Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Kiran Industries Ltd., Surat vs Assessee on 4 September, 2015
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL " B " BENCH, AHMEDABAD
(BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M. & SHRI KUL BHARAT, J.M.)
I.T. A. No.1450/AHD/2012 & C.O. No. 135/AHD/2012
(Assessment Year: 2005-06)
The A.C.I.T., Circle-1, Surat V/S M/s. Kiran Industries Pvt.
Ltd. Kiran Compound Mugut
Dyeing Lane, Udhana,
Surat 394210
(Appellant) (Respondent)
M/s. Kiran Industries Pvt. V/S The A.C.I.T., Circle-1, Surat
Ltd. Kiran Compound
Mugut Dyeing Lane,
Udhana,
Surat 394210
(Appellant) (Respondent)
PAN: AAACK 0359C
Appellant by : Shri Narendra Singh, Sr. D.R.
Respondent by : Shri R.B. Shah, A.R.
(आदे श)/ORDER
Date of hearing : 28-08-2015
Date of Pronouncement : 04-09-2015
PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
1. This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of CIT(A)-I, Surat dated 13.04.2012 for A.Y. 2005-06 and Assessee has also filed C.O.
2. The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under.
2 ITA No. 1450/A/12 & C.O. No. 135/A/2012. A.Y. 2005-06
3. Assessee is a company stated to be engaged in the business of manufacturing of dyed yarn, knitted fabrics and dying of fabrics on job work basis. Assessee originally filed its return of income for A.Y. 2005-06 on 25.10.2005 showing total income at Rs. Nil under normal provisions of the Act and Rs. 1,17,88,590/- under MAT. Thereafter the assessment was framed under section 143(3) vide order dated 28.12.2007 and the total income was determined at Rs. 12,98,300/- under normal provisions of the Act and of Rs. 1,17,88,590/- under MAT. Thereafter notice u/s. 148 was issued on 29.03.2011 and the case was re-opened for the reason that the unutilized CENVAT credit was not and taken into consideration while working out the closing stock and thus the value of closing stock was under
stated. Subsequently assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 vide order dated 16.11.2011 by making addition of Rs. 18,84,923/- to closing stock u/s. 145A of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of A.O., Assessee carried the matter before ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 13.04.2012 granted substantial relief to the Assessee. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before us and Assessee has also filed C.O. The grounds raised by the Revenue reads as under:-
1. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Surat has erred in restricting the addition of Rs.18,84,923/-made as per provisions of Section 145A to Rs.5,03,187/- without appreciating the fact that the amount pertains to raw material which was required to be added to the total income by the assessee, as per the provisions of Section 145A, which it failed to do.
4. On the other hand the grounds raised by the Assessee in the C.O reads as under:-
1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in partly confirming the action of assessing officer in 3 ITA No. 1450/A/12 & C.O. No. 135/A/2012 . A.Y. 2005-06 sustaining the addition to the extent Rs. 5,03,187/- put of total addition of Rs. 18.84.923/- u/s. 145A of the Act.
5. Since the grounds raised by the Revenue and Assessee are interconnected, both the appeals are considered together.
6. A.O noticed that as on 31.03.2005, the outstanding balance of MODVAT credit was Rs. 25,73,834/- of which Rs. 18,84,923/- pertain to the raw materials. A.O was of the view that the duty paid forms part of the cost of the goods purchased and the Profit and Loss account is to be charged with the cost of goods consumed during the year. Further the closing stock of raw material should include the excise duty on the goods consumed. He was of the view that the unutilized CENVAT credit should form part of Profit and Loss account. The submission of the Assessee that it was following the exclusive method of accounting for valuation of closing stock was not found acceptable to the A.O. He therefore added Rs. 18,84,923/- being the CENVAT credit pertaining to raw materials u/s. 145A of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of A.O., Assessee carried the matter before ld. CIT(A) who granted partial relief to the Assessee by holding as under:- 9.1 The appellant claims that inclusion of the same will reduce its profits. Before deciding the issue let us understand the issue involved. The appellant has not included excise duty in the valuation of its closing stock. Under section 145A the appellant should include excise duty component of purchase price of raw material while valuing the closing stock of raw material, WIP and finished goods. The appellant claims that the non
- inclusion of the same will have no effect on its profits. 9.2 The section 145A reads as under :-
"Method of accounting in certain cases.4 ITA No. 1450/A/12 & C.O. No. 135/A/2012
. A.Y. 2005-06 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 145 the valuation of purchase and sale of goods and inventory for the purposes of determining the income chargeable under the heard " Profits and gains of business or profession ' shall be-
(a) In accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee;
and
(b) Further adjusted to include the amount of any tax, duty, cess or fee (by whatever name called) actually paid or incurred by the assessee to bring the goods to the place of its location and condition as on the date of valuation.
Explanation : For the purposes of this section, any tax, duty, cess or fee ( by whatever name called) under any law for the time being in force, shall include all such payment notwithstanding any right arising as a consequences to such payment "
Any right here means cenvat credit available to the assessee. 9.3 Explanatory notes to this amendment by Finance Act, 1998 say that the clarificatory retrospective amendment was made to end the controversy on the issue relating to whether the value of closing stock of the inputs, work in progress and finished goods must necessarily include the element for which MODVAT credit is available. Subsequent to this amendment tax auditors started putting a remark in the audit report that such inclusion does not have any impact on taxable profits. This interpretation that there is no impact of this amendment on taxable profits, puts a question mark on the legislative wisdom of the parliament. If the intention behind this amendment was to have no effect on taxable profits, there was no need for this clarificatory amendment.
9.4 A plain reading of the above section makes it clear that after computing the 'Profits and Gains' of Business or Profession as per the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee the profits shall be further adjusted to include excise duty component of purchase cost paid by appellant notwithstanding any right ( ie. Cenvat) arising as a consequence of such payment. Therefore, there is no discretion in this matter and excise component of the cost of inputs i.e. raw material/ packing material etc has to be included in closing stock valuation irrespective of cenvat claim.5 ITA No. 1450/A/12 & C.O. No. 135/A/2012
. A.Y. 2005-06 9.5 The claim that the adjustment u/s 145A will not affect taxable profits is not correct. Before establishing the same, it is necessary to discuss the valuation of stock of finished goods. The stock of finished goods has thee cost components, the raw material cost, the production cost and the excise duty paid on purchase of raw material. This component of excise duty is different from excise duty paid / payable on finished goods. In fact the excise duty component of raw material is an indirect cost charged by the manufacturer of raw material from the assessee who is the purchaser. It is a part of the cost of raw material and also a part of closing stock of finished goods.
9.6 The modvat/cenvat scheme only allows a rebate on excise duty payable on sale / clearance of goods manufactured by assessee calculated on the basis of excise duty rate applicable on raw material which is actually paid by raw material manufacturer. The mechanism of modvat / cenvat is just an administrative mechanism to ensure that the Government collects excise duty only on the value addition by manufacturing process. It does not change the cost of inputs. 9.7 The guidance notes for tax audit issued by ICAI and relied upon by the tax auditors cannot override the specific provisions of the Act. Without prejudice to the same, the illustration given in Guidance Notes, is discussed herein under:-
9.8 In the illustration the following figures have been assumed ;-
Opening stock 10Kgs Duty Rs20/-(@2/-)
Cost without duty Rs 100 ( @ 10)
Purchases 90Kgs Duty Rs180/-(@2/-)
Cost without duty Rs 900 ( @ 10
Consumption 80 Kgs
Production 80 Kgs
Sale 60Kgs Duty liability on sales Rs 180 ( @ 3/-
Sale price without duty 1500 ( @ 25)
Closing stock raw material 20 Kgs
Closing stock finished goods 20 Kgs
6 ITA No. 1450/A/12 & C.O. No. 135/A/2012
. A.Y. 2005-06
INCLUSIVE METHOD AS PER GUIDANCE NOTES
120 Sales 1500 + 180 1680
O.S 100 + 20
Raw Material 900 + 180 1080 CENVAT CREDIT 160
Production cost 800 C.S finished goods 400 + 60 460
EXCISE liability discharged on goods 180 CS Raw material 200 + 40 240
sold
Excise in CS of finished goods (claimed 60
U/s 43B)
Profit 300
Total 2540 Total 2540
EXCLUSIVE METHOD AS PER GUIDANCE NOTES
TRARDING ACCOUNT
O.S 100 Sales Exclusive of excise duty 1500
Raw Material 900 C S finished goods 400
Production cost 800 CS raw material 200
Profit 300
Total 2100 Total 2100
Cenvat account as per guidance notes
Cenvat set off claimed for 180 CENVAT credit allowed on 180
discharging excise liability purchase of raw material
7 ITA No. 1450/A/12 & C.O. No. 135/A/2012
. A.Y. 2005-06
EXCISE ACCOUNT AS PER GUIDANCE NOTES
CENVAT set off claimed 180 Excise duty payable on goods 180
sold
Total 180 Total 180
9.9 In the above illustration of inclusive method the assessee has claimed Cenvat set off of Rs 180/- (in respect of raw material purchased of 90 Kgs for discharging its excise liability of Rs 180/- without making any PLA payment. However, it has credited the set off only Rs 160/- , which is the Cenvat component of raw material consumed of 80 Kgs. This means that assessee has taken advance credit of Cenvat ofRs 20/- (in respect of 10 Kgs raw material not, consumed in manufacturing ). This results in the income of the current year being shown less by Rs 20/-
on this account alone. If this income is considered, the profit U/s 145Awill be Rs 20/- , more than the exclusive method followed by the assessee. Further, the sales are only of 60 Kgs i.e. the assessee's actual Cenvat credit entitlement is Rs 120/- ( 60 x 2 ) By claiming set off of Rs 180/- it has taken further advance credit of Cenvat of Rs 40/- ( 20 x 2 ) pertaining to raw material component in finished goods which are yet to be cleared for excise payment. The total advance credit therefore, comes to Rs 60/ ( 20 + 40). The guidance notes justify this calculation without commenting on treatment of this advance credit of Cenvat in excess of cenvat pertaining to goods actually sold. The Cenvat concept intends to give duty rebate at the time of sale. However, the mechanism of advance credit allows the assessee to claim benefit of set off of Cenvat in respect of entire duty paid though the corresponding goods may still remain in closing stock as raw material or finished goods on which no liability to pay duty has arisen. If we try to work put only the cash profits of the assessee, the Trading Account will appear as under:-
O.S. 120 Sales 1680
Raw Material 1080 C S finished goods 200 + 200 + 40 440
Production cost 800 CS raw material 240
Profit 360
8 ITA No. 1450/A/12 & C.O. No. 135/A/2012
. A.Y. 2005-06
Total 2360 Total 2360
i.e the cash profits are Rs. 3407- There will be no debit of excise duty as no excise payment has actually been made. Against this the guidance notes show taxable profits of Rs. 3007- only. The difference of Rs 60/- actually pertains to set off of advance credit ofCenvat as explained above.
9.10 Had there been no Cenvat scheme, the Trading Account would have appeared as under:-
O.S. 120 Sales 1680
Raw Material 1080 C S finished goods 200 + 440
200 + 40
Production cost 800 CS raw material 240
Excise Payment 180
Profit 180
Total 2360 Total 2360
The cenvat scheme reduces the excise liability on goods sold from Rs 180 to 60/- thereby increasing profits to Rs 3007- However, the assessee 's cash profits go to Rs 3607- due to set off of advance credit of Cenvat. This income of Rs 607- escapes assessment in the illustration in the guidance notes of ICAI.
9.11 The correct Trading Account as per section 145A will appear as under
INCLUSIVE METHOD AS PER GUIDANCE NOTES O.S 120 Sales 1680 Raw Material 1080 CENVAT credit 180 Production Cost 800 C S finished goods 500 9 ITA No. 1450/A/12 & C.O. No. 135/A/2012 . A.Y. 2005-06 Excise 180 C S Raw Material 240 liability discharged Excise in C S of 60 finished goods claimed u/s43B Profit 360 Total 2600 Total 2600 Closing stock of finished goods is arrived as under:-Raw material cost 200 Raw material duty 20 Manufacturing cost 200 Excise duty payable (Distrinct 60 From excise component of raw 500
Mater cost or cenvat) Though this may reduce the profits next year, but that is natural consequence of advance credit of Cenvat allowed to the assessee.
9.12 Now we consider the data furnished by the appellant on this issue reproduced herein under :-
(a) Excise collected in sale 1,78,07,172
(b) Cenvat set off claimed out of credit in respect of raw 1,65,38,533
material 2,25,840
in respect of Capital Goods From PLA payment 10,42,799
Total excise liability discharged 1,78,07,172
10 ITA No. 1450/A/12 & C.O. No. 135/A/2012
. A.Y. 2005-06
(c) Excise component of cost of raw/ pkg i.e. 1,58,71,813
material Cenvat credit allowed
(d) Closing stock - Excise duty component 5,03,189
Excise component of cost in raw material / Pkg mat/ WIP/finished goods worked out on estimate basis estimated by the appellant at average excise rate on inputs ( @ 22. 38%) as no such details are maintained.
(e) Opening Stock - Excise duty Component NIL. Due to discussion on page 7.
(f) Excise liability on manufactured finished goods NIL payable in opening stock ( provision ) Excise liability on manufactured finished goods NIL payable in Closing stock ( provision )
(g) Opening balance of Cenvat Credit on raw material 24,36,535 inputs Cenvat Credit on raw material allowed 1,58,71,813 Set off claimed out of above. 1,65,38,533 Balance (CB) 17,69,815
(h) Opening Balance of Cenvat Credit on Capital Goods 5,70,000 Cenvat credit allowed on Capital goods Set off claimed in respect of Cenvat Credit on Capital 4,58,359 Goods 2,25,840 Balance ( CB) of Cenvat Credit on Capital goods 8,02,519 It is not understood how A. O. arrived at figure of Rs. 18,84,923/- 9.13 On the above basis the impact on profit U/s 145A is worked out as under :-
11 ITA No. 1450/A/12 & C.O. No. 135/A/2012. A.Y. 2005-06
Decrease in profits Increase in profits
Cenvat set off claimed 1,65,30,533 2,25,040 Excise liability 1,78,07,172
Out of raw
material credit Out of
Capital goods credit
PLA Payment 10,42,799
Total 1,78,07,172
Therefore, this adjustment is profit neutral
Decrease in profits Increase in profits
Excise 1,58,71,813 Cenvat Credit 1,58,71,013
component allowed
ofraw./pkg mat
cost
Therefore, this adjustment is also profit neutral Decrease in profits Increase in profits Excise liability NIL Excise liability on NIL on manufactured finished manufactured goods paid/payable in finished goods Closing Stock paid/payable in Opening Stock Therefore, this adjustment is also profit neutral 12 ITA No. 1450/A/12 & C.O. No. 135/A/2012 . A.Y. 2005-06 OPENING STOCK DECREASE IN CLOSIGN STOCK INCREASE IN PROFITS PROFITS Excise component of NIL (as Excise 503187 cost in raw discussed supra) component of cost material/ Pkg mat, in raw material / WIP / finished Pkg mat/ WIP / goods finished goods Total Excise NIL Total 503187 component of cost in Excise component C.S of cost in C.D Increase in profits 503187 Therefore, this adjustment is not profit neutral and will also not decrease the profits as claimed by the appellant.
Therefore, if correct inclusive method is followed, appellant *s income will increase by Rs 5,03,187/- The Chart filed by the Appellant does not show this impact and shows reduced gross profit (29.05 Lakhs as per exclusive method and 15. 23 lakhs as per inclusive method ) due to the fact that while the excise on raw material has been added on the debit side, the corresponding Cenvat / Modavat credit allowed has not been added on the Credit side.
7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of ld. CIT(A), Revenue and Assessee are now in appeal before us.
8. Before us, ld. D.R. supported the order of A.O. On the other hand ld. A.R. reiterated the submissions made before A.O and ld. CIT(A) and further submitted that since Assessee was following exclusive method of accounting for CENVAT and which was as per the Guidance Note issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountant of India and by not including the excise duty, there was no effect on the profitability of the Assessee. He further 13 ITA No. 1450/A/12 & C.O. No. 135/A/2012 . A.Y. 2005-06 placed reliance on the decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Asiatic Industries (in ITA NO. 753/A/2011 order dated 07.08.2014 and the order of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Hawkins Cookers Ltd. in ITA No. 7195/Mum/2008 order dated 22nd April, 2010. He also placed on record, the copy of the aforesaid orders. He therefore submitted that in the present case no addition was called for.
9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present case is with respect to inclusion of excise duty to the value of closing stock. Before us, it is Assessee's submission that in follows exclusive method of accounting of excise for the valuation of stock. The aforesaid submission of the Assessee has not controverted by Revenue by placing any contrary material on record. We further find that on similar issue, the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of Asiatic Industries (supra) had decided the issue in favour of the Assessee by holding as under:-
8.We have heard the rival submission and perused the material on record. We find that the issue in the present appeal is with respect to inclusion of Excise duty and VAT to the value of closing stock, in a case where the Assessee is following exclusion method of accounting of Excise and VAT for valuation of stock. We find similar issue were before the co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal. We further find that in the case of Snehal Pharma Chem (supra) the issue was decided in the favour of Assessee by the co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal by holding as under:-
3.We have considered the submissions of the Ld. D.R. and have gone through the material on record and the orders passed by authorities below. We find that there is submission of the assessee before the authorities below that while the entire amount of excise duty realized on sales was included in the sale amount but out of entire amount of excise duty paid on purchases, only that portion of such excise duty paid which was utilized by way of MOD VAT, had been included in the value of purchases and the balance amount of Modvat credit which could not be utilized in the present year was shown in the balance sheet as an amount receivable and this portion of Rs.l1,25,3427- was not included in the value of purchases. Ld. D.R. could not controvert these submissions of the assessee made by the assessee before the 14 ITA No. 1450/A/12 & C.O. No. 135/A/2012 . A.Y. 2005-06 authorities below. Once it is accepted that these submissions of the assessee are correct, it means that excise duty paid but not included in the purchases was shown in the balance sheet as excise duty receivable and therefore, there cannot be a reason to make any addition in the income of the assessee because even if we include such excise duty receivable in the value of closing stock, the same is also required to be included in the value of purchases and it will have no impacts on the profits of the assessee. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A).
9.We further find that in the case of Bloom Dekor Ltd. (supra) similar issue was decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in favour of the Assessee by holding as under:-
4. On perusing the financial statements Assessing Officer noticed that as per the notes to accounts, excise duty on finished goods not cleared as per factory was estimated at R. 47.38 lacs and custom duty on stock lying at port estimated at Rs. 46.5 lacs was not provided for in the books and was also not considered in the valuation of Inventories. Assessing Officer was of the view that as per provision of Section 145A inserted with effect from 1.04.1999 excise duty has to be added while valuing finished goods. He thus considered the amount of excise duty on finished goods not cleared from factory at Rs. 47.38 lacs and custom duty on stock lying at port at 46.51 lacs aggregating to Rs. 93,89,000/- and added it to the value of inventory. Aggrieved by the action of the Assessing Officer, Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the Assessee and relying on the decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of ITA 1358/Ahd/2009 allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding as under:-
The appellant also pointed out that Hon'ble IT AT, Ahmedabad vide ITA No. 1358/Ahd/2009 has also concurred with a view that excise duty and/or customs duty should not be included in the closing stock. The operative part indicating observation of the Hon'ble ITAT is reproduced herein as under:
"At the time of hearing, both the parties agreed that the issue is now squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Ltd. 327 ITR 369 (Guj.), wherein following was held:
"Held, dismissing the appeal, that Tribunal was justified in excluding the excise duty at the time of valuation of the closing stock of finished goods at the end of the accounting period because:
(a) No deduct ion for the liability had been claimed by the assessee.The excise duty payable on the finished goods lying in the closing stock at the end of the relevant accounting period had been paid in the subsequent year before_the due date of filing of the return of income and that was how the amount was available considering the fact that the assessment had been framed and the show-cause notice was issued much after the close of the accounting year;15 ITA No. 1450/A/12 & C.O. No. 135/A/2012
. A.Y. 2005-06
(b) The Assessing Office had not had recourse to sub-section (3) of section 145 of the Act. The assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting but it was not the case of the assessing Officer that the Assessing Officer was not in a position to deduce true profits of the year under consideration. Such duty of Central excise if added to enhance the value of closing stock would result in enhanced opening stock on the first day of the next accounting period, namely, April 1, 1997. So the next year's profits would get depressed accordingly, over a period of time the whole exercise would even out, in other words, be revenue natural. At the same time while disturbing the value of the closing stock the assessing authority could not change the method of accounting regularly employed.
[c] The assessment year being 1997-98 the provisions of section 145A of the Act inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 with effect from April 1, 1999 could not be invoked".
[4.4] I have perused the assessment order and the written submissions made in this regard. Since the issue is squarely covered by the Jurisdictional 1TAT, I am of the view that no addition should be made on account of excise and customs duty in the valuation of closing stock. The addition made by the AO is thus directed to be deleted. The grounds raised by the appellant are thus allowed.
5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer Revenue is now in appeal before us.
6. Before us, learned D.R. relied on the order of the Assessing Officer.
7. We have heard the learned D.R. and perused the material on record. CIT(A) while deleting the addition has held that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of jurisdictional Tribunal and accordingly relying on the aforesaid decision deleted the addition. Nothing has been brought on record to controvert the findings of CIT(A) and thus we find no reason to interfere in his order and this the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.
10.Since the issue in the present appeal is similar to the issues in the appeals cited hereinabove, we respectfully following the decisions of co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal cited hereinabove, we are of the view that no addition on account of MODVAT and VAT as made by the A.O needs to be made in the present case. We therefore direct its deletion. Thus this ground of Assessee is allowed.
10. We further find that on the issue of Guidance Notes and Accounting Standards issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountant of India, the High Court of Telengana and Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pacts Securities and Financial Services Ltd. (2015) 374 ITR 681 (T & A.P) at para 13 has noted that the merely because the Central Government has not 16 ITA No. 1450/A/12 & C.O. No. 135/A/2012 . A.Y. 2005-06 notified in the Official Gazette "accounting standards" to be followed by any class of assessees or in respect of any class of income, it cannot be stated that the Accounting Standards prescribed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India or the Accounting Standards reflected in the "guidance note" cannot be adopted as an accounting method by an Assessee. It further held that notwithstanding the fact that the opinion of the Chartered Accountants of India was expressed in the 'guidance note", which had not attend a mandatory status, would not be a ground to discard the books of accounts of the Assessee or the method of accounting followed.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and following the decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench cited and the decision of Hon'ble High Court hereinabove, we are of view that no addition on account of unutilized CENVAT Credit was called for in the present case. We thus dismiss the appeal of Revenue and allow the C.O of Assessee.
12. In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and C.O of Assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in Open Court on 04- 09 - 2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
(KUL BHARAT) (ANIL CHATURVEDI)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Ahmedabad. TRUE COPY
Rajesh
Copy of the Order forwarded to:-
1. The Appellant.
2. The Respondent.
3. The CIT (Appeals) -