M/s Rattan Brothers, Jalandhar city V. The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar city

ITA 392/ASR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9622 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A N MISRA
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 194C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR (CAMP AT JALANDHAR) BEFORE SH. A.D.JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO.392(ASR)/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 M/S. RATTAN BROTHERS 94, GAKHAL ROAD, BASTI DANISHMANDAN, JALANDHAR CITY. PAN: AABFR2521A VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-I, JALANDHAR CITY. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. SANDEEP VIJH (CA) RESPONDENT BY: SH. A.N. MISRA (DR) DATE OF HEARING: 23.06.2016 DATE OF PRONO UNCEMENT: 08.08.2016 ORDER PER T. S. KAPOOR (AM): THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF LEARNED CIT(A), JALANDHAR, DATED 05.05.2015 FOR ASST. YEAR: 2008-09. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. (I) THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS), HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.45,100/- FROM OUT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES MADE @ 1/5 TH OF THE EXPENSE CLAIMED. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE HAVE NOT BEEN APPRECIATED. AT ANY RATE THE DISALLOWANCE IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. (II) THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS), HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,05,779 /- AND RS.22,016/- U/S 40(A)(IA). THE LEGAL AS WELL AS THE FACTUAL POSITION ON THIS ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN APPRECIATED. (III) THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING DISALLOWANCE OUT OF CAR EXPENSE S, CAR DEPRECIATION & CAR INSURANCE @ 1/5 TH OF THESE EXPENSES. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. ITA NO.392 (ASR)/2015 ASST. YEA R: 2008-09 2 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS NOTED IN THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MAN UFACTURING AND EXPORT OF SPORTS GOODS. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WA S SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED 1/5 TH OUT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES AND CAR EXPENSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO MADE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)( IA) ON PAYMENT PAID TO M/S FREIGHT LINK INDIA AMOUNTING TO RS.1,05,779/ - WHICH WAS MADE BY ASSESSEE AS LIAISON CHARGES. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HELD THAT THIS EXPENSES WERE IN THE INCURRED FOR PROVIDING PROFESS IONAL SERVICES RENDERED BY M/S FREIGHT LINK INDIA AND WERE NATURE OF PROFESSIONAL FEES ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TDS AN D SINCE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEDUCTED TDS ON SUCH PAYMENT THE DISALLOWAN CE U/S 40(A)(IA) WAS MADE. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A D ISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) ON AN AMOUNT OF RS.22,016/- WHICH WAS PAI D BY ASSESSEE TO M/S HIRA PRINTERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT SINCE THE AMOUNT WAS PAID FOR ADVERTISEMENT CHARGES, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TDS WHICH IT HAD FAILED TO DEDUCT AND THEREF ORE, HE MADE A DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA). 4. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE LEARN ED CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) U PHELD THE DISALLOWANCES MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, I N RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OUT OF CAR EXPENSES HE DIRECTED THE AS SESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW INTEREST PAID ON CAR LOAN. ITA NO.392 (ASR)/2015 ASST. YEA R: 2008-09 3 5. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. THE LEARNED AR, AT THE OUTSET, SUBMITTED THAT TH E DISALLOWANCE OUT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES @ 1/5 TH OF EXPENSES WAS NOT WARRANTED AS THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING & EXPORTS OF SPORTS GOODS AND THE MOBILE PHONES AND TELEPHONES INSTALLED AT T HE RESIDENCE OF THE PARTNERS WERE BEING USED TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE CU STOMERS WHO ARE SITUATED OUTSIDE INDIA. 7. WITHOUT PREJUDICE IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DIS ALLOWANCE WAS ON A HIGHER SIDE AND CITED A FEW CASES TO DEMONSTRATE TH AT A NOMINAL DISALLOWANCE OUT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES WAS A REASON ABLE DISALLOWANCE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DIS ALLOWANCE MAY BE DELETED AND ALTERNATIVELY A REASONABLE RELIEF MAY B E PROVIDED. SIMILAR ARGUMENTS WERE ADVANCED IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OUT OF CAR EXPENSES. 8. AS REGARDS THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(I)(IA), THE L EARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,05,779/- WAS PAID TO M/S F REIGHT LINK INDIA AS LIAISON/PROFESSIONAL CHARGES WHICH WERE PAID FOR GE TTING EXPORT INCENTIVE RELEASED AND THEREFORE, THE PAYEE HAD RENDERED SERV ICES WHICH WAS NOT COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C. IT WAS S UBMITTED THAT FOR TREATING A TRANSACTION AS COVERED BY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C THE INITIAL REQUIREMENT WAS THAT IT SHOULD REPRESENT WORK WHI CH WAS NOT THE CASE IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE LEARNED AR RELIED ON THE D ECISION OF HONBLE ITA NO.392 (ASR)/2015 ASST. YEA R: 2008-09 4 MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MADRAS BAR ASSOCIA TION AND ORS. VS. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS REPORTED AT 2 16 ITR 240, FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE WORDS ANY WORK IN SECTION 1 94C TAKE THEIR COLOUR FROM THE WORDS CONTRACTOR AND CONTRACT AND THE GAMUT OF THE WORDS ANY WORK GETS CRYSTALLIZED AND CONFINED IN THE PR OCESS OF CONSIDERATION TO THE CATEGORY AND QUALITY OF WORK INVOLVING ACTIV ITIES WHICH ARE PREDOMINANTLY PHYSICAL AND TANGIBLE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE JUDGMENT, IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE WORKS AS CONTAINED IN THE DEFIN ITION OF ANY WORK WILL REPRESENT ITEMS AS DEFINED IN THE SECTION ITSELF AN D ALSO ANY OTHER PHYSICAL ACTIVITY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT LIASIONING CHARGES ARE FOR ACTIVITIES INVOLVING INTELLECTUAL ASPECTS AND THUS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 194C. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THIS AC TIVITY WAS ALSO NOT COVERED U/S 194J, THEREFORE, NO TAX WAS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT MADE TO THIS PARTY FOR ITS SERVI CES. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT DEFINITION OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HAS BEEN GIVEN IN THE EXPLANATION BELOW. SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 194J AND THE NATURE OF SERVICE RENDERED BY THE ABOVE REFERRED PARTY IS CLE ARLY NOT COVERED BY SEC. 194J. RELIANCE IN THIS RESPECT WAS PLACED IN THE CA SE OF SITI MULTIMEDIA NETWORK VS. ITO. COPY OF WHICH WAS STATED TO BE PLA CED AT (PB PAGE 22 TO 27). 9. WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE BALANCE OUTSTANDING AT THE END OF THE YEAR AS ON 31.03.2008 WAS ONLY RSW.30,319/- THEREFORE, DISALLOWANCE IF ANY UNDER T HE PROVISIONS OF ITA NO.392 (ASR)/2015 ASST. YEA R: 2008-09 5 SEC.40(A)(IA) HAD TO BE RESTRICTED TO THIS AMOUNT A S THE LEGISLATURE HAS DELIBERATELY USED THE EXPRESSION PAYABLE AND THER EFORE, SECTION WILL NOT COVER THE AMOUNTS WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID. REL IANCE IN THIS RESPECT WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S VECTOR SHIPPING SERVICES PVT. LTD. REPORTED AT 85 CCH 201 WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) WILL BE APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE AMOUNTS OUTSTANDING. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTE D THAT THE SLP FILED BY REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF ALLHABAD HIGH COURT HAS ALREADY DISMISSED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND A COPY OF SU CH ORDER WAS PLACED AT (PB PAGE-33). 10. REGARDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.21016/-, IT WA S SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS PAID TO M/S HIRA PRINTERS FOR PURCHA SE OF CATALOGUE CUM BROCHURES, A COPY OF WHICH WAS PLACED AT (PB PAGE 3 8), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS FOR PURCHASES AND THUS WAS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF SEC.194C AS NO MATERIAL WAS PROVIDED BY THE ASSE SSEE TO THE PRINTER FOR THE WORK. RELIANCE IN THIS RESPECT WAS PLACED O N THE ORDER OF PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DEPUTY CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, MARKFED REPORTED AT 304 ITR 0017, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT PURCHASE OF PRINTED PACKING MATERIAL FOR WHICH RAW MATERIAL WAS NOT SUPPLIED BY ASSESSEE WAS A CONTRACT FOR SALE AND WA S OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF SEC.194C. ITA NO.392 (ASR)/2015 ASST. YEA R: 2008-09 6 11. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, PLACED HIS R ELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE T HROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND AS REGARDS THE D ISALLOWANCE OUT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES, IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT T HE PERSONAL USE OF THESE TELEPHONES CANNOT BE DENIED AS THE EXPENSES R ELATED TO MOBILE PHONES AND TELEPHONE INSTALLED AT THE RESIDENCE OF PARTNERS. IN EARLIER YEARS, SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE FOR A.Y.2005-0 6 WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM AS NOTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER. THE ARGUMENTS OF LEARNED AR THAT A NOMINAL DISALLOW ANCE WAS MADE IN VARIOUS DECISIONS OF VARIOUS BENCHES OF ITAT DO HAV E SOME FORCE. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE WE HOLD THAT A DISALLOWANCE EQUAL TO 1/10 TH OF EXPENSES IS A REASONABLE DISALLOWANCE. THE OBSE RVATION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE THAT I N ASST. YEAR 2005-06, THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCEPTED 1/5 TH AS DISALLOWANCE DO NOT HOLD MUCH FORCE AS EVERY YEAR IS A DIFFERENT YEAR & MOREOVER THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISCUSSED THE DISALLOWANCE IF ANY MADE IN ASST. YEA RS: 2006-07 & 2007- 08, THEREFORE, WE RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 10%. 13. AS REGARDS DISALLOWANCE FOR CAR EXPENSES, WE FI ND THAT PERSONAL USE BY PARTNERS AND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS OF ASSESSE E CANNOT BE RULED OUT AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE CAR ALLOWANCE OF CAR EXPENSES @ 1/5 TH CAR EXPENSES AFTER RECORDING A FINDING THAT SIMILA R ITA NO.392 (ASR)/2015 ASST. YEA R: 2008-09 7 DISALLOWANCE MADE IN ASST. YEAR: 2005-06 WAS NOT CO NTESTED BY ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, WE HOLD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE EQUAL TO 1/1 0 TH OF TOTAL EXPENSES IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE IS A REASONABLE DISALLOWANC E AS HAS BEEN HELD IN THE CASE OF DISALLOWANCE OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, GROUND NO. 1 TO 3 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 14. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.2 REGARDING DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA), WE FIND THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,05,779/- HAS BEEN PAID TO M/S FREIGHT LINK INDIA AS LIAISONING CHARGES. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAS HELD THAT TDS WAS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED FROM SUCH PAYMENT, HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.194C RELATING TO PAYMENT TO CONTR ACTORS IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AS THE PAYEE HAD NOT CAR RIED OUT ANY WORK AS CONTRACTOR AS ANY WORK AS CONTAINED IN THE PROVIS IONS OF SEC.194C NECESSARILY INVOLVE CARRYING OUT OF SOME PHYSICAL W ORK. THE DECISION OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION AND ORS. VS. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS. HAS SPECIFICALLY HELD THAT EXPRESSION ,ANY WORK, IN SEC.194C MEANS WORK INVOLV ING ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE PREDOMINANTLY PHYSICAL RESULTING INTO TANGIBLE WORK. IN THE PRESENT CASE ADMITTEDLY PAYEE HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY PHYSI CAL WORK RESULTING INTO TANGIBLE WORK AND HAS ONLY PROVIDED SERVICES T O THE ASSESSEE WHICH CANNOT BE CATEGORIZED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 194C FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. THEREFORE, THE PROVI SIONS OF SEC.194C ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.392 (ASR)/2015 ASST. YEA R: 2008-09 8 15. AS REGARDS THE APPLICABILITY OF SEC.194J, WE FI ND THAT THE SECTION REQUIRES THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCT TDS FOR ANY PAYMENT MADE AS FEE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, OR FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVI CES AND FOR MAKING PAYMENTS FOR ROYALTY AND OR ANY SUM REFERRED TO CLA USE V OF SEC.28. THE SECTION VIDE EXPLANATION TO SECTION HAS EXPLAINED T HE MEANING OF THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO BE SERVICES RENDERED IN TH E COURSE OF CARRYING ON LEGAL, MEDICAL, ENGINEERING OR ARCHITECTURAL PROFES SION OR THE PROFESSION OF ACCOUNTANCY OR TECHNICAL CONSULTANCY OR INTERIOR DE CORATION OR ADVERTISING OR SUCH OTHER PROFESSION AS IS NOTIFIED BY THE BOARD FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 44AA OF THE ACT. THE SERVICES P ROVIDED BY PAYEE DOES NOT FALL INTO ANY OF THE ABOVE CATEGORY. THE FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES HAS BEEN DEFINED AS IN EXPLANTION-2 TO CLAUSE (VII) OF SUB-SECTION(1) OF SECTION 9. AS PER THE MEANING OF FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES AS DEFINED IN SECTION 9, WE FIND THAT VIDE EXPLANATION -2 FEES FO R TECHNICAL SERVICES MEANS ANY CONSIDERATION FOR RENDERING OF ANY MANAGE RIAL, TECHNICAL OR CONSULTANCY SERVICES INCLUDING THE PROVISIONS OF SE RVICES. 16. THE TERMS MANAGERIAL, TECHNICAL AND CONSULTANCY DO NOT FIND MENTION IN THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AND IT IS A SETTLED L AW THAT THEY NEED TO BE INTERPRETED BASED ON THEIR UNDERSTATING IN COMMON P ARLANCE. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, IN J.K. (BOM.) LIMITED VS. CBDT A ND ANTOEHRS 118 312(DEL), REFERRED AN ARTICLE ON MANAGEMENT SERVICE S WHEREIN IT IS STATED THAT THE MANAGEMENT ACTION INCLUDES AT LEAST THE FO LLOWING: (A) ITA NO.392 (ASR)/2015 ASST. YEA R: 2008-09 9 DISCOVERING, DEVELOPING, DEFINING AND EVALUATING GO ALS OF THE ORGANIZATION AND THE ALTERNATIVE POLICIES THAT WILL LEAD TOWARDS THE GOALS; (B) GETTING THE ORGANIZATION TO ADOPT THE POLICIES; (C) SCRUTIN IZING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE POLICIES THAT ARE ADOPTED AND (D) INITIATING ST EPS TO CHANGE POLICIES WHEN THEY ARE JUDGED TO BE LESS EFFECTIVE THAN THEY OUGHT TO BE. MANAGEMENT THUS PERVADES ALL ORGANIZATIONS. TECHNIC AL: IN THE CASE OF SKYCELL COMMUNICATIONS LTD. VS DCIT, THE HON'BLE HI GH COURT HAD HELD THAT THE POPULAR MEANING ASSOCIATED WITH THE WORD TECHNICAL IS INVOLVING OR CONCERNING APPLIED AND INDUSTRIAL SCIENCE. CONSU LTANCY: IS GENERALLY UNDERSTOOD TO MEAN AN ADVISORY SERVICE. FURTHER, IT MAY BE FAIR TO STATE THAT NOT ALL KINDS OF ADVISORY COULD QUALIFY AS TEC HNICAL SERVICES. FOR ANY CONSULTANCY TO BE TREATED AS TECHNICAL SERVICES, IT WOULD BE NECESSARY THAT A TECHNICAL ELEMENT IS INVOLVED IN SUCH ADVISO RY. THUS, THE CONSULTANCY SHOULD BE RENDERED BY SOMEONE WHO HAS S PECIAL SKILLS AND EXPERTISE IN RENDERING SUCH ADVISORY. 17. NOW IN THE PRESENT CASE WE FIND THAT THE LIAISO NING SERVICES ARE PROVIDED BY DEDUCTEE WERE NEITHER MANAGERIAL NOR CO NSULTANCY NOR TECHNICAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE A BOVE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TDS ON SUCH PAYMENT U/S 194J ALSO. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE LEARNED AR THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 194C AND SEC. 194J WERE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AS REGARDS PAYMENT OF LIAISONING CHARGES. ITA NO.392 (ASR)/2015 ASST. YEA R: 2008-09 10 18. AS REGARDS THE TDS ON PAYMENT OF RS.21,016/ -, WE FIND THAT IT REPRESENTS THE AMOUNT PAID TO M/S HIRA PRINTERS FOR PURCHASE OF CATALOGUE CUM BROCHURE AND A COPY OF BILL IS PLACED AT (PB PAGE 36), THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT THIS TRANSACTION IS FOR PUR CHASE OF AN ITEM WHICH IS OUT SIDE THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 194C. FURTHER, N OTHING HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT MATERIAL WAS PROVED B Y THE ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DEPUTY CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, MARKFED (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE MATERIAL HAS NOT BEEN SUPPLIED BY ASSESSEE THE TDS WAS NOT APPLI CABLE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO TD S ON THIS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, GROUND NO.2 OF APPEAL IS ALSO ALLOWED. 19. IN NUTSHELL, THE APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 0 8.08.2016. SD/- SD/- (A.D. JAIN) (T. S . KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:08.08.2016. /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE ASSESSEE: (2) THE (3) THE CIT(A), (4) THE CIT, (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER