UNTIL, THERE IS RECEIPT OF EXEMPTED INCOME FOR THE CONCERNED ASSESSMENT YEARS (DIVIDEND FROM SHARES), WE ARE OF THE VIEW, SECTION 14A OF THE ACT CANNOT BE INVOKED. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS NOT DIS PELLED THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A), NOR THE STATEMENT OF TH E ASSESSEE BEFORE AO THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT IN RECEIPT OF ANY DIVIDEND INCOME AND HENCE ACCORDING TO US, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN INVOKING SECTION 14A OF THE AC T, TO DISALLOW VARIOUS INTERESTPAYMENTS ON CAPITAL ACCOUN T, SECURITY DEPOSITS AND UNSECURED LOANS. THIS CONCLUS ION OF OURS FINDS SUPPORT IN THE DECISION OF BOMBAY BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. HOLLAND EQUIPMENT CO. B.V. REPORTED IN (2005) 3 SOT 810 (MUMBAI) AND THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE BOMBAY BENCH O F THE TRIBUNAL IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- 'REGARDING APPLICATION OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT, THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE HAS TO BE REJECTED ON THE FACE OF IT INASMUCH AS THE ENTIRE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS TAXABLE UNDER THE ACT. SECTION 14A IS APPLICABLE ONLY WHEN ANY PART OF THE INCOME IS NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE EXPENDITURE RELATING TO THAT PART OF INCOME IS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS DEDUCTION. IN SUCH CASES ONLY, THE EXPENDITURE RELATING TO THE EXEMPTED INCOME CAN BE DISALLOWED AND NOT OTHERWISE. SINCE IN THE PRESENT CASETHE ENTIRE INCOME IS FOUND TO BE TAXABLE, NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT.' 10. MOREOVER, THE AO HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THE NEXUS BETWEEN INVESTED FUNDS AND THE INTEREST BEARING FUN DS, SINCE THE INVESTMENTS IN SHARES ARE IN THE YEARS 19 95-96, 1998-99 AND 1999-2000 AND THE INTEREST DISALLOWANCE IS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 AND 2001 -02. ON T HE CONTRARY PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.3.1995, 31.3.1998 AND 31.3.1999, IT IS CLEAR THA T INTEREST BEARING FUNDS HAVE NOT BEEN UTILIZED FOR INVESTMENT FOR PURCHASE OF SHARES. 11. FOR THE AFORESAID REASONS, WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF CLT(A) CONCERNING ASSES SMENT YEAR 2000-01 AND 2001-02 AND HENCE THE DECISION OF CIT 9 ITA NO.612 /MDS/2014 (A) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST BY INV OKING SECTION 14A OF THE ACT IS CORRECT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.' 11. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FINDINGS, WHICH COULD NOT BE SHOWN TO BE ERRONEOUS, THE PLEA OF THE REVENUE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. 11.IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. WINSOME TEXTILES INDUSTRI ES LTD. (319 ITR 204) THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COU RT HELD THAT WHEN THERE IS NO CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION OF I NCOME IN SUCH SITUATION SECTION 14A HAS NO APPLICATION. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISIONS, WE DELE TE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 14A AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EARNED / RECEIVED FOR EXEMPT INCOME DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THUS, WE SUSTAIN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE. 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION, WE DEL ETE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH AUGUST, 2015. SD/- SD/- ( # ) ( & (# ) ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) ( CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD ) * / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( * / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( /CHENNAI, , /DATED 12 TH AUGUST, 2015 SOMU ./ 0/ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. 1 () /CIT(A) 4. 1 /CIT 5. / 5 /DR 6. /GF .