Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
M/S Solan District Truck Operators ... vs Dcit, Parwanoo on 31 October, 2017
1
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER &
Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA Nos. 275 to 277/Chd/2015
Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10
Sh. B.L. Mehta, Vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-1,
Chandigarh Chandigarh
PAN No. AAMPL3260F
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant By : Sh. T.N. Singla
Respondent By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal
Date of hearing : 22.06.2017
Date of Pronouncement : 28.08.2017
ORDER
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The above captioned appeals have been preferred by the same assessee against the separate orders dated 10.02.2015 of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), [hereinafter referred to as PCIT], Gurgaon relating to assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2009-10 respectively.
2. Since identical facts and issues have been involved in all the appeals, the same have been heard together and are being disposed of by this 2 common order. For the sake of conveniences, the facts have been taken from ITA No. 275/Chd//2015 (assessment year 2006-07).
3. The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of the CIT(A) in confirming the additions made by the Assessing officer in the assessment proceedings carried out u/s 143(3) read with section 153A of the of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') in relation to the gifts received by the assessee amounting to Rs. 55 lacs during the year under consideration. Apart from contesting the addition on merits, the assessee in this appeal has taken an additional legal ground, which reads as under:-
"That the Ld. Principal CIT (OSD) has wrongly upheld the addition of Rs. 55 lacs received during the year u/s 153A without any incriminating material relating to these receipts found during the search"
Since the legal plea raised by the assessee by way of additional ground goes to the root of the case and the findings arriving on that issue will be determinative of the validity of the assessment done by the Assessing officer u/s 153 of the Act, hence, we deem it fit to admit the legal issue for adjudication.
4. The brief facts of the case relating to the issue under consideration are that a search and seizure operation was conducted at the residential and business premises of the Mehta and Zandar Group on 18.2.2011, the assessee being part of that group was also covered. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act making the impugned additions of Rs. 55 lakhs into the income of the assessee on 3 account of certain gifts allegedly received by the assessee from his relatives during the year under consideration.
5. It has been pleaded by the Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) that the original assessment proceedings for the assessment year under consideration had already attained finality as on the date of search. That even the limitation period for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act for initiation of scrutiny assessment proceedings had expired and further that since no incriminating material was found during the search action, hence, no additions were warranted u/s 153A of the Act. He in this respect has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of "All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd." 120 DTR 89 and of the Delhi High Court in the case of "CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla" 234 Taxman 300 ( Delhi) and in "Principal CIT Vs. Meeta Gutgutia Prop M/s Ferns 'N' Petals", ITA 306/2017 and others decided vide order dated 25.5.2017.
6. The Ld. D.R., in rebuttal to this legal plea raised by the assessee has strongly contended that even in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search action, the AO is empowered to look into, consider and make additions in relation to the issues regarding which no incriminating material was found during the search action as it was open to the AO to pass fresh assessment orders under section 153A of the Act looking into all the aspects of the matter irrespective of the fact whether or not the original assessments have been completed and not pending or abated on the date of search action. He has further contended that even otherwise the original assessment proceedings were not completed under section 143(3) of the Act rather the returns filed by the assessee were processed under section 143(1) of the Act and under the circumstances the 4 AO was empowered to examine and look into the issues as the same were not looked into while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act.
7. We have considered the rival contentions. The Ld. AR has submitted that the issue relating to the validity of assessment made under section 153A without having any incriminating material found during the search action u/s 132 of the Act in case of completed assessments, even where the original return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act, has come into consideration before the co-ordinate Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of "The ACIT Cent. Cir. 33, Mumbai vs. Shri Jayendra P. Jhaveri"
ITA Nos.2141, 2142, 2143 & 2144/M/2012 & CO Nos.248, 249, 250 & 251/M/2013 decided on 20.02.2014 (One of us being party to that order).
The Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail and has made the following observations:
"8. The learned DR has also filed written submissions. To stress his point that the return processed u/s. 143(1) cannot be said to be an assessment but a mere intimation, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd." (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC). His contention has been that in the case in hand the assessment was not done originally u/s. 143(3) hence the estimation in question has been rightly made u/s. 153A of the Act by the AO. He has further contended that the principal laid down by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of "All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd." 137 ITD 287 can be applied to the case where the original assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act and not to the case where the return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act.
9. We have considered the submissions of the learned DR. So far so the reliance placed by him in the case of "Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd." (supra) is concerned, we may observe that the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case was regarding the reopening of the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the proposition of 5 law laid down by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of "Adani Exports v. Deputy CIT", (1999) 240 ITR 224 (Guj) was not applicable in that case. In the case of "Adani Exports"
(supra), where the assessment was made u/s. 143(3) of the Act, and the AO did not hold any belief that income had escaped assessment on account of erroneous computation, the re-
opening u/s. 147 made merely on the basis of audit objections was held to be bad in law by the Hon'ble High Court. In the case of "Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd." (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting the provisions of section 143(1) and section 143(3) (as were in force during the relevant time period) has held that in case of assessment made u/s. 143(3), the assessment is made by the AO by applying his mind whereas in case of processing of return u/s. 143(1) of the Act, there is no application of mind by the AO and as such, if a new material comes into the knowledge of the AO and the requirements of section 147 of the Act are fulfilled, the AO is free to initiate proceedings u/s. 147 and the failure to take steps u/s. 143(3) will not render the AO powerless to initiate re- assessment proceedings even when intimation u/s. 143(1) had been issued. So the proposition of law laid down in the case of "Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd." (supra) relates to the powers of the AO for re-opening of assessment u/s. 147in relation to the assessment proceedings conducted under section 143(1) viz-a-viz u/s 143(3) of the Act. (as were in force during the relevant period, since section 143 has been further amended vide Finance Act 2008 w.e.f 01.04.2008.) It is to be noted that powers of the AO to re-open an assessment u/s. 147 is subject to limitation of time period as prescribed u/s. 149 of the Act. So the reasonable conclusion will be that whether the return was processed u/s. 143(1) or u/s. 143(3), if the AO has a reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, he can re-open the assessment u/s. 147 by issuing notice u/s. 148 but within the time limit as prescribed u/s. 149 of the Act.
10. So far so, the question as to the processing of return u/s. 143(1) viz-a-viz assessment made u/s. 143(3) is concerned, it may further be observed that after processing of return u/s. 143(1) the same can be assessed u/s. 143(3) by issue of notice u/s. 143(2) subject to its issuance within the limitation period of 12 months from the end of the month in which return is furnished as per the proviso to clause (ii) of section 143(2) [as was existing at the time of relevant assessment year] . Once the limitation period as prescribed vide proviso to clause (ii) of sub section (2) of section 143 is expired, it is not open to the AO to 6 assess the income u/s. 143(3) of the Act and the return filed by the assessee u/s. 139 is deemed to be accepted, which however, can be re-opened u/s. 147 of the Act subject to the fulfillment of ingredients of section 147 and within the time period as prescribed u/s. 149 of the Act, as discussed in the preceding para. So under such circumstances if the return is processed u/s. 143(1) and not u/s. 143(3) and after the prescribed period of limitation, the same cannot be assessed u/s. 143(3) though it may be interpreted as mere intimation assessment or otherwise, but the same shall be deemed to be accepted by the AO and it will not have any different colour other than the return which is processed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The only distinguishing feature as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd." (supra), would be that if to a set of facts and circumstances, the AO has applied his mind and he was of the belief that there was no escapement of income then for invoking the provisions of section 147 of the Act, he is precluded, on the basis of same facts and circumstances, to say that he has reason to believe that income of the assessee has escaped assessment. Whereas in case of returns processed u/s. 143(1), since the AO does not apply his mind, such a defense is not available to the assessee. However, that proposition of law does not help the revenue in the present case which is a case of assessment/re-assessment u/s. 153A of the Act.
11. Admittedly, in the case in hand, the return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act but the same has attained finality due to the expiry of limitation period of twelve months from the end of the month in which the return was filed. Hence, the assessment is deemed to be completed and not pending on the date of search on 14.08.2008. Admittedly, no incriminating material was found from the premises of the assessee during the search u/s. 132 of the Act. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of "All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd."(supra), has held that assessment u/s. 153A can be made on the basis of incriminating material found during the search. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of "Jai Steel (India) v. ACIT" (2013) 259 CTR 281 has held that in case nothing incriminating is found on account of search or requisition, the question of reassessment of the concluded assessment does not arise. Under such circumstances, it is not open to the assessee to seek deduction or claim expenditure which has not been claimed in the original and already concluded assessment, in the case of assessment u/s. 153A in pursuance of search action. Hon'ble High Court rejected the argument of the learned counsel for assessee to the effect that once the notice u/s. 153A is issued, the assessments 7 for six years are at large both for the AO and the assessee. It has been further held by the Hon'ble High Court that the provisions of section 153A to 153C cannot be interpreted to be further innings to the AO and/or assessee beyond the provisions of section 139(return of income), 139(5) (revised return of income), 147 (income escaping assessment) and 263(revision of orders) of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court has further observed that the words "assess" or "re-assess" have been used at more than one place in the section and a harmonious construction of the entire provision would lead to an irresistible conclusion that the word 'assess' has been used in the context of abated proceedings and 'reassess' has been used for completed assessment proceedings, which would not abate as they are not pending on the date of initiation of the search or making of requisition and which would also necessarily support the interpretation that for the completed assessments, the same can be tinkered only on the basis of the incriminating material found during the course of search or requisition of documents. The Hon'ble High Court while reproducing the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "K P Varghese v. ITO" (1981) 24 CTR 358 "that it is recognized rule of construction that a statutory proviso must be so construed, if possible, that absurdity and mischief may be avoided" has observed that if the argument of the counsel for the assessee was to be accepted, it would mean that even in case where the appeal arises out of the completed assessment has been decided by the CIT(A) or Tribunal and the High Court, on a notice issues u/s. 153A of the Act, the AO would have power to undo what has been concluded by the High Court. Any interpretation which leads to such conclusion has to be repelled and/or avoided as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K P Varghese (supra).
Almost similar proposition of law has been laid down by the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal Bench of the Tribunal in the case of "M/s Deepa Restaurant & Bar P. Ltd." in ITA No.1336/M/2012 decided on 05.02.2014 (one of us being the party of the said order) wherein, it has been observed that where the scrutiny assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act was set aside by the higher authorities that, itself, cannot be a ground for re-opening the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act on the plea that since scrutiny assessment has been annulled on the legality of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act and the case has not been heard at any of the stage hence, there was a reason to believe that the income assessed in this case has escaped assessment. The co-ordinate Bench in the above said case has 8 further held that such an action cannot be allowed under the law as it may amount to defeating one of the statutory provisions in the grab of acting under other provisions of the statute. Once assessment u/s. 143(3) had been annulled by higher authorities on the ground of legality of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, re-opening u/s. 147 on that very ground would mean nothing else but the abuse of process of law. Hence, the contention of the learned DR that as the return was processed u/s. 143(1) and it was a mere intimation hence, the AO had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment and it was open to the AO to reassess the income u/s. 153A, even without any incriminating material found during the search action, is not tenable.
12. The learned DR has further relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of "Gopal Lal Badruka Vs. DCIT", 346 ITR 106 (AP) to stress the point that the AO can use evidence other than that found during the course of search while framing the assessment u/s. 153A of the Act. The said judgment of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court has been duly discussed by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of "All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd." (supra), holding that the same was distinguishable on the facts. In the case of "Gopal Lal Badruka Vs. DCIT" (Supra), incriminating evidence was found in relation to eight plots of land but no evidence was found in respect of 24 plots. Since incriminating material was found in respect of eight plots, Hon'ble Court held that the AO can estimate the income in respect of all 32 plots. The fact was that incriminating material was found in that case.
The other judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of "CIT vs. Chetan Dass Lachman Dass" [2012] 211 Taxmann 61, strongly relied upon by the learned DR, is also of no help to the revenue but to the assessee only. In the said case the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in para 11 of the order, though has held that there is no condition in section153A that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found during the course of search or other post search material or information available with the AO which can be related to the evidence found and that the seized material can be relied upon to also draw inference that there can be similar transactions throughout the relevant period, yet, at the same time it has been further observed that this however, does not mean that assessment u/s 153 A can be arbitrarily made without any relevance or nexus with the seized material.
9
The proposition of law which emerges out in the light of the law laid down by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of "Jai Steel (India) (supra)", Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of "Gopal Lal Badruka" (supra) and also by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of "Chetan Dass lachman Dass" is that where incriminating material is found during the search action, the AO while making assessment u/s. 153A can take note of other materials on record, which are relevant and connected to the material found during the search and inference can be drawn relating to other transactions of similar nature. However, when no incriminating evidence is found during search, it is not open to the AO to make re-assessment of concluded assessment in the garb of invoking the provisions of section 153A. As observed above, such an action will defeat the other relevant provisions of the Act and also the rights of the assessee accrued therein."
8. The above decision has also been followed by another co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Atul Barot (HUF) vs. DCIT" in ITA No.2889/M/2011 & ors. decided on 26.02.2014. We agree with the view taken by the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of 'Shri Jayendra P Jhaveri" (Supra).
Further, the Special Bench Decision in the case of "All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd." (supra) has now been approved by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the cases of 'All Cargo Logistics' ITA No.1969 of 2013 and 'Continental Warehousing Corporation' ITA No. 523 of 2013 reported in (2015) 279 CTR 0389 (Bombay) decided by common order, wherein, it has been held that in relation to the assessments which have already been concluded, the AO was precluded from making additions on any other issue except relating or concerning to the incriminating material found during the search action. The AO cannot disturb the assessment order or reassessment order which has attained finality, unless the material gathered in the course of proceedings u/s 153A of the Act establishes that relief 10 granted under the final assessment/reassessment was contrary to the fact unearthed during the course of 153A proceedings. Identical view has been taken by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Murli Agro Products Ltd. ITA No.36 of 2009 decided vide order dated 29-10- 2010 and by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the recent decision in the case of "Principal CIT Vs. Meeta Gutgutia Prop M/s Ferns 'N' Petals (supra)". We may mention here that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has also discussed and distinguished the case of "Smt. Dayawanti Vs. CIT" in ITA 357/2015 & others dated 27.10.2016, which authority has been relied upon by the Ld. DR. It has been held that in the case of Smt. Dayawanti Vs. CIT", incriminating material was found during the search action, however, in the case of "Principal CIT Vs. Meeta Gutgutia Prop M/s Ferns 'N' Petals (supra)", no incriminating material was found during the search action, hence, the additions made by the Assessing officer were not justified.
9. In view of the above discussion, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee. Consequently, the assessment proceedings carried by the Assessing officer u/s 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act are set aside.
10. Since we have already set aside the assessment proceedings done b y the Assessing officer, hence, the consequent addition made in the said assessment proceedings stand deleted. The ground taken by the assessee on merits of the addition thus become infructuous and the same do not require any adjudication at this stage.
11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed. 11 ITA No. 276/Chd/2015 (assessment year 2007-08)
12. Since the facts and issue involved in this appeal are identical, hence, in the light of discussion made above and following the same lines, this appeal of the assessee is also allowed.
ITA No. 277/Chd/2015 (assessment year 2009-10)
13. Since the assessment for assessment year 2009-10 was not completed rather stood abated on the date of search, hence, the Assessing officer was justified in examining all the material facts coming to his knowledge during the framing of the assessment proceedings u/s 153A read with 143(3) of the Act for the year under consideration.
14. During the search conducted on 18.2.2011, a copy of the statement of Shri Brij Lal Mehta recorded on oath on 17.09.2011 by the DDIT (Inv) Bhatinda was found and seized from the residence of the assessee Shri Pyare Lal Mehta S/o Sh. Brij Lal Mehta. On perusal of this statement, it was revealed that during the course of an earlier search action carried out u/s 132 of the Act on M/s Saraswati Builders, M/s S.B. Township Ltd and Sh. Radhey Shyam Group of Mansa on 03.9.2009, certain documents were found and seized, which mention that Shri Brij Lal Mehta had transactions running into crores with this group. The Assessing officer show caused the assessee to explain the source of such payments / investment / expenditure and to reconcile the same with the books of account. The assessee furnished the required details. After perusal of the reply of the assessee, the Assessing officer recorded his satisfaction that the entries regarding the withdrawals and payments made from the bank account of the assessee 12 stood explained and verified. He, however, observed that the assessee could not explain the source of Rs. 47 lakhs satisfactorily. He rejected the assessee's plea that the same was from the cash book of M/s Brij Lal Mehta Construction Pvt Ltd on the ground that no books of account of the said company were found at the time of search or during the post search enquires. Even the books of account of the said company had been rejected and net profits had been estimated u/s 153A (1)(b) for the given year. He accordingly, held that any credit against such cash book could not be given to the assessee. He observed that source of Rs. 47 lacs paid by the assessee to Shri Radhey Shyam remained unexplained and he accordingly added back the same to the taxable income of the assessee u/s 69 of the Act.
15. The assessee unsuccessfully contested the matter before the CIT(A).
16. Before us, the Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that Assessing officer in para 5 of the assessment order has mentioned that during the course of search on 18.2.2011, a copy of the statement of Shri Brij Lal Mehta recorded on oath on 17.9.2009 by DDIT (Inv.), Bhatinda was found and seized. That the said statement was recorded by DDIT (Inv.), Bhatinda on 17.9.2009 in relation to search conducted on M/s Saraswati Builders, M/s S.B Township Ltd. and Shri Radhey Shyam Group on 3.9.2009. That the documents seized in the case of Shri Radhey Shyam were confronted to the assessee for comments and to show cause relating to the transactions made by the assessee with Radhey Group of Mansa that no papers relating to the aforesaid transactions were found from the premises of the assessee except the copy of the statement of the assessee recorded on 17.9.2009. That the assessee had already explained to the satisfaction of the concerned DDIT (Inv.) through his statement on 17.9.2009 relating to the said 13 transactions, otherwise the amount under consideration would have been added in the hands of the assessee u/s 153C of the Act in the course / pursuant to assessment proceedings carried out u/s 153A of the Act in case of Radehy Shyam group of cases. That though the Assessing officer had show caused the assessee for making an addition of Rs. 4,19,00,000/- however, the assessee has satisfactorily explained about each and every transaction and the Assessing officer has reported that all the transactions stood explained and verified, except about the stated transaction of Rs. 47 lacs paid in cash on 23.10.2008 for the purchase of SCO No. 273 in Sector 32 relating to "Brij Lal Mehta Constructions Pvt Ltd". The Ld. AR has submitted that the property No. 273 in Sector 32 is owned by "B.L. Mehta Construction Pvt Ltd." and as such there was no justification on the part of the Assessing officer to make the additions in the hand of assessee Sh. Brij Lal Mehta. The assessment of "M/s Brij Lal Mehta Construction Pvt Ltd." was also dealt by the same Assessing officer and if he was not satisfied with the source and investments in the hands of the company, then at the best, the amount could have been added in the hands of the company but it could not have been added in the hands of the assessee Shri Brij Lal Mehta. The Ld. AR has also invited our attention to page 32 of the paper book which is a copy of the receipt issued by Estate Officers, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh regarding payments made in respect of SCO 273, Sector 32-D, showing that the amount of Rs. 47 lacs in cash was deposited by "M/s Brij Lal Mehta Construction Pvt Ltd" in respect of Plot No. SCO 273, Sector 32, Chandigarh.
14
17. On the other hand, Ld. DR has relied upon the findings of the lower authorities.
18. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order reveals that no new material was found during search action except the statement recorded of the assessee dated 17.9.2009 by the DDIT (Inv.), Bhatinda in relation to the search action carried out u/s 132 of the Act in the case of Radhey Shyam Group of cases of Mansa on 3.9.2009. The Assessing officer confronted the assessee in relation to the said statement and the documents mentioned in the said statement. The Assessing officer reproduced the statement of the assessee dated 17.9.2009 and asked the assessee to explain each and every transaction. It is also a fact on the file that the said statement has already been considered by the Department in the course of assessment proceedings carried out in the case of Radhey Shyam Group of Mansa. No additions were contemplated in the hands of the assessee u/s 153C of the Act in relation to the documents or transactions as mentioned in the statement of the assessee dated 17.9.2009. However, on the very basis of the same statement, again the Assessing officer show caused the assessee to explain the transactions. The assessee explained each and every transaction. Even the Assessing officer also got satisfied about the genuineness of the transactions except of the payment of Rs. 47 lakhs paid in cash by M/s Brij Lal Mehta Construction Pvt Ltd. for the purchase of SCO 273, sector 32, Chandigarh. The Assessing officer has made the addition in the hands of the assessee on the ground that the books of account of the said company had been rejected. The assessee has produced on the file the receipt dated 23.10.2008 of the Estate Officer, Chandigarh showing that the cash payment of Rs. 47 lakhs was made by the 15 company for purchase of plot i.e. SCO 273, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh. Under the circumstances, the assessee has explained that said payments were not made in his individual capacity but on behalf of the company, the source of the payments thus was to be explained by the company and not by the assessee. Even otherwise after considering the explanation given by the assessee during his statement before DDIT (Inv.) on 17.09.2009, no action u/s 153C of the Act was contemplated in the case of assessee. Under the circumstances, the addition in the hands of the assessee of the said amount of Rs. 47 lakhs cannot be held to be justified and the same is accordingly set aside.
19. In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is hereby allowed.
20. In view of our findings given above, all the appeals preferred by the assessee are hereby allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 28.08.2017
Sd/- Sd/-
(Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated : 28 t h August, 2017
Rkk
Copy to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT
4. The CIT(A)
5. The DR