M/s. J.R. Tantia Charitable Trust, SRIGANGANAGAR V. ITO, SRIGANGANAGAR

MA 73/JODH/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0889 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 29-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 05-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G R KOKANI
• Assessee Lawyers: SURESH OJHA SHRI ASHOK KHATRI
• Keywords: Document seized; Charitable institution; Valuation report; Block assessment; Capital receipt; Documents seized
• Section: 69C; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NOS. 71 TO 75/JU/2013 A/0 ITA NOS. 140 TO 144/JODH/2012 (A.YS. 2005-06 TO 2009-10) M/S J.R. TANTIA CHARITABLE TRUST VS. ITO, WARD - 2 UDYOG VIHAR, SRIGANGANAGAR SRIGANGANAGAR PAN NO. : AARPT 8591 L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SURESH OJHA SHRI ASHOK KHATRI DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI G.R. KOKANI DATE OF HEARING : 15.07.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.08.2013 ORDER PER HARI OM MARATHA, J.M. THROUGH THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS [MA], THE APPLICANT [ASSESSEE] HAS SOUGHT RECTIFICATION OF AL LEGED MISTAKES U/S 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 2 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT', FOR SHORT] I N THE TRIBUNAL ORDER [TO] DATED 22.03.2013 PASSED IN THIS CASE IN ITA NOS. 140 TO 144/JU/2013 FOR A.YS. 2005-06 T O A.YS. 2009-10. 2. AN APPLICATION U/S 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT', FOR SHORT] H AS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BY POINTING OUT CERTAIN MISTAKES WH ICH ARE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IN THE APPELLATE ORDER. 3. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE COURSE OF THE ARGUMENTS, POINTED OUT AND RELIED ON THE APPLICATION DATED 2.7 .2013 SUBMITTED BY HIM. THE MISTAKES POINTED OUT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 TO 2009-10 WHICH ARE COMMON, ARE DECIDED HEREUNDER. THE MISTAKES WHICH ARE NOT COMMON SHALL BE DEALT ON SEP ARATELY. 4. THE FIRST MISTAKE POINTED OUT IS THAT IN THE ORD ER OF THE TRIBUNAL AT PAGE NO. 46, THE WORD IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 HAS BEEN TYPED AND NOTHING HAS BEEN MENTIONED UNDER THE HEAD OF 2008-09 NOR THEREUPON. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE SAME IS A MISTAKE. 3 5. THE D.R. ALSO AGREED THAT THE ARGUMENT AND RAISE D NO OBJECTION 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENT AND ARE OF THE O PINION THAT THIS COULD BE EXPUNGED WHICH IS A TYPING ERROR OCCU RRED WHILE TYPING, THEREFORE, THE MISTAKE IS TREATED AS A MIST AKE AND RECTIFIED ACCORDINGLY. 7. THE SECOND MISTAKE POINTED OUT IS THAT IN THE OR DER OF THE TRIBUNAL AT PAGE NO. 58 PARAGRAPH 16 IN THE SECOND LINE WORD SERIAL HAS BEEN TYPED. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THERE IS NO DIRE CT NEXUS AND BEARING THAT THE WORD SERIAL. IT WAS ALSO REQUESTED THAT THE S ECTION SHOULD BE IN PLACE OF SERIAL. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION AND FOUND THAT THIS IS PURELY A TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE; THEREFORE, THE WORD SERIAL IS REPLACED BY THE WORD SECTION. THE MISTAKE POINTED O UT IS ACCEPTED. 9. THE NEXT MISTAKE POINTED OUT IS AT PAGE NO. 62 I N PARAGRAPH 16.5 IN SECOND LINE WORD ACIT HAS BEEN TYPED. THE A R ARGUED THAT 4 THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 144 A IS PASSED BY THE JCIT WHO IS HAVING THE POWER SO AS TO PASSED THE ORDER UNDER THIS SECT ION. THE ATTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN TOWARDS THE COPY OF THE OR DER OF SECTION 144 A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. IT WAS ARGUED SO AS TO REPLACE THE WORD ACIT BY THE JCIT. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED ARGUMENT AND FOUND THAT THE MISTAKE POINTED OUT IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD A ND RECTIFIED ACCORDINGLY. 11. THE NEXT MISTAKE POINTED AT PAGE NO. 68 OF THE ORDER IN PARAGRAPH 17.7 IN RESPECT OF CHARGING OF INTEREST. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE PARAGRAPH 18 IS IN CONTINUATION OF 17.6 PARAGRA PHS, THEREFORE, ARGUED THAT THIS SHOULD BE PLACED AT PROPER PLACE. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENT AND FOUND THAT THE MISTAKE POINTED OUT IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. WE ARE PLACING IT IN CONTINUATION OF PARA 17.6. THIS MISTAKE IS AC CEPTED AND RECTIFIED. 5 13. IN PARAGRAPH NO. 22, CONCLUSION OF APPEAL OF DR . MAHESH MAHESHWARI IS AVAILABLE. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE SAM E FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE ORDER OF DR. MAHESH MAHESHWARI, WAS NOT RELA TED TO DR. MAHESH MAHESHWARI AND NEVER ARGUED. THE ATTENTION W AS ALSO DRAWN TOWARDS THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION SUBMITTED IN COURSE OF HEARING. 14. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENT AND OF THE OPIN ION THAT DUE TO INADVERTENCE THIS PARAGRAPH HAS BEEN TYPED IN OR DER OF THE APPEAL OF DR. MAHESH MAHESHWARI, IN FACT THESE ARE RELATED TO THE J.R. TANTIA CHARITABLE TRUST, THEREFORE, WE ARE PLA CING IT AT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE IN CONTINUATION OF PARAGRAPH NO. BELOW THE 17.5 IN CASE OF M/S J.R. TANTIA CHARITABLE TRUST. 15. THE A.R. ALSO ARGUED THAT THE HONBLE BENCH AT PAGE NO. 67 MENTIONED CERTAIN FACTS OF THE CASE LAW REFERRED IN COURSE OF HEARING BUT NAME THEREOF WAS NOT MENTIONED. THE MIS TAKE POINTED OUT IS A MISTAKE WHILE PASSING THE ORDER RELIANCE W AS MADE ON LANCER ARMY SCHOOL SOCIETY VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 90 TTJ 1024, BUT THE NAME THEREOF WAS NOT MENTIONED, THEREFORE, WE A RE ADDING ONE PARAGRAPH AT THE TOP OF THE PARAGRAPH NO. 22.3 AT P AGE 75. 6 THE AR IN COURSE OF HEARING RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL REPORTED IN 90 TTJ PAGE 1024, IN RESPECT O F LANCER ARMY SCHOOL SOCIETY VS. ACIT THE ATTENTION WAS DRAW N TOWARDS THE RELEVANT PORTION WHICH IS BEING REPRODU CED HEREUNDER. AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES, WE ARE INCLINED TO ACCE PT THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE AMOU NTS CREDITED TO THE TRUST FUND DULY REFLECTED IN THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNT CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT AND NO ADDITION IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT CAN BE MADE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION IMPEACHING THE GENUINENESS OF SUCH CREDITS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURNS OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1995-96 TO 1998-99 BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH. THE TRUST FUND IS DULY REFLECTED IN AUDITED BALANCE SHEETS FILED WITH EACH RETURN OF INCOME. IN FACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HIMSELF TAKEN NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE TRUST FUND WHEREIN THE AFORESAID CREDITS O CCUR IS DULY REFLECTED IN THE LEDGER MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SE ARCH THAT DONATION RECEIVED FOR TRUST FUND WAS NOT IN FA CT CAPITAL RECEIPT BUT REVENUE RECEIPT. THE ASSESSMENT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH AND SUCH OTHER 7 MATERIAL OR INFORMATION AS ARE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND RELATABLE TO SUCH EVIDENCE AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 158B(6). BLOCK ASSESSMENT UNDER CHAPTER XIV-B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A SUBSTITUTE FOR REGULAR ASSESSMENT. ITS SCOPE AND AMBIT IS LIMITED IN THAT SENSE TO MATERIA L UNEARTHED DURING SEARCH. IT IS IN ADDITION TO THE R EGULAR ASSESSMENT ALREADY DONE OR TO BE DONE. THE ASSESSME NT FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD CAN ONLY BE DONE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FOUND AS A RESULT OF THE SEARCH AND SUCH O THER MATERIAL OR INFORMATION AS ARE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN SUPPORT OF THIS VIEW, RELIANC E IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN C ITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS AS WELL A S WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) WHICH DO NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDER ED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) 17. THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH IS AFFIXED AT THE APPROPRIA TE PLACE I.E. AT TOP OF THE PAGE NO. 75 PARAGRAPH NO. 22.3, THEREFOR E, THIS MISTAKE IS ALSO ACCEPTED AS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE REC ORD. 18. THE AR ALSO POINTED OUT THAT IN THE TITLE OF TH E APPEAL, THE TITLE HAS BEEN TYPED AS J.R. TANTIA CHARITABLE TRUS T VS. INCOME-TAX 8 OFFICER WARD 2 ND SRIGANGANAGAR. WHEREAS THE AUTHOR OF THE ORDER/ ASSESSING AUTHORITY IS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BIKANE R. IN SUPPORT OF THIS OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN TOWARDS THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AND REQUESTED SO AS TO RECTIFY THE TITLE BY SUBMITTING THAT INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 ND SRI GANGANAGAR MAY KINDLY BE REPLACED BY ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, BIKANER THIS IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. 19. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENT AND ALSO PERUSE D THE RECORD. THE FACT MENTIONED BY THE AR OF THE ASSESSE IS CORRECT; THEREFORE, THE WORD INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 2 ND SRIGANGANAGAR IS REPLACED BY THE WORD ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, BIKANER. THIS MISTAKE IS ACCEPTED BEING A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 20. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO ARGUED THAT THE GRO UND NO.11 & 18 TAKEN IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL WAS NOT DISPOSED OFF. H E ALSO RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CASE O F SH. RAMESH CHANDER MODI REPORTED IN 249 ITR PAGE 323 AND THE O RDER OF THIS 9 BENCH IN CASE OF THE DR. ASHOK UPAL MA NO. 97/JU/2007 APPEAL ITA NO. 762/JU/2005 DATED 22.08.2008 IN WHICH THIS BENCH HELD THAT IF THE GROUND TAKEN IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL NOT DISPOSED OFF IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. IN SUPPORT OF THE VERIFICATION THE GROUND WAS READ OUT FROM THE MEMO OF APPEAL. 21. THE DR ARGUED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS A CONSCIOUS ORDER AND THE MISTAKE CANNOT BE RECTIFIED UNDER SEC TION 254 (2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 22. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENT OF BOTH SIDES A ND BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF JURISDICTION AL HIGH COURT REPORTED IN 249 ITR PAGE 323 WE ARE IN AGREEMENT T HAT ARGUMENT AND GROUND TAKEN IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL REMAINED IND ISPOSED OFF IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. 23. THE GROUND NO. 11 IS IN RESPECT OF ADDITION U/S 69/69C AND MAKING THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS. 6398209.00. TH E INCOME-TAX OFFICER MADE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS. 6398209.00. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AT PAGE NO. 20 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MA DE ADDITION ON 10 THE GROUND OF VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY CONSTRUCTED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE BASIS FOR MAKING THE ADDI TION IS THAT THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND 20 06-07 I.E. THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR, THE ADDITIONS WERE DELE TED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND DEPARTMENT WENT IN THE APPEAL THE RELEVA NT PORTION IS AS UNDER : THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FILE ANY SPECIFIC REPLY ON THE ISSUE AND HAS GIVEN AN EVASIVE REPLY AS IT IS NOT POSSIBL E TO GRANT FURTHER EXTENSION / ADJOURNMENT AT THE FAG END OF T HE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING WHICH HAVE BEEN DELAYED DUE T O THE NON COOPERATIVE ATTITUDE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SIMIL AR ADDITION IS IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 & 2006-07 WERE MADE ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION REPORT ON THIS GROUND AND THE SECOND APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT ARE PENDING BEFORE T HE HONBLE ITAT. 24. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENT OF BOTH THE SID ES. THE ISSUE IN HAND IS IN RESPECT OF VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND ADDITION MADE AS PER THE VALUATION REPORT OF DVO AND REGISTERED V ALUER. THE ISSUE IS SETTLED ISSUE BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. THE ASSESSEE, BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ALS O RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF VARIOUS COURTS INCLUDING THE JUDGME NT OF CIT VS. 11 HOTEL JOSHI 242 ITR 478 (RAJ) AND CIT VS. SRI PREM KUMAR MURDIA 296 ITR 508.THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT OF JUR ISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. THIS FACT IS OF THE CONSISTENT VIEW THAT THE VALUATION SHOULD BE MADE AS PER THE LOCAL PWD RATE FOR EXAMPLE WE WI SH TO MENTION ONLY ONE NAME OF ORDER OF THIS HONBLE BENCH IN CASE OF UTTAM CHAND NAHAR VS. ITO REPORTED IN 28 TW 435. THIS BENCH IS OF CONSISTENT VIEW, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY TH E INCOME-TAX OFFICER UNDER SECTION 69C CANNOT BE SUSTAINED, THER EFORE, WE ACCEPTED THIS GROUND AND DELETING THE ADDITION, THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY IS DIRECTED TO ADOPT THE VALUATION AS PER THE ORDER OF THIS BENCH. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 25. THE GROUND NO. 11, 18 & 19 REMAINED UNDISPOSED OFF. PRINCIPALLY THE GROUND NO. 11 & 18 ARE COMMON FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS. 47,85,8 85/- ON ACCOUNT OF VALUATION REPORT WAS MADE. THE ADDITION IS DELET ED IN VIEW OF FINDING GIVEN IN DETAILS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 . 12 26. THE GROUND NO.19 IS RELATED IN RESPECT OF THE C APITATION FEES AMOUNTING TO RS. 16,15,000/- THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER MADE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS. 1615000.00 BEING THE CAPITATION FE ES/ DONATION FOR ADMISSION AS PER PARA 14C OF THE ORDER DATED 23 .12.2011. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION RELYING THE SEIZED DOCUMENT AND STATEMENT OF DR. SHYAM SUNDER TANTIA. THE LD. CIT (A) DEALT WITH THE ISSUE AT PAGE NO. 30 PARA 11. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) RESTRICTED THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS. 7,33,700/-. THE AR ARGUED THAT THE ADDITION MADE AND SUSTAINED IS I LLEGAL AND AGAINST THE LAW. IN THIS RESPECT HE RELIED UPON THE ARGUMENT IN RESPECT OF THE SURRENDER OF INCOME AND PREPARATION OF BOOKS AS PER THE SEIZED DOCUMENT. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE ADDITIO N REFERRED ABOVE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED WHILE PREPARING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FROM THE SEIZED DOCUMENT. ALL THE ENTRIES ARE REFLE CTING IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. THIS PLEA WAS ALSO TAKEN BEFORE T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AND BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 13 27. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENT OF BOTH THE SID ES AND OF THE VIEW THAT WE HAVE ALSO DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN THE OR DER OF THE APPEAL AND ACCEPTED THE BOOKS PREPARED FROM THE SEIZED MAT ERIAL AND ALSO HELD THAT THE BOOKS CANNOT BE REJECTED. THE INCOME HAS BEEN SURRENDERED IN THE HANDS OF SH. SHYAM SUNDER TANTIA , IN WHOSE CASE THE PROTECTIVE ADDITION WERE MADE AND SUBSTANTIVE A DDITION IN CASE OF THE TRUST. WE HAVE DECIDED THIS ISSUE AND DELETE D THE OTHER PROTECTIVE ADDITION MADE ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT AND SEIZED DOCUMENT, THEREFORE, ALSO DELETING THE ADDITION IN CASE OF THE TRUST AND TREATING IT AS SUBSTANTIVE IN CASE OF SH. SHYAM SUNDER TANTIA IN THE RESULT THIS GROUND IS ACCEPTED. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 28. THE GROUND NOS. 11 AND 18 REMAINED UNDISPOSED OFF. PRINCIPALLY THE GROUND NO. 11 & 18 ARE COMMON FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 29. THE GROUND NO.18 IS RELATED IN RESPECT OF THE C APITATION FEES AMOUNTING TO RS. 78,81,200/- THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER MADE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS. 78,81,200/-BEING THE CAPITATION FE ES/ DONATION FOR 14 ADMISSION AS PER PARA 15 OF THE ORDER DATED 23.12.2 011. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION RELYING THE SEIZED DOCUMENT AND STATEMENT OF DR.SHYAM SUNDER TANTIA. 30. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SI DES AND OF THE VIEW THAT WE HAVE ALSO DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN TH E ORDER OF THE APPEAL AND ACCEPTED THE BOOKS PREPARED FROM THE SEI ZED MATERIAL AND ALSO HELD THAT THE BOOKS CANNOT BE REJECTED. WE HAVE ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 31. THE INCOME HAS BEEN SURRENDERED IN THE HANDS OF SH. SHYAM SUNDER TANTIA, IN WHOSE CASE THE PROTECTIVE ADDITIO N WAS MADE AND SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION IN CASE OF THE TRUST. WE HAVE DECIDED THIS ISSUE AND DELETED THE OTHER PROTECTIVE ADDITION MADE ON T HE BASIS OF STATEMENT AND SEIZED DOCUMENT, THEREFORE, ALSO DELE TING THE ADDITION IN CASE OF THE TRUST AND TREATING IT AS SU BSTANTIVE IN CASE OF SH. SHYAM SUNDER TANTIA IN THE RESULT THIS GROUND I S ACCEPTED. 15 32. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FO UND THAT THESE ARE MISTAKES APPARENT ON RECORD. THEREFORE, THE SAM E ARE RECTIFIED ACCORDINGLY. 33. IN THE RESULT, THE M.A. OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 29 TH AUGUST, 2013. SD/- SD/- (N.K.SAINI) [HARI OM MARATHA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 29 TH AUGUST, 2013. VL/- COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR