I.T.A. No.5796/LB of 2005, decided on 24th January, 2007. VS I.T.A. No.5796/LB of 2005, decided on 24th January, 2007.
2007 P T D (Trib.) 932
[Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan]
Before Jawaid Masood Tahir Bhatti, Judicial Member and Istataat Ali, Accountant Member
I.T.A. No.5796/LB of 2005, decided on 24/01/2007.
(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---
----Ss.182, 190(5) & 110---Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss.62 & 116---C.B.R. Circular No.2 of 1969, C. No.4(3)-ITP/59, dated 21-1-1959---Penalty for failure to furnish a return or statement---Setting aside of original assessment---Deletion of penalty---Department contended that First Appellate Authority was not justified in deleting the penalty on the ground of setting aside of the original assessment without any cogent reason and First Appellate Authority had exercised its discretion illegally or perversely in allowing the appeal---Validity---First Appellate Authority was fully justified in deleting the penalty as the basis of penalty was assessment order/outstanding demand which was admittedly set aside by the First Appellate Authority---Penalty could not be sustained in the circumstances and was liable to be cancelled---Order of First Appellate Authority was maintained and in consequence, departmental appeal was dismissed being without any merit.
Messrs Muhammad Muslim v. C.I.T. (1980) 42 Tax 129; Spies v. United States 317 US 492; Hillenbrand v. C.I.T. 42 TC 617; Fattorini (Thomas) (Lancashire) Ltd.'s case (1943) 11 Supp. ITR 50; C.I.T. v. Vedlapatla Veera Venkataramiah and another (1943) 11 ITR 308 (Mad.); 1994 PTD 668; I.T.O. v. Nanalal Chunilal Kansara 19 Taxman 58 (Adh.); Chhotalal Vashram v. I.T.O. 19 Taxman 45 (Ahd); C.W.T. v. Ramik Lal D. Mehra 136 ITR 729 (Ord); CIT. v. Hari Ram Sri Rain Taxation 83 (3) 429 (All.); Begum Mumtaz Jamal's case PLD 1976 Lah. 761; C.I.T. v. Chief Glass House (1992) 65 Tax 205; C.I.T. v. Azam Industries Ltd. 1980 PTD 26; C.I.T. v. Fateh Textile Mills Ltd. PLD 1982 Kar. 679; C.I.T. v. Sindh Land Development Ltd. (1985) 52 Tax 114; C.I.T. v. Javed Khaliq 1993 PTD 730; Moinuddin Qureshi v. State 1983 PCr.LJ 946 and Oxford Dictionary ref.
(b) Income-tax---
----Penalty---Concept---Nature and limitations to penalize assessee---Power of taxing authority to penalize the assessee was not power to destroy rather it was a quasi-criminal power hedged with limitation and had to be exercised subject to those limitations and within its scope and ambit---Taxing authority should always keep in mind the principles which had been approved by the long chain of decisions---Penalty, pecuniary or otherwise was an integral part of any taxing statute, designed to ensure that the provisions of the law for determining the tax liability of persons were strictly complied with.
(c) Income-tax---
----Penalty---Rationale behind the provision of penalties and prosecution in the Income Tax Laws is to discourage the taxpayers to falling a prey to these human frailties.
(d) Income-tax---
----Penalty---Purpose and scope---Burden of proof---Principles.
(e) Income-tax---
----Penalty---Imposition of penalty is not matter of guesswork.
(f) Income-tax----
---Fraud---Cannot be presumed.
(g) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---
----Parts X, XI & XII---C.B.R. Circular No.6 (II)IT-6/75/561 dated 17-6-1975---Penalty---Imposition of---Limitation---Some times the penalties were imposed after inordinate delay, and if there was no limitation fixed in the taxing statute there is instruction contained in the Central Board of Revenue's Circular No.6(II)IT-6/75/561 dated 17-6-1975 to complete the penalty proceedings within 3 months after the assessment---Penalty imposed after inordinate delay was invalid.
Dr. Samra Ashraf, D.R. for Appellant.
Javaid Zakria for Respondent.
ORDER
Through this appeal filed by Department, the impugned order of the learned C.I.T.(A) dated 13-6-2006 has been agitated on the following grounds:---
2. That the learned C.I.T.(A) was not justified to decide the case without issuing notice under section 128(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.
3. That the learned C.I.T.(A) was not justified in deleting the addition of penalty amounting to Rs.6,151,164 on the ground of setting aside of original assessment, without any cogent reason.
2. Dr. Mrs. Samra Ashraf, the learned D.R. has supported the order of the Assessing Officer and has submitted that the learned C.I.T.(A) was not justified in deleting the penalty on the ground of setting aside of the original assessment without any cogent reason. The fact that the original order under section 62 of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 has been set aside by the learned C.I.T.(A), therefore, she submitted that the learned C.I.T.(A) had exercised his discretion illegally or perversely in allowing the appeal of the assessee.
On the other hand Mr. Jawed Zakria, Advocate representing the assessee has supported the impugned order of the learned C.I.T.(A) and has argued that the imposition of penalty by the Additional Commissioner is without jurisdiction and ab initio void and illegal as the same was imposed by the Additional Commissioner who was not authorized to impose the same. In this connection the learned counsel referred to section 190(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, which reads as under:---
"A penalty under sections 182, 183, 185, 186 and 187 shall be imposed by the Commissioner."
The learned counsel has submitted that there is no mens rea and no criminal intent on the part of the assessee-company. He is, therefore, of the view that where punishment/penalty is provided for the breach of any law, it is not, and indeed cannot be levied automatically in every case of default or mistake. For conceivably the default, mistake or income could have been understated, any commission or omission which is committed innocently or unintentionally, unconsciously and without premeditation. May be default which attracts the punishment/penalty was the result of circumstances beyond his control. Learned A.R. has contended that man is neither a robot acting mechanically in a set pattern nor an animal who acts by instinct but a living, vibrant, thinking being who can control his actions. Therefore, the criminal law visualizes that there is no case for imposition of penalty unless, behind the default which attracts penalty, there is a guilty mind and guilty intent. This is the rationale behind the legal concept of mens rea of criminal intent on the part of the wrong doer-before any penalty can be imposed on him, which is an integral part of the criminal jurisprudence imported and equally applicable in penal proceeding of direct taxing statute which is quasi criminal in nature, hence, there is admittedly no default and the penalty proceeding/order was illegal unwarranted and unjustified. He has submitted that nowhere in the civilized world it is permissible to penalize an assessee for difference of opinion between the assessee and assessor regarding the particular interpretation of any provision of law. He submitted that there is no default with the return of income and there was no outstanding amount to be payable by the assessee-company; the alleged outstanding liability was created by the Taxation Officer due to difference of views/opinion. He has in this respect referred the decision of the Hon'ble Karachi High Court in a case reported as Messrs Muhammad Muslim v. C.I.T. (1980) 42 Tax 129 (Kar. HC) wherein, it has been held that:
"The wrong mode of accounting by treating taxable income as non taxable unless the same be in flagrant violation of all norms of business honesty would also not be sufficient to attract the provisions of penalty."
"The mere falsity of the explanation of an assessee is also not relevant consideration for the imposition of penalty".
Learned counsel in this regard has also referred the decisions of U.S.A., U.K., Canada, India and Pakistan. He has submitted that criminal penalties are incurred only when a taxpayer wilfully attempts to evade or defeat the tax. This is provided in section 7201 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 of the U.S.A. He has in this respect referred the case of Spies v. United States reported as 317 US 492 wherein, Mr. Justice Jackson, delivering the opinion of the Court held as under:
"It is not the purpose of the law to penalize frank difference of opinion or innocent errors made despite the exercise of reasonable care."
Regarding the Superior Court's views in the United Kingdom, he has submitted that in U. K. the expression used in this regard is in section 505 of the Income Tax Act, 1952 with the words "Knowingly makes any false statement or false representation". Similarly, section 47 of the Finance Act, 1960 contains the expression, "where a person fraudulently or negligently". Negligence has been defined in section 53 of the Finance Act, 1960 as "omission or commission of a fact without a reasonable cause". Referring the decision in this regard of the British Jurisdiction, he has submitted that in the case of Hillenbrand v. C.I.T. 42 TC 617, the Lord President (Clyde) held as under:---
"It was contended to us on behalf of the Crown that wilful default within the meaning of the Income Tax Acts can be established by the Inland Revenue by means of a presumption of guilt without the Inland Revenue requiring to establish wilful default on the taxpayer's part. An obiter dictum of a Single Judge in an English case was quoted to justify this startling proposition. In my opinion the dictum, which was obiter in that case, does not support such a contention and I should like to make it perfectly clear that in my view there is no warrant whatever for the idea that under the Income Tax Acts people are presumed to be guilty of wilful default unless they can disprove it. To establish wilful default within the meaning of those words in section 47 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, the onus is quite clearly upon the Crown, and the taxpayer is not in the position of having to prove himself innocent of such a charge without proof by the Inland Revenue that he is guilty of default."
Referring the statutory provisions regarding penalty in Canada, he has submitted that Penal provisions in regard to evasion of tax are contained in sections 56 and 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1952. The expression used in both the sections is "any person who wilfully in any manner evaded".
Likewise, referring the statutory provisions regarding penalty for concealment in the Indian laws, he has contended that no penalty can be imposed under clause (A) of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 unless the assessee fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be false. Learned counsel in this regard has also referred C.B.R. Circular No.2 of 1959, C. No.4(3)-ITP/59 dated 21-1-1959 wherein, it has been said that:---
"In a proceeding for imposition of penalty for concealment of income, the onus, is on the Revenue to establish that the assessee has concealed his income:---"
He has also referred the very old decision of the House of Lords in Fattorini (Thomas) (Lancashire) Ltd.'s case (1943) 11 Supp. ITR 50 which contains some very pertinent observations on this issue. In course of his judgment Lord Atkin remarked:
"The section is highly penal and I feel no doubt that the onus is originally remains on the Revenue to show that the company acted unreasonably."
He has submitted that in another case law: Lord Wright in his concurring judgment has used stronger language observing:---
"It is obvious that the section is penal in character and in my opinion the onus is finally on the Crown to prove its right to impose what is a very severe penalty. At the end of the day it is for the Crown to establish the fact."
In another decision reported in 1943, the Madras High Court have also taken the same view. In C.I.T. v. Vedlapatla Veera Venkataramiah and another (1943) 11 ITR 308 (Mad.) 'Sir Lionel Leach (C.J.) remarked:
"The imposition of penalty is not a matter of guess work".
The learned counsel has argued that the principles governing the proceedings relating to imposition of penalty under the income tax law have been eloquently explained and vividly expounded time and again by this Tribunal in number of reported decisions. He has in this respect referred I.T.As. Nos.435 to 436 and 553 to 554/LB of 1989-90, decided on 17-2-1992 reported as 1994 PTD 688. He has contended that the principle laid down by the Tribunal in this case is equally applicable to penal provisions as a whole and cannot be read in isolation and restricted to concealment only. These concepts are equally applicable to all general penal provisions. He has argued that the assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings stand on two different footings. In a proceeding relating to assessment the onus is on the assessee to prove that income returned by him is his true income. In proceedings for imposition of penalty for concealment of income the onus is on the Department to establish that the assessee had concealed his income. The penalty proceedings are criminal in nature and the standard of proof which is required in a criminal case is also required to, sustain the order imposing penalty. A definite finding by the Assessing Officer, A.A.C., C.I.T.(A) or Tribunal on the point of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income is sine qua non for initiating penalty proceedings. Whenever penalty proceedings are sought to be initiated by an Assessing Officer, there should be a finding to this effect in the assessment order indicating the intention of initiating penalty proceedings. The notice under section 116 of the repealed Ordinance, 1979 or under section 110 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 should contain in clear terms the alleged act of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in clear and unambiguous terms and such notice should contain the necessary particulars indicating the charge to be proved against an assessee. The assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings being different in nature, no penalty can be imposed merely on the basis of finding on the point of concealment in the assessment proceedings. The onus lies on the Department in the penalty proceedings to prove independently the guilty intent by showing deliberate commission or omission on the part of the assessee resulting in concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income which may result in avoiding of tax if the returned version is accepted. The assessee should be given reasonable 'opportunity of being heard without violating the principles of natural justice. In all cases where version of taxpayer is not accepted the penalty proceedings shall not be attracted ipso facto although the rejection of taxpayers version may justify the addition to his total income. A reasonable difference of opinion on the point by law or principles of accountancy shall not attract the imposing of penalty. Mere lack of evidence in support of a claim in Trading or Profit and Loss Account or substantiating a transaction shall not entail the levy of penalty though it may be considered sufficient for making disallowance and consequent addition to the total income. A bona fide belief on the part of an assessee on a point of fact or law shall entitle him for extending benefit of doubt. According to the learned counsel, the penalty proceedings being criminal in nature, the Assessing Officer has to establish independently mens rea or the guilty intention of the assessee and the Assessing Officer has to play a role of both the prosecutor and the Judge. The learned counsel has referred some cases from Indian Jurisdiction where penalty imposed was deleted by the Courts under the following circumstances. In I.T.O. v. Nanalal Chunilal Kansara 19 Taxman 58 (Adh.) penalty levied on account of addition of Rs.37,137 for sales not disclosed was deleted by the Tribunal holding that penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. It should be proved by the Department that there is mens rea on the part of the assessee and assessee is guilty of conscious concealment of the sales. When patent facts are not there to show mens rea, in our view, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the AAC." In Chhotalal Vashram v. I.T.O. reported as 19 Taxman 45 (Ahd), Assessee who was partner in two firms did not disclose in his return income from one of the firms. This happened for five consecutive years. When this was discovered assessments were reopened and income from the other firm was included in the assessments. The Tribunal deleted the penalties levied considering that (i) the assessee had two income tax practitioners and there was lack of co-ordination between them (ii) Both the cases of the firms were with the same income tax officer and assessee could not have hoped to conceal from the Department the fact that he was having share income from two firms. The assessee was given benefit of doubt regarding proof of mens rea and penalties were deleted following C.W.T. v. Ramik Lal D. Mehra reported as 136 ITR 729 (Ord) wherein it was held that an assessee is visited with penalty only when his conduct is contumacious, or there is wilful disregarding of legal obligation. In C.I.T. v. Hari Ram Sri Ram Taxation 83 (3) 429 (All.). The Tribunal cancelled the penalty levied on the HUF when it found that (i) there was not positive evidence to show that the HUF concealed income, (ii) the assessee had throughout maintained that the income belonged to an individual co-partner and not to the HUF and (iii) there was no mens rea. The High Court held that these findings not having been challenged by raising specific questions were binding on the Revenue. Therefore, there was no case for levy of a penalty. The learned counsel has argued that the Taxation Officer after finalization of the assessment for the assessment year 2002-2003 also imposed the penalty under section 183(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The assessee filed appeal before the learned C.I.T.(A) against that order as well as order of the penalty. In appeal the learned C.I.T.(A) vide order dated 8-9-2004 had set aside and as a consequence thereof, the original demand of tax created by the Assessing Officer stood disappeared. The law on the point is now well-settled. Once the demand based on the original assessment order stands modified or set aside in appeal, the basis of imposing penalty on such original demand disappears and no penalty can be sustained on the basis of the original demand/ assessment order.
Mr. Zakria, the learned counsel has argued that the assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings stand on two different footings. In a proceedings relating to assessment the onus is on the assessee to prove that income returned by him is his true income. In proceedings for imposition of penalty the onus is on the Department to establish that the assessee is deliberately in default without any reasonable cause. It is further submitted by him that the penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and the standard of proof which is required in a criminal case is also required to sustain the order imposing penalty. A definite finding and material evidence by the Assessing Officer, C.I.T.(A) or this Tribunal on the point of penalty is sine qua non for initiating penalty Proceedings. The show-cause notice regarding imposing of penalty should contain in clear terms the alleged act of known wilful default in clear and unambiguous terms and such notice should contain the necessary particulars indicating the charge to be proved with evidence against an assessee. The learned counsel for the assessee-company has cited the judgment of Begum Mumtaz Jarnal reported as PLD 1976 Lah. 761.
The learned counsel has submitted that the principles laid down in this judgment of the Hon'ble High Court has since been followed and relied upon in number of judgments including following:---
C.I.T. v. Chief Glass House (1992) 65 Tax 205, C.I.T. v. Azam Industries Ltd. 1980 PTD 26, C.I.T. v. Fateh Textile Mills Ltd. PLD 1982 Kar. 679, C.I.T. v. Sindh Land Development Ltd. (1985) 52 Tax 114, C.I.T. v. Javed Khaliq 1993 PTD 730 and Moinuddin Qureshi v. State 1983 PCr.LJ 946.
Concluding his arguments, he has contended that the principles laid down in the above cases is that once the demand based on the original assessment order stands modified or set aside in appeal the basis for imposing penalty on such original' demand/assessment order no more exist and no penalty can be legally sustained on the basis of the original demand/assessment order. The assessee cannot be held to be as assessee in default of payment, therefore, liable for penalty. He submitted that the learned C.I.T.(A) was fully justified in deleting the penalty and the above mentioned principle is well-settled and squarely applicable to the case in hand.
3. We have heard the learned representatives from both the sides and have also perused the impugned order, the penalty order, the case-law referred and the case record.
4. We are of the view that bare reading of penal provisions of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, it clearly spells out the step by step following penal actions. The provisions relating to the levy of penalty are strewn all over the different statues in spite of the fact that the penalties imposable, insofar as Income-tax is concerned, have been grouped in Parts X, XI and XII of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The reason is simple; the default which attract penalty have been increased. The greater the changes, greater the confusion as to which provision applies to what income and to which tax year Penalty. for failure to furnish a return or statement (section 182 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001), Penalty for non-payment of tax (section 183 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001), Penalty for concealment of income (section 184 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001), Penalty for failure to maintain records (section 185 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001) Penalty for non-compliance with notice (section 186 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001) Penalty: for making false or misleading statements (section 187 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001), Penalty for failure to give notice (section 188 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001), Penalty for obstruction (section 189 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001), Imposition of penalty (section 190 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001). In addition to and without prejudice to the provisions relating to penalties, the Income Tax Ordinance provides for prosecution for non-compliance with certain statutory obligations (section 191 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001), for false statement in verification (section 192 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001), for failure to maintain records (section 193 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001) for improper use of National Tax Number Certificate (section 194 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001) for making false or misleading statements (section 195 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001), for obstructing a taxation officer (section 196 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001) for disposal of property to prevent attachment (section 197 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001) for unauthorized disclosure of information by a public servant (section 198 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001) for abetment (section 199 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001) and Offences by companies and associations of persons (section 200 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001), Institution of prosecuting proceedings without prejudice to other action (section 201 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001), Power to compound offences (section 202 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001), Trial by Special Judge (section 203 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001), Penalty is an additional tax which is imposed due to dishonest and contumacious conduct of the assessee as has been mentioned in Part XII, Additional tax (section 205 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001), Reduction in additional tax, consequential to reduction in tax or penalty (section 205A of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001), the power of taxing authority to penalize the assessee is not power to destroy rather it is quasi-criminal hedged with limitation and has to be exercised subject to those limitations and has to be exercised subject to the same and within its scope and ambit. The taxing authority should always keep in mind the principles which have been approved by the long chain of decisions. Penalties, pecuniary or otherwise, are an integral part of any taxing statute, designed to ensure that the provisions of the law for determining the tax liability of persons are strictly complied with. In our complex tax structure, the provisions relating to penalties and prosecutions are far from simple. Human nature being what it is, while there is voluntary compliance by and large, there is a tendency to bypass the law to gain a temporary advantage by many. People are lazy, forgetful, disorganized but then there are also clever, greedy and unscrupulous people, ever eager to take advantage of any situation. The law must, therefore, take care of human nature if it seeks ready compliance with the law. The rationale behind the provision of penalties and prosecution in the Income Tax Laws is to discourage the taxpayers to falling a prey to these human frailties. Penalty, according to Shorter Oxford Dictionary, is "a punishment imposed for a breach of law, rule or conduct or a disadvantage of some kind fixed by law or by contract for the violation of the rule or the contract." The Income Tax Laws, therefore, provide for penalties both in the shape of imposing additional monetary burden on the defaulter taxpayers for breach of the law and rules as well as by providing for, fine or imprisonment or both the case of specified defaults.
The defaulters are in this way put to notice that if they disregard the provisions of the law they do so at their own peril and that the failure to comply with the law would attract not only an additional monetary burden but may result in imprisonment. This is a warning to those who deliberately intend to defy the law and also to those who are merely slothful. As nobody would like to add to the already heavy burden of taxation by attracting the penalty and the possibility of being prosecuted and loss of liberty for however short a period, the taxpayers are likely to ensure compliance with the laws and rules framed thereunder. A significant aspect of the imposition of penalties under the Income Tax Law is the question as to on whom does the onus or burden of proof rests the Revenue or the taxpayer regarding the satisfaction of the conditions under which penalty is leviable. Even where the question as to whether there is a default or not is a pure question of fact like in cases of non-filing of return or filing a return after the prescribed time or the non-production of accounts in response to statutory notices, a question often arises as to whether the default is without reasonable cause. In case of concealment of income the question very often arises as to whether the additions made to the income is concealment at all and even if it amounts to concealment, whether it was deliberate or not. Questions have, therefore, arisen as to the burden of proof resting on the Revenue or the taxpayers, and the shifting the burden to the Revenue where the initial onus resting on the taxpayer has been suitably discharged. This, indeed, is a vexed question which had not only been the subject-matter of considerable litigation reading to the highest level of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on more than one occasion but to the amendment of the statute to nullify those decisions of the Courts. Penalty serves its purpose only, so long as it is within reasonable limits. Once it crosses that limits, it is more likely to increase the rigidity of a taxpayer's recalcitrance than to reform him. Undue harsh penalties breed only defiance of law and have to be eschewed. The purpose of penalty should, however, be only to bend and not to break the taxpayer. Penalty should not be draconian. We also strongly feel that those who are tempted to resort to concealment of income should not be allowed to get away with tenuous legal interpretations. These penalties are supposed to be legitimate for the effective tax administration. The purpose of penalty is to avoid evasion of tax. The tax resistance is a normal phenomenon in every society and the instrument to these penalties, is to crush this attitude. Thus, the Income Tax Ordinance has its own built-in mechanism to cope with the defaulters and violators through the provisions under which Additional tax can be imposed and penalties can be levied. The imposition of penalty is not a matter of guess work. Fraud cannot be presumed. It must be proved. Sometimes the penalties are imposed after inordinate delay, and if there is no limitation fixed in the Taxing statute there is instructions contained in Circular No.6(II)IT-6/75/561, dated 17-6-1975 to complete the penalty proceedings within 3 months after the assessment. However, penalty imposed after inordinate delay is invalid.
5. The upshot of this discussion is that the learned C.I.T.(A) was fully justified in deleting the penalty as the basis of penalty was assessment order/outstanding demand which was admittedly set aside the learned C.I.T.(A), therefore, as held by the superior Courts in their judgments as well by this Tribunal in numerous cases cited supra, the penalty cannot be sustained and is liable to be cancelled. The order of the learned C.I.T.(A) is maintained and in consequence of the above the departmental appeal is dismissed as being without any merit.
C.M.A./7/Tax(Trib.)Appeal dismissed.