ITO, Erode V. Prakash Subramaniam, Erode

ITA 748/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8340 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 16-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: A ARJUN RAJ
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3); 131

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : CHENNAI . , ! . # , $ % & [ BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NO.748/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD I(5) ERODE VS. SHRI PRAKASH SUBRAMANIAM 141, SRINIVAS RAO STREET RAILWAY COLONY POST VENDIPALAYAM, KASIPALAYAM ERODE 638 002 [PAN BDGPS 0863 M] ( '()* /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, JCIT /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A. ARJUNRAJ, CA / DATE OF HEARING : 16 - 08 - 2016 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07 - 10 - 2016 + / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-3, COI MBATORE, DATED 30.12.2015 IN I.T.A.NO.188/2014-15(A)-1 FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2011-12 PASSED U/S 143(3) AND 250 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1 961(IN SHORT THE ACT). ITA NO. 748/16 :- 2 -: 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX (APPEALS)-3 IS AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) -I IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.47,66,4811 ON ACCOUNT OF CASH PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO VARIOUS PARTIES WH O ARE DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE DAY TO DAY BUSINESS TRANSACTION. TH IS CASH PAYMENT WAS MADE TO CIRCUMVENT LAW. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE VARIOUS CASH PAYMENTS TO THE WHOLESALE TRA NSACTIONS WHICH ARE DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE MAIN PART OF THE BUSINESS. THESE CASH PAYMENTS ARE NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH PROPER EVIDENCE TO CONSIDER THAT THESE ARE AFFECTED OUT OF SHEER NECESSITY OF BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS UNDER SECTION 40A (3). 4. THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE ASCERTAINED TH E FACT THAT ASSESSEE NEEDS TO PROVE THAT WHY PAYMENTS COULD NOT BE MADE BY CROSSED CHEQUES/DEMAND DRAFT OR THAT THESE PAYMENTS WERE MADE OUT OF SHEER NECESSITY U/S 40A(3). 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE JUDGME NT WHICH ARE PRONOUNCED BY VARIOUS COURT OF LAW IN ITS VERDICTS GIVEN IN THE CASE OF IN M/S. PURVANCHAL CONSTRUCTION WORKS (P) LTD VS ACIT (ITAT DELHI) (ITA NO.3/D/2011 DATED 08.06.2012), VAISAHLI BUILDERS & COLONIZERS VS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT APPEAL NO.391 (JODH.) OF 2011), M/S. SHALIMAR FLOORS KOLKA TTA VS ITO (ITA NO.145/KOI12012 DATED 16.05.2012) AND IN M/S. PARDEEP SINGH WAZIR VS THE DCIT (ITAT AMRISTSAR, INCOME TAX (APPEAL) NOS.525 OF 2014 DATED 05.11.2015. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND TRADIN G PAPER CUPS AND SHARE BUSINESS. THE BUSINESS IS IN THE NAME AND ST YLE OF UNIVERSAL ENTERPRISES AND FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 26.1.20 12 ADMITTING A TOTAL INCOME OF ` 7,05,000/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1). SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AN D NOTICE U/S ITA NO. 748/16 :- 3 -: 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. IN COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND FURNISHED THE FINANCIAL STATE MENTS, PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, BALANCE SHEET, BANK STATEMENTS AND OT HER SCHEDULES OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AND ALSO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE PRO DUCED FOR VERIFICATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON VERIFICATIO N OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, FOUND THAT CERTA IN PAYMENTS WERE MADE MORE THAN ` 20,000/- IN RESPECT OF THE PURCHASES FROM THE CREDITORS. TO KNOW THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDITOR S, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SUMMONS U/S 131 AND THE DETAILS WER E OBTAINED. THE SUNDRY CREDITORS SUBMITTED THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENC ES IN RECONCILIATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED ON THE PROVISIONS OF S EC. 40A(3) OF THE ACT, AND FOUND THAT IN THE CASE OF M/S ABI PRINTERS, DI SALLOWANCES ARE WARRANTED. THE LD. AR EXPLAINED THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE PAYMENT OF ` 58,000/- IN INSTALLMENTS LESS THAN ` 20,000/- AS THERE IS URGENT NECESSITY AS PER THE BUSINESS NEED. THIS IS THE SOLE TRANSACTION OF CASH WHERE THE SUPPLIER WAS INSISTING FOR REMITT ANCE TOWARDS THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT FOR FURTHER SUPPLY. AS PER THE REQUEST AND THE NECESSITY OF THE SUPPLIER, THE ASSESSEE HAS MOBILI ZED THE NEEDS AND MADE THE PAYMENT. LEDGER COPY OF PAYMENT IN THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNT REFLECTED THESE PAYMENTS. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE SUBMISSIONS THAT THERE IS VIOLAT ION OF PROVISIONS OF ITA NO. 748/16 :- 4 -: SEC. 40A(3) AND MADE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 58,000/- TO THE RETURNED INCOME. 4. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF M/S ROSE FLOWER COMPANY ( PAPERS) PVT. LTD., THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ON VERIFICATION O F THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID MO RE THAN ` 20,000/- ON VARIOUS DATES AND THEY WERE REFLECTED IN THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER AND THE AGGREGATE OF CASH PAYMENT MORE THAN ` 20,000/- OUT OF THE TOTAL OF ` 1,02,55,222/- IS ` 47,08,481/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT THESE AMOUNTS PERTAINING TO THE TRANSACTION WITH ON E PARTY ON 22 DIFFERENT DATES AND THIS WAS IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS MADE AS PER THE REQUESTS AND ALSO THERE ARE DIRECT DEPOSIT IN THE B ANK ACCOUNT OF THE PARTIES AND THE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE PARTIES FOR THE PAYMENTS ALSO CONTAIN THE NARRATION THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE RECEIV ED THROUGH PAY- IN-SLIPS FOR AMOUNTS REMITTED DIRECTLY INTO THEIR B ANK ACCOUNT. FURTHER AT THE RELEVANT TIME THERE WAS NO CBS FACILITY IN O PERATION IN THE BANKING SYSTEM FOR TRANSFER OF FUNDS THROUGH RTGS O R NEFT AND THE INFORMATION IN THIS REGARD WAS ALSO OBTAINED FROM T HE BANK. PAYMENTS BY CHEQUES TAKE LONG TIME FOR CLEARING AND THE DELA Y IN SUPPLY OF RAW MATERIAL WOULD RESULT IN HEAVY LOSS TO THE ASSESSE E. THE ASSESSEE HAS NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO MAKE CASH PAYMENTS DIREC TLY INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THESE DEPOSITS I NTO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE CREDITORS OUT OF THE WITHDRAWALS FRO M ITS BANK ACCOUNT. ITA NO. 748/16 :- 5 -: THE ASSESSEE ALSO OBTAINED THE CONFIRMATION LETTER DATED 17.3.2015 THAT THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE DIRECTLY TO THE BA NK ACCOUNT AND ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THERE WAS NO CONTRAVENTION OF P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT AND THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. HE RELIED ON THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS UNTE NABLE AND FOUND THAT THERE WAS VIOLATION OF SECTION 40A(3) AND MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF ` 47,08,481/-. APART FROM THIS DISALLOWANCE WITH OTH ER ADDITIONS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED ORDER U/S 143(3) DATE D 27.2.2014. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE LD. AR OF THE ASSE SSEE ARGUED THE GROUNDS ON THE DISALLOWANCES AND ALSO EXPLAINED THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE. IN RESPECT OF M /S ABI PRINTERS, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE AMOUNT OF ` 58,000/- WAS MADE IN THREE INSTALLMENTS ON 4.11.2010, 4.11.2010 AND 6.11.2010 AND ALSO OBTAINED RECEIPTS IN RESPECT OF INDIVIDUAL PAYMENTS. THE A SSESSEE HAS BY MISTAKE HAS ACCOUNTED THE ABOVE PAYMENTS IN ITS BOO KS OF ACCOUNT ON 15.11.2010 AND THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF THE PROVIS IONS OF SEC. 40A(3). THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE FIRM OPINION THAT THESE PAYME NTS WERE MADE IN PARTS AS PER THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED IN THE APPELLAT E PROCEEDINGS WHERE EACH PAYMENT IS BELOW ` 20,000/- AND THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3) ARE NOT APPLICABLE AND THESE PAYMENT S HAVE BEEN MADE ITA NO. 748/16 :- 6 -: ON DIFFERENT DATES AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF ` 58,000/-. IN RESPECT OF THE PAYMENT OF ` 47,08,481/- MADE TO M/S ROSE FLOWER COMPANY (PAPER) P. LTD., TH IS CREDITOR IS ACTUALLY THE SUPPLIER OF RAW MATERIAL TO THE ASSES SEE. IT IS AN AUTHORIZED DEALER OF ITC, LTD PAPER DIVISION. BEC AUSE OF THE BUSINESS SITUATION THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT MAKE PAYMENTS TO THE PRINCIPAL SUPPLIER IN TIME WHICH RESULTED IN CHARGING OF ADDI TIONAL INTEREST ALSO. THEREFORE, THE CREDITOR WAS INSISTING FOR CASH PAYM ENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUMMONED THE CREDITOR AND OBTAINE D THE ACCOUNT COPY AND THE SAID STATEMENT ALSO CONFIRMED THIS POS ITION. FOR GETTING UNINTERRUPTED SUPPLY OF RAW MATERIAL THE ASSESSEE MADE THE PAYMENTS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH RESPECT TO THE PAYMENT BUT THE ONLY QUESTION ARISES IS VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3). THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS IN POSSESSION OF THE ACCOUNT C OPY OBTAINED FROM THE CREDITOR BY ISSUING SUMMONS. THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THESE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE CREDITOR AMOUNTING TO ` 47,08,481/- WAS AS PER THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WHERE THE CONFIRMATION OF THE CREDITOR DATED 17.3.2010 WAS FI LED INSISTING FOR CASH PAYMENTS AND THESE PAYMENTS WERE DIRECTLY CRED ITED IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNT AND THE PAYMENTS WERE FOR SUPPLY OF RA W MATERIAL. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE B UT TO MAKE THE CASH PAYMENTS. THE CIT(A) HAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED THE ITA NO. 748/16 :- 7 -: AMOUNTS DIRECTLY INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THESE PA YMENTS DOES NOT ATTRACT PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3) AND HE DIRECTED T HE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS. 6. AGGRIEVED WITH THIS ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DELETING TH ESE ADDITIONS, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL. BEFORE US, THE LD. DR ARGUED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 47,66,481/- IN RESPECT OF TWO PARTIES WHERE CASH PA YMENTS WERE MADE DIRECTLY INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT WHEN THERE IS VIOLAT ION OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THESE PAYME NTS ARE NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH PROPER EVIDENC E THAT THERE IS SHEER NECESSITY OF BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. THE ASS ESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THAT WHY THE PAYMENTS COULD NOT BE MADE THROU GH CHEQUES AND DEMAND DRAFT AND RELIED ON THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS A ND PRAYED FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 7. CONTRA, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE O RDER OF THE CIT(A) AND ALSO THE EVIDENCE AND CONFIRMATION PRODU CED BY THE CREDITORS. 8. WE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIA L ON RECORD AND THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR THAT THE CREDITORS INSISTED FOR THE CASH PAYMENTS DUE TO BUS INESS EXIGENCY AND THE MAXIMUM TRANSACTIONS ARE BASED ON CHEQUES DUE T O SUPPLY OF RAW MATERIAL ON CASH TO CASH BASIS, THE COMMERCIAL TRAN SACTION WITH BANK ITA NO. 748/16 :- 8 -: HAS TO BE APPRECIATED AND ALSO THE CASH PAYMENTS AR E AS PER THE TERMS AGREED WITH THE SUPPLIERS. AS THE SUPPLIER IS THE SOLE AUTHORIZED DEALER OF ITC LTD PAPER DIVISION THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSI DERED THE BUSINESS EXIGENCY AND CASH PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN PECULIAR CI RCUMSTANCES. THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE SUPPLIERS BY CASH BY THE ASSESSEE OTHER THAN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE WHICH WERE DEPOSITED INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF M/S ROSE FLOWER COMPANY (PAPE R) P. LTD WERE NEVER DOUBTED BY THE REVENUE. THE ASSESSEE IS FOL LOWING THE PREVAILING BUSINESS PRACTICE FROM EARLIER YEARS. F URTHER, PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3) OF THE ACT MUST NOT BE READ IN ISOLATIO N OR EXCLUSION OF RULE 6DD OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. THE SECTION MUST BE READ ALONGWITH RULE AND ON READING TOGETHER IT IS VERY C LEAR THAT PROVISIONS ARE NOT INTENDED TO RESTRICT THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIE S. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT RESTRICT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESS EE ON APPLICATION OF RULE 6DD. FURTHER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3) OF THE ACT EMPOWERS THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISALLOW DEDUCTION CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE WHERE PAYMENTS ARE NOT BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE/DRAF T. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD ANALYZE THE PAYMENTS EITHE R BY CROSSED CHEQUE OR BANK DRAFT AND ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE PAYM ENTS ARE GENUINE CONSIDERING THE BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY, GENUINENESS AN D BONAFIDE PECULIAR TRANSACTIONS OF THE BUSINESS. THE ASSESS EE MAKES CASH PAYMENTS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AS PER THE INTENTION OF THE ITA NO. 748/16 :- 9 -: VENDORS/SUPPLIERS WHO TRANSACT ON CASH BASIS AND NO CREDIT FACILITY IS AVAILABLE AS THE SUPPLIER IS SOLE AUTHORIZED DEALER OF ITC LTD- PAPER DIVISION. WE FIND THAT THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF ANUPAM TELE SERVICES VS ITO, 366 ITR 122, HAS CONSI DERED SIMILAR ISSUE AND HELD THAT NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE W HEN THE CASH PAYMENT WAS MADE DUE TO URGENT BUSINESS EXIGENCY. THE LD. AR SUPPORTED HIS ARGUMENTS WITH THE DECISION OF COORDI NATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITO VS SMT. REMA JEYAKUMAR IN I.T.A.NO.2247 /MDS/2012, DATED 31.7.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AT PARA 7 AS UNDER: 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH T HE CASE FILE AS WELL AS JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS QUOTED HEREINAB OVE. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH FOR E DIBLE OIL SUPPLY IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF M/S MANI & CO. SHE IS ALSO A PARTNER IN THE PAYEE ENTITY. SO, IT IS ALMOST A CASE OF PAYME NT FROM LEFT HAND TO THE RIGHT HAND. THE REVENUES THRUST IS ON LY THAT SUCH A CASH DEPOSIT IS NOWHERE A PRESCRIBED BUSINESS EXP EDIENCY AS PER RULE 6DD. IN CASE LAW OF VENKATADHRI CONSTRU CTIONS(SUPRA), THE RELEVANT FACTS AS REGARDS MODE OF PAYMENT ONLY TURN OUT TO BE SIMILAR AND THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT SUCH A SITUATION IS NOT COVERED BY RULE 6DD AND INVITES SECTION 40A(3) DIS ALLOWANCE. EVEN THEIR LORDSHIPS IN PARA 7 TAKE NOTICE OF VERY EXCEPTIONAL AND UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES IN ADDITION TO RULE 6DD. IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSESSEES DUEL ROLE AS PAYER AS WELL AS PARTN ER IN THE PAYEE FIRM (SUPRA) ITSELF IS EXCEPTIONAL AND OVERWHELMING GENUINE SITUATION. THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT(SUPRA) H AS HELD THAT EXCEPTIONS CONTAINED IN RULE 6DD ARE NOT SELF EXHAU STIVE AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS COUPLED WITH BUSINE SS EXPEDIENCY WILL NOT INVITE SECTION 40A(3) DISALLOWANCE. THE HON'BLE COURT HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THE LANDMARK JUDGMENT IN CASE O F ATTAR SINGH GURMUKH SINGH VS ITO [1991] 191 ITR 667(SC) QUOTING THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 40A(3) TO CURB USAGE AND CREATIO N OF BLACK MONEY. IN PRESENT CASE, EVEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DOES NOT DOUBT GENUINENESS OF THE CASH DEPOSITS AND ITS PURP OSE. SO, WE HOLD THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE DISALL OWANCE U/S ITA NO. 748/16 :- 10 -: 40A(3) AMOUNTING TO ` 26,44,450/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 9. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS A DIRE NECESSITY FOR MAKING THE CASH DEPOSIT AS PER THE AGREED TERMS WITH THE SUPPL IER AND THE ASSESSEE HAS TO MAKE THESE PAYMENTS IN URGENCY AND ALSO BUSINESS EXIGENCIES. SO CONSIDERING THE APPARENT FACTS, MATE RIAL ON RECORD AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITIONS. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON T O INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DIS MISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 7 TH OCTOBER, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . # ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) $ / JUDICIAL MEMBER '# / CHENNAI $% / DATED: 7 TH OCTOBER, 2016 RD %& '()( / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 4. * / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. (+, - / DR 3. *./ / CIT(A) 6. ,01 / GF