M/S EMBROCIA FARMS PVT LTD. , PATHANKOT V. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE-6, PATHANKOT

ITA 284/ASR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4479 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 25-02-2019
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Charitable institution; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 12AA; 250; 154; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (SMC) BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 561/A SR/2018 & 284/ASR/2017 AS SESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 EMBROCIA FARMS PVT. LTD., VILL. KOTLI, P.O. JAKOLARI, TEHSIL & DISTT. PATHANKOT [PAN: AAACE 3519P] VS. DY. CIT, CIRCLE 6, PATHANKOT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. TARSEM LAL, ADV. RESPONDENT BY: SH. CHARAN DASS, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 25.02.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21.05.2019 ORDER PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: THIS IS A SET OF TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE, I.E., IN QUANTUM AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THE FORMER ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, AMRITSAR ('CIT(A)' FOR SHORT) DATE D 18.10.2018, CONTESTING THE DISMISSAL OF THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION UNDER SECTI ON 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT' HEREINAFTER) DATED 15/5/2017 FOR AS SESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2006-07, CLAIMING AMENDMENT OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 15/ 01/2014 PARTLY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTESTING ITS ASSESSMENT U/S. 14 3(3) OF THE ACT DATED 19/12/2008 FOR THE SAID YEAR. THE SECOND APPEAL (IN ITA NO. 28 4/ASR/2017) IS IN RESPECT OF CONFIRMATION OF THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) LEVIED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) FOR THE SAID YEAR ON 13/3/2015, BY THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 03/02/2017. ITA NOS. 561/ASR/2018 & 284/ASR/2017 (AY 2006-07) EMBRO CIA FARMS PVT. LTD. V. DY CIT 2 2.1 THE FACTS, BRIEFLY STATED, ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E-COMPANY SOLD ITS FEED MILL UNIT DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR FOR A LUMP-SUM CONSID ERATION OF RS.280 LACS (VIDE SALE DEED DATED 10.01.2006), RETURNING SHORT-TERM C APITAL GAIN (STCG) AT RS.2,09,00,417. IN THE VIEW OF THE AO, IT IS ONLY T HE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE (WDV) OF THE SAID UNIT (AT RS.44.93 LACS) AND NOT OF THE TOTAL ASSETS (I.E., RS.71 LACS), I.E., INCLUSIVE OF THE OTHER (POULTRY FARM) UNIT AS WELL, THAT COULD BE DEDUCTED IN COMPUTING THE STCG. TWO, AS THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD L AND (MEASURING 5 KANALS, 8.53 MARLAS), PURCHASED ON 17.11.1981, ALONG WITH, THE C APITAL GAIN ATTRIBUTABLE THERETO WOULD REQUIRE BEING WORKED OUT SEPARATELY. HE, ACCO RDINGLY, VIDE ORDER DATED 19.12.2008, COMPUTED LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN (LTCG) (ON LAND) AT RS.26,98,636 AND STCG (ON OTHER ASSETS) AT RS.207.92 LACS, I.E., AT A TOTAL OF RS.234.91 LACS. THE ASSESSEE HAD, IN HIS VIEW, THUS UNDERSTATED CAPITAL GAIN BY RS.25.90 LACS (RS.234.91 LACS RS.209.01 LACS), ALSO INITIATING PENALTY PRO CEEDINGS FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 2.2 IN APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE DISPUTED THE COMPUTATIO N OF STCG AS WELL AS THAT OF LTCG. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DECIDED THUS (V IDE ORDER DATED 15.01.2014): 6. UNDER THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT WHEREAS A COMPOSITE SALE DEED HAS BEEN EXECUTE D WITHOUT GIVING SEPARATE DETAILS FOR DEPRECIABLE ASSETS AND NON DEPRECIABLE ASSETS INCLU DING A SEPARATE PARCEL OF LAND MEASURING 5 KANALS 8.53 MARLS NOT APPURTENANT TO THE FEED MILL UNIT, THE AO IS QUITE JUSTIFIED IN COMPUTING SEPARATELY NET LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SALE O F THE ABOVE PARCEL OF LAND NOT APPURTENANT TO THE FEED MILL AT RS.2698636/- [RS.2714500 LESS I NDEXED COST OF SUCH LAND AT RS. 15864/- BASED ON ITS COST PRICE OF RS.3192/-] AND THEREBY S EPARATELY WORKING OUT NET ASSESSABLE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.2,07,92,053/- [RS.25285500 LESS RS.4493446/- COST PRICE OF DEPRECIABLE ASSETS] AGAINST THE DECLARED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.2,09,00,272/-, RESULTING INTO UNDER-STATEMENT OF CAPITAL GAIN TO THE TUNE OF RS.25,90,272/-, SUBJECT TO THE FINDING THAT THE AO MAY ENSURE THAT FOR WORKING OUT SHORT TERM C APITAL GAIN, SET OFF OF WDV OF ALL AND ITA NOS. 561/ASR/2018 & 284/ASR/2017 (AY 2006-07) EMBRO CIA FARMS PVT. LTD. V. DY CIT 3 ENTIRE PLANT & MACHINERY, BUILDING, ETC. SHOULD BE GIVEN INSTEAD OF ONLY OF FEED UNIT AS POULTRY (UNIT) AND FEED UNITS WERE PART OF SAME POU LTRY FARM AS ONE UNIT. IN THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPI NION THAT THE AOS ACTION BEING IN ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE THERETO AND HIS A CTION IS HEREBY CONFIRMED IN RESPECT OF COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS LAND. IN SHORT, HE ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDU CTION OF WDV AT RS.71 LACS, ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE, THUS, A RELIEF OF RS.26.06 L ACS (RS.71 LACS RS.44.94 LACS), WHILE UPHOLDING THE SEPARATE WORKING OF LTCG ON THE VALUE ATTRIBUTABLE TO LAND. 2.3 THE ASSESSEE MOVED AN APPLICATION U/S. 154 DATE D 15.05.2017 (ON 18.5.2017/COPY ON RECORD) BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), RA ISING TWO ISSUES, AS UNDER: (A) THE AO HAD WRONGLY APPLIED CIRCLE RATE OF RS.25,000 /- PER MARLA IN COMPUTING THE LTCG ON LAND IN-AS-MUCH AS SECTION 50 C COULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVOKED AS A SALE WAS A COMPOSITE SALE. (B) THE LAND SOLD WAS APPURTENANT TO THE FEED MILL, AND NOT, AS STATED, NOT APPURTENANT THERETO, SO THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN COULD NOT BE SEPARATELY COMPUTED. QUA THE FIRST ISSUE, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ISSUE BEING NOW RAISED WAS NOT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL AND, CONSEQUENTLY, NOT ADJ UDICATED U/S. 250 IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. AS REGARDS THE SECOND GROUND, THE SAME RA ISED A CONTENTIOUS ISSUE, I.E., WHICH WAS DEBATABLE AND, THUS, OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 154. THE SAME WAS, EVEN OTHERWISE, COVERED U/S. 154 (1A) OF THE ACT. A GGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL, RAISING THE FOLLOWING ISSUES: (I) THE PARENT ORDER BEING DATED 15.01.2014, THE IM PUGNED ORDER COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PASSED AFTER 31.3.2018, AND IS THUS BARRED BY TIME U/S. 154(7); (II) THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEING PASSED OUTSIDE THE TI ME LIMIT OF SIX MONTHS SPECIFIED U/S. 154(8), IS NON-EST, SO THAT THE ASSESSEES APP EAL BE DEEMED AS ACCEPTED; ITA NOS. 561/ASR/2018 & 284/ASR/2017 (AY 2006-07) EMBRO CIA FARMS PVT. LTD. V. DY CIT 4 (III) THE CIRCLE RATE (OF LAND) COULD NOT BE APPLIE D AS IT IS A CASE OF A COMPOSITE SALE; AND, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, (IV) THE CORRECT COMMERCIAL RATE TO BE APPLIED IS R S.15,000 PER MARLA, AS THE COLLECTOR HAD HIMSELF APPLIED THE SAID RATE. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATERI AL ON RECORD. 3.1 GROUNDS (I) AND (II) ASSAIL THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS BARRED BY TIME AND, THUS, NON-EST. THE SAME ARE WITHOUT MERIT AND, IN FACT, S ELF-DEFEATIVE. THIS IS AS THE ONLY IMPLICATION OF THE SAME BEING TIME-BARRED IS THAT T HE ASSESSEES APPLICATION U/S. 154 DATED 15/5/2017 IS STILL UN-DISPOSED. THE MATTER AL SO CANNOT BE SET ASIDE AS, BY OWN CONTENTION, AN ORDER DISPOSING THE SAID APPLICATION COULD NOT BE PASSED AFTER 31.3.2018. THERE IS NO QUESTION OF THE ASSESSEES A PPLICATION BEING DEEMED AS ALLOWED, I.E., IN DEFAULT, AS SUGGESTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SH. LAL, DURING HEARING, AS SECTION 154(4), MANDATORY IN NAT URE, PROVIDES FOR AN AMENDMENT TO BE BY WAY OF AN ORDER IN WRITING. SECTION 154(8) MAKES THIS FURTHER CLEAR, I.E., THAT ANY ORDER OF AMENDMENT U/S. 154(1) R/W SEC. 15 4(4) HAS TO BE A RESULT OF A CONSCIOUS DECISION BY THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY TO EI THER AMEND OR NOT TO AMEND THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED. THE TIME FRAME STIPUL ATED THEREBY IS, EVEN AS CLARIFIED IN SBI V. ITO (TDS) [2011] 335 ITR 287 (PAT), RELIED BY THE REVE NUE, DIRECTORY. FURTHER, THAT WHERE THE CONSEQUENCE/S OF THE BREACH OF THE TIME LIMIT IS NOT PROVIDED, THE SAME IS DIRECTORY, IS PART OF WELL-SE TTLED LAW, AS EXPLAINED BY THE HONBLE ORISSA HIGH COURT IN BHAKTA VEDANTA SWAMI CHARITABLE TRUST V. CIT (IN WP(C) 12347 OF 2005 DATED 9/5/2006), WHERE THE SAME CONTENTION, I.E., OF THE NON- PASSING OF ORDERS (IN THAT CASE U/S. 12AA AS WELL A S S. 80G(5) OF THE ACT) WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS AS AMOUNTING T O A DEEMED ACCEPTANCE OF THE RELEVANT APPLICATION/S, WAS NEGATIVED BY THE HONBL E COURT, MAKING REFERENCE TO A DECISION BY THE PRIVY COUNCIL; THE REVENUE BEING CO NSTRAINED TO PASS AN ORDER BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT. THE OPERATIVE PAR T OF DECISION READS AS UNDER: ITA NOS. 561/ASR/2018 & 284/ASR/2017 (AY 2006-07) EMBRO CIA FARMS PVT. LTD. V. DY CIT 5 `WE ARE UNABLE TO UPHOLD SUCH CONTENTION. IN OUR V IEW THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS AS PROVIDED IN SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 12AA IS NOT MANDATORY. THOUGH THE WORD SHALL HAS BEEN USED, BUT IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT TO ASCERTAIN W HETHER A PROVISION IS MANDATORY OR NOT, THE EXPRESSION SHALL IS NOT ALWAYS DECISIVE. IT IS A LSO WELL KNOWN THAT WHETHER A STATUTORY PROVISION IS MANDATORY OR DIRECTORY HAS TO BE ASCER TAINED NOT ONLY FROM THE WORDING OF THE STATUTE BUT ALSO FROM NATURE AND DESIGN OF THE STAT UTE AND THE PURPOSE WHICH IT SEEKS TO ACHIEVE. HEREIN THE TIME FRAME UNDER SUB-SECTION ( 2) OF SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT HAS BEEN SO PROVIDED TO EXCLUDE ANY DELAY OR LETHARGIC APPRO ACH IN THE MATTER OF DEALING WITH SUCH APPLICATION. SINCE THE CONSEQUENCE FOR NON-COMPLIA NCE TO THE SAID TIME FRAME HAS NOT BEEN SPELT OUT IN THE STATUTE, THIS COURT CANNOT HOLD TH AT THE SAID TIME-LIMIT IS MANDATORY IN NATURE NOR THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS HAS BEEN COUCHED IN NE GATIVE WORDS. MOST OF THE TIME NEGATIVE WORDS INDICATE A MANDATORY INTENT. THIS COURT IS A LSO OF THE OPINION THAT WHEN PUBLIC DUTY IS TO BE PERFORMED BY THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES, THE TIME -LIMIT WHICH IS GRANTED BY THE STATUTE IS NORMALLY NOT MANDATORY BUT IS DIRECTORY IN THE ABSE NCE OF ANY CLEAR STATUTORY INTENT TO THE CONTRARY (SEE: MONTREAL STREET RAILWAY COMPANY VS. NORMANDIN , AIR 1917 PRIVY COUNCIL 142 AT PAGE 144). HERE THERE IS NO SUCH EXPRESS STA TUTORY INTENT, NOR DOES IT FOLLOW FROM NECESSARY IMPLICATION. FOR THIS REASON WE CANNOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER ON THE INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 12AA(2) . THE PROVISION (S. 154(8)) IS NOT CAST IN NEGATIVE T ERMS, WHICH IS INDICATIVE, AND ALSO ONE OF THE TESTS AS POINTED OUT BY THE HONBLE COUR T, OF THE PROVISION BEING DIRECTORY. CONTRAST THIS WITH S.154(7), CAST IN NEG ATIVE TERMS, WHICH IS MANDATORY. RATHER, A READING OF SECTION 154(8) MAKES IT ABUNDA NTLY CLEAR THAT AN ORDER U/S. 154(1) R/W S. 154(4) IS TO BE A RESULT, AS AFORE-ST ATED, OF A CONSCIOUS DECISION. THIS IS EVEN OTHERWISE APPARENT AS THE ORDER IS APPELLAB LE AND, IN FACT, BEING AN ORDER COVERED U/S. 154(1)(A), ITSELF SUBJECT TO RECTIFICA TION, AS WHERE IT BEARS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. THE SAID GROUNDS WOULD NOT HO LD. 3.2 THE THIRD (III) ASPECT, AS ITSELF STATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS GROUND 6, IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL, ON WHICH A CONSCIOUS DECI SION HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE PASSING THE APPELLATE ORDER. THE ONLY COURSE THEREFORE AVAILABLE, WHERE THE SAID ADJUDICATION IS CONSIDERED ERRONEOUS , IS FOR THE EFFECTED PARTY TO TAKE THE MATTER IN FURTHER APPEAL. TRUE, THE LD. CI T(A) HAS, IN ARRIVING AT HIS ITA NOS. 561/ASR/2018 & 284/ASR/2017 (AY 2006-07) EMBRO CIA FARMS PVT. LTD. V. DY CIT 6 DECISION, REGARDED THE LAND SOLD AS NOT APPURTENANT TO THE FEED MILL, WHILE THE ASSESSEE STATES OF THE SAME BEING A PART AND PARCEL OF THE FACTORY BUILDING SOLD. THAT, HOWEVER, DOES NOT MEAN THAT HIS DECISION WOUL D BE DIFFERENT HAD HE NOT REGARDED IT AS SO . IN FACT, THE AO, WHOSE ACTION HE UPHOLDS, DOES NO T STATE SO; THOUGH YET ASSESSES THE GAIN ON LAND SEPARATELY. TH AT LAND IS A SEPARATE ASSET FROM THE STRUCTURE THEREON OR THE PLANT ATTACHED THERETO , IS WELL-SETTLED ( CIT VS. ALPS THEATRE [1967] 65 ITR 377 (SC);. CIT VS. CITIBANK N. A. [2003] 261 ITR 570 (BOM); CIT VS. VIMAL CHAND GOLECHA [1993] 201 ITR 442 (RAJ)). FURTHER, IT MAY ALSO BE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDE RS SO AS LAND, IF REGARDED AS PART OF THE UNITS SOLD, WOULD BE SUBJECT TO PROV ISION OF SECTION 50B, IN WHICH CASE NO INDEXATION BENEFIT WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO TH E ASSESSEE AND, TWO, ONLY THE NET WORTH, AS CERTIFIED BY AN ACCOUNTANT, OF THE RELEVA NT UNDERTAKING (I.E., EXCLUDING THE PLANT AND MACHINERY OF THE OTHER UNIT), ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. IT IS FOR THESE REASONS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) STATES IT TO RAISE A CONTENTIOUS ISSUE AND, IN ANY CASE, COVERED U/S. 154(1A). 3.3 THE ISSUE RAISED AT (IV) ABOVE IS THE APPLICATI ON OF THE CORRECT RATE. WHERE THE RATE APPLIED IS NOT THE CORRECT RATE, THE SAME IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. THERE IS, HOWEVER, NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT T HE RATE IS RS.15,000, WHICH ASPECT ITSELF WAS DISPUTED DURING HEARING BY THE LD . SR. DR, SH. CHARAN DASS. BE THAT AS IT MAY, THE SAID MISTAKE, I.E., THAT THE RATE APPLIED IS NOT CORRECT, IS ADMITTEDLY NOT A PART OF THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION DATED 15.5.2017 DISPOSED OF BY THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE SAME, W HERE SO, IS A MISTAKE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE OTHER MISTAKES RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE PER ITS SAID APPLICATION. THE SAME STANDS RAISED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE APPLICATION DATED 09.01.2018 (PB PGS. 6-7). IN-AS-MUCH AS THE SAME RA ISES A NEW MISTAKE, INDEPENDENT OF THE OTHER MISTAKES, THE SAME CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A REVISION OF THE ITA NOS. 561/ASR/2018 & 284/ASR/2017 (AY 2006-07) EMBRO CIA FARMS PVT. LTD. V. DY CIT 7 APPLICATION DATED 15.5.2017, AS SH. LAL WOULD STATE ON THE SCOPE OF THE SAID APPLICATION. THE ASSESSEES LETTER DATED 09.01.2018 IS, TO THAT EXTENT, A SEPARATE APPLICATION, SINCE UNDISPOSED. IT IS OPEN FOR THE A SSESSEE TO, WHERE SO ADVISED, SEEK DISPOSAL OF THE SAID APPLICATION DATED 09.01.2018. I SAY SO, I.E., WHERE SO ADVISED AS, AS IT APPEARS, IT MAY BE OF NO CONSEQUENCE. THE VALUE (OUT OF THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.280 LACS) IMPUTED TO THE OTHER ASSETS IS THE BALANCE AFTER DEDUCTING THAT ASCRIBED TO LAND. AS SUCH, A CHANGE IN THE SAID RATE, IMPACTING LAND VALUE (COST), WOULD IMPLY A CORRESPONDING INCREASE IN STCG; IN FACT, TO EXACTLY THE SAME EXTENT. HOW, ONE WONDERS, WOULD IT ASSIST THE ASSESSEE IN ANY MANNER? 3.4 CONTINUING FURTHER, IT IS PRECISELY THIS THAT W OULD CAUSE THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AGITATING THE LEVY OF PENALTY AS BEING LIABLE TO BE ACCEPTED AT THE THRESHOLD. THE PRIMARY (AND THE SOLE) REASON FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN IN A SUM HIGHER THAN THAT RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE (BY RS.25.90 LAC S), ON WHICH THE IMPUGNED PENALTY IS LEVIED, IS, AS A NARRATION OF THE FORE-G OING FACTS MAKES IT CLEAR, ON ACCOUNT OF NON-ALLOWANCE OF THE WDV OF THE ENTIRE B LOCK OF ASSET, I.E., OF BOTH THE UNITS, I.E., AS AGAINST ONLY OF THE FEED MILL UNIT. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO SETS OF THE WDV ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A), IS RS. 26.06 LACS (RS.71 LACS RS.44.94 LACS), I.E., MORE THAN THE DIFFERENCE FOR WHICH THE PENALTY IS BEING LEVIED AND WHICH IS DUE TO THE ALLOWANCE OF (INDEXED) COST OF LAND (AT RS.0.16 LACS). THEREFORE, EVEN AS THE ASESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED AN Y EXPLANATION DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, NOR INDEED IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING S, THERE IS NO TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED, IN TERMS OF EXPLANATION 4 TO SECTION 271(1)(C), ON WHICH PENALTY COULD BE LEVIED. THE ASSESSEE, ACCORDINGLY, SUCCEEDS. 3.5 I DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. ITA NOS. 561/ASR/2018 & 284/ASR/2017 (AY 2006-07) EMBRO CIA FARMS PVT. LTD. V. DY CIT 8 4. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS (IN ITA NO. 561/ASR/2018) IS DISMISSED AND ITS APPEAL (IN ITA NO. 284/ASR/2017) IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN CO URT ON MAY 21, 2019 SD/- (SANJAY ARORA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 21.05.2019 /GP/SR. PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE APPELLANT: EMBROCIA FARMS PVT. LTD., VI LLAGE KOTLI, P.O. JAKOLARI, TEHSIL & DISTT. PATHANKOT (2) THE RESPONDENT: DY. CIT, CIRCLE 6, PATHANKO T (3) THE CIT(APPEALS)-2, AMRITSAR (4) THE CIT CONCERNED (5) THE SR. DR, I.T.A.T TRUE COPY BY ORDER