Shri Ravindra Khemka, Kanpur V. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kanpur

ITSSA 391/LKW/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1652 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K BAR
• Keywords: Gift; Recovery proceedings; Search and seizure; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Tangible material; Assessment record; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 148; 263; 132; 143(3); 153A; 40(a)(ia); 201; 143(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT (SS) A NO. 391/LKW/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 14 SHRI RAVINDRA KHEMKA E-13, PANKI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE SITE-1, KANPUR V. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE II KANPUR T AN /PAN : ACGPK0745C (APP ELL ANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI A. K. BAR, CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING: 03 0 9 201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 06 0 9 201 9 O R D E R PER A. D. JAIN, V.P.: THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (CENTRAL), KANPUR, PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, DATED 22/3/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. THERE IS A DELAY OF 19 DAYS IN FILING OF THIS APPEAL. AS PER THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, SUPPORTED BY THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI VIKASH GARG, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, WE FIND THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THIS APPEAL FOR HEARING. 3. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORIGINAL MEMO OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE) KANPUR U/S 263 IS BAD IN LAW AND A IT(SS)A NO.391/LKW/2017 PAGE 2 OF 10 NULLITY IN TERMS OF SECTION 282 AND 282A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE) KANPUR U/S 263 IS WHOLLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS. 3. THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE) KANPUR U/S 263 IS BAD IN LAW, THE SAME BEING PASSED WITHOUT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. BECAUSE THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST IS CONTRARY TO FACTS, LAW AND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND ANY/ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPEAL. 4. THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS HAVE ALSO BEEN TAKEN: 06. BECAUSE EVEN OTHERWISE, NO NOTICE HAVING BEEN ISSUED U/S. 143(2) WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3), WHICH MAKES THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) WITHOUT JURISDICTION NO VARIATION COULD BE MADE TO THE INCOME RETURNED, THE ORDER PASSED U/S.263 WOULD BE WITHOUT JURISDICTION BAD IN LAW AND BE QUASHED. 07. BECAUSE THE RETURN FILED ON 26.09.2013 U/S.139(1) HAVING BEING ACCEPTED AND THERE BEING NO NEW TANGIBLE MATERIAL THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S.148/147 ARE WITHOUT JURISDICTION, THE ORDER PASSED THEREON IS BAD IN LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIT (CENTRAL) U/S.263 IS ALSO BAD IN LAW AND BE QUASHED. 08. BECAUSE THE RE-ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S. 147/143(3) DATED 30.03.2015, IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN AS MUCH AS NO 'REASONS' AS MANDATED U/S.. 148(2) HAVE BEEN RECORDED, THE ORDER BEING VOID AB-INITIO, BAD IN LAW, AND A NULLITY, THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 263 BY THE PRINCIPAL CIT DATED 22.03.2017 WOULD ALSO BE WITHOUT JURISDICTION, VOID AB-INITO BAD IN LAW, BE QUASHED. IT(SS)A NO.391/LKW/2017 PAGE 3 OF 10 5. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED AT THE BAR THAT HE DOES NOT WISH TO PRESS ADDITIONAL GROUND NO.6. ACCORDINGLY, ADDITIONAL GROUND NO.6 IS REJECTED AS NOT PRESSED. 6. APROPOS GROUND NO.7, IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ACCEPTED, INASMUCH AS NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS EVER ISSUED; AND THAT THERE BEING NO NEW TANGIBLE MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 148/147 OF THE ACT ARE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED WAS BAD IN LAW, DUE TO WHICH, THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT ARE ALSO BAD IN LAW AND ARE LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- (I) M/S. NKG INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS. PR. CIT IN ITA NO. 3825 TO 3827/DEL/2018. (II) WESTLIFE DEVELOPMENT LTD. VS. PR. CIT, 49 ITR (TRIBUNAL) 406 (MUMBAI) (III) VALIANT GLASS WORKS PVT. LTD ACIT IN ITA NO. 1612/M/2013 ORDER DT. 27.07.2016. (IV) HEMAL KNITTING INDUSTRIES VS. ACIT 127 ITD 160 (MADRAS) (V) P.V DOSHI VS. CIT, 113 ITR 22 (GUJ). 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. HAS PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 8. HEARD. THE FACTS, AS PATENT ON RECORD, ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON 19/04/2012 AT THE VARIOUS PREMISES OF M/S K C PAN PRODUCTS (P) LTD. GROUP OF CASES, INCLUDING THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE, IN WHICH, CERTAIN DOCUMENTS, ASSETS, ETC., WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. THEREAFTER, THE CASE OF IT(SS)A NO.391/LKW/2017 PAGE 4 OF 10 THE ASSESSEE WAS CENTRALIZED WITH THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANPUR AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE RETURN OF INCOME, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.27,28,120/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A/143(3) OF THE ACT ON 30/3/2015, ASSESSING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.24,30,880/-. 9. THEREAFTER, AS PER THE IMPUGNED ORDER, DURING THE COURSE OF EXAMINATION OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD, IT WAS FOUND BY THE LD. CIT THAT IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED A SUM OF RS.7,41,291/- TOWARDS INTEREST PAID TO OTHERS. ON EXAMINATION OF THE BALANCE SHEET, IT WAS FOUND THAT UNSECURED LOANS WORTH RS.18,00,000/- ARE OUTSTANDING AS ON 31.03.2012 AND DURING THE PERIOD 01.04.2012 TO 31.03.2013, AS PER COPY OF ACCOUNTS IN RESPECT OF UNSECURED LOAN/CREDITORS, THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID/CREDITED A SUM OF RS.1,71,756/-, AGAINST WHICH, IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED A SUM OF RS.7,41,291/-, MEANING THEREBY, THAT AN EXCESS AMOUNT OF RS.5,69,535/- HAD BEEN CLAIMED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. FURTHER, A PERUSAL OF THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME SHOWED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO DEDUCTED A SUM OF RS.8,16,873/- TOWARDS INTEREST PAID. ON FURTHER EXAMINATION OF THE CASE RECORD, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BORROWED MONEY IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND PURPORTEDLY INVESTED THE SAME IN THE BUSINESS, BUT FAILED TO MAKE TDS ON SUCH PAYMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST OF RS.8,16,873/- WAS NOT ALLOWABLE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(IA) OF THE ACT, AS THE GROSS TURNOVER OF THE BUSINESS EXCEEDED THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS ALSO REVEALED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF SOURCE OF THE JEWELLERY FOUND IN LOCKERS NO. 12 & 14. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE IT(SS)A NO.391/LKW/2017 PAGE 5 OF 10 SOURCE OF THE JEWELLERY IN RESPECT OF LOCKER NO.12. HOWEVER, NO EXPLANATION WAS OFFERED IN RESPECT OF THE JEWELLERY FOUND IN LOCKER NO.14. ACCORDINGLY, THE JEWELLERY FOUND IN LOCKER NO.14, VALUED AT RS.6,64,327/, REMAINED UNEXPLAINED AND NEEDED VERIFICATION. 10. VIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT HELD THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THE LD. CIT, AS SUCH, SET ASIDE THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT ORDER, HOLDING AS FOLLOWS:- IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2015 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 153A/143(3) FOR THE A.Y. 2013-14 IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT DATED 27.02.2017 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE REQUIRING HIM TO APPEAR BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED EITHER IN PERSON OR THROUGH DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ON 06/03/2017 ALONG WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. ON THE GIVEN DATE, SHRI GAURAV ARORA, FCA ATTENDED AND FILED PART REPLY AND REQUESTED TO PROVIDE SOME MORE TIME TO EXPLAIN THE REMAINING POINT. ACCORDINGLY, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 15.03.2017. ON 15.03.2017, THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION WITH RESPECT TO REMAINING POINT. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE BEING CONSIDERED WHILE DECIDING THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IN THIS CASE. VIDE WRITTEN SUBMISSION; THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE CLAIM OF INTEREST DEBITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT BY PRODUCING THE COPIES OF LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF INTEREST PAID TO OTHERS' AND INTEREST PAID TO BANKS. WITH REGARD TO THE SECOND ISSUE I.E. NON- DEDUCTION OF TDS ON THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST CLAIMED IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS NEITHER A DRACONIAN NOR A PENAL PROVISION BUT A CHECK IT(SS)A NO.391/LKW/2017 PAGE 6 OF 10 TO ENSURE THAT THE PERSON RIGHTLY DISCHARGES HIS TAX OBLIGATIONS AND THE GOVERNMENT GET ITS SHARE OF REVENUE. ONCE THE RECIPIENT OF INCOME HAS PAID TAX OR DECLARES HIS INCOME TO BE BELOW THE TAXABLE LIMIT RECOVERY OF TAX FROM THE PAYER MAY NOT BE IN CONSONANCE WITH THE INTENT OF LAW. WITH REGARD TO JEWELLERY FOUND IN LOCKER NO. 14, THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME BY STATING THAT THE JEWELLERY WAS RECEIVED FROM FATHER ON 29.04.1977 AS GIFT AND THE SAME WAS CONVERTED INTO NEW JEWELLERY. THE ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. HOWEVER, WITHOUT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES VIZ. TDS CERTIFICATES, CONFIRMED COPIES OF ACCOUNTS FROM THE PERSONS TO WHOM INTEREST HAS BEEN PAID, ETC., THE GENUINENESS OF THE ASSESS. CONTENTION REMAINED UNVERIFIED. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(LA) OF THE ACT IS NOT ATTRACTED ONCE THE RECIPIENT OF INCOME HAS PAID TAX OR DECLARES HIS INCOME TO BE BELOW THE TAXABLE LIMIT, RECOVERY OF TAX FROM THE PAYER MAY NOT BE IN CONSONANCE WITH THE INTENT OF LAW. THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO NOT ACCEPTABLE AS THE ASSESSEE FADED TO PROVE WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES THE FACT THAT RESPECTIVE RECIPIENTS HAVE PAID THE TAX ON THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST PAID TO VARIOUS PERSONS WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. THE EXPLANATION PUT FORTH WITH REGARD TO JEWELLERY FOUND IN LOCKER NO.14 HAS ALSO NOT BEEN FOUND SATISFACTORY. IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION MADE SUPRA AND AFTER HAVING CONSIDERED ALL THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE LEGAL POSITION, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 30.03,2015 IS, ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 DATED 30.03.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 IS HEREBY SET ASIDE U/S 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, TO BE FRAMED AFRESH AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE IT(SS)A NO.391/LKW/2017 PAGE 7 OF 10 POINTS/DISCUSSION MADE ABOVE. BEFORE PASSING ANY SUCH ORDER, THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ALLOWED DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED AFTER OBTAINING PRIOR APPROVAL FROM ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, KANPUR. SINCE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF 'INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, KANPUR VIDE LETTER F. NO. ADDL.CIT(CR)/KNP/DRAFT ASSTT./2014-15/2596 DATED 30.03.2015 IS ALSO SET ASIDE TO BE GRANTED AFRESH. 11. THE QUESTION IS AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS RIGHT IN CONTENDING THAT SINCE NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30/3/2015, PASSED AFTER ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 (APB-137) DATED 17/11/2014, IS NULL AND VOID AND THAT ONCE IT IS SO, THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT ARE ALSO INVALID. 12. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED IN PARA 2 THEREOF, INTER ALIA, THAT THE CASE WAS TO BE COMPLETED UNDER SCRUTINY AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A(B) OF THE ACT; THAT THE TIME TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT HAD ALREADY EXPIRED; AND THAT THEREFORE, A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT (ERRONEOUSLY MENTIONED AS SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT) DATED 17/11/2014 WAS ISSUED. A COPY OF THE SAID NOTICE DATED 17/11/2014, ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN FILED AT APB-137. THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD BEEN SUMMONED IN THIS REGARD. IT HAS BEEN PRODUCED AND PERUSED. THE LD. D.R. HAS CONFIRMED AT THE BAR, HAVING MADE REFERENCE TO THE RECORD, THAT THE NOTICE DATED 17/11/2014 WAS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. FOR READY REFERENCE, A SCANNED COPY THEREOF IS BEING APPENDED HEREUNDER: IT(SS)A NO.391/LKW/2017 PAGE 8 OF 10 13. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 26/9/2013. UNDENIABLY, AS IS ALSO AVAILABLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF, AS WELL AS FROM THE RECORD, NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED WITHIN A IT(SS)A NO.391/LKW/2017 PAGE 9 OF 10 PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE RETURN WAS FILED, I.E., UPTO 30/9/2014. IT WAS ONLY DUE TO THIS REASON THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. HERE ALSO, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF IS ELOQUENT, INASMUCH AS IT SAYS THAT.TIME TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ALREADY EXPIRED, THEREFORE A NOTICE U/S 143(2) (SIC 148) DATED 17/11/2014 WAS ISSUED. 14. IN M/S NKG INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS. PR. CIT (SUPRA), THE CO- ORDINATE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION, THE VALIDITY OF THE REVISIONAL ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, BASED ON SUCH NON EST ASSESSMENT ORDER, WAS ALSO INVALID. 15. IN WESTLIFE DEVELOPMENT LTD. VS. PR. CIT (SUPRA), IT WAS HELD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD BEEN PASSED ON A NON-EXISTENT ENTITY, I.E., A COMPANY WHICH STOOD MERGED WITH ANOTHER COMPANY, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS A NULLITY AND THE REVISIONAL ORDER PASSED IN PURSUANCE THEREOF WAS ALSO A NULLITY. 16. THUS, THE RATIO OF THESE CASES IS THAT WHERE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FORMING THE BASIS OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT ARE THEMSELVES INVALID, THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT CANNOT SURVIVE AND IT IS ALSO A NULLITY. NO DECISION TO THE CONTRARY HAS BEEN CITED. 17. AS OBSERVED HEREINABOVE, SINCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS VOID AB INITIO FOR WANT OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT, THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVING BEEN ACCEPTED, THE REVISIONAL ORDER PASSED ON THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ALSO A NULLITY. WE HOLD ACCORDINGLY AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IT(SS)A NO.391/LKW/2017 PAGE 10 OF 10 UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT IS SET ASIDE AND CANCELLED. AS SUCH, NOTHING FURTHER SURVIVES FOR ADJUDICATION. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06/09/2019. SD/ - SD/ - [ T. S. KAPOOR ] [ A. D. JAIN ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED:06/09/2019 JJ:0309 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR