M/s. Sodhi and Samra Traders, Jalandhar V. The Income-tax Officer, Phagwara

ITA 408/ASR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 40820914 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 12-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: TARSEM LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH JOSHI
• Keywords: Depreciation; Income from undisclosed sources; Valuation report
• Section: 68; 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR (SMC) BEFORE SH. A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.408(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08 PAN: ABFFS7723L M/S. SODHI & SAMRA TRADERS, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PHAGWARA ROAD, JANDIALA. WARD-2, PHAGWARA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH.RAKESH JOSHI, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY:SH.TARSEM LAL, DR DATE OF HEARING: 12/10/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20/11/2015 ORDER THIS IS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2007-09, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.05.2014, PASSED BY THE L D. CIT(A), JALANDHAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) JALANDHAR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.7,00,00 0/- AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ALSO ERRED IN LAW & FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.25,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON BUILDING. 2. APROPOS GROUND NO.1, THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE FIRM IS ENGAGED IN THE TRADING OF TIMBER. THE AO NOTICED TH AT AN AMOUNT OF RS.7,00,000/- WAS STATED TO BE CREDITED IN THE ACCO UNT OF THE ASSESSEE, IN THE BOOKS OF M/S. AGGARWALLA TIMBERS PVT. LIMITED . INFORMATION IN THIS ITA NO.408/ASR/2014 2 REGARD WAS OBTAINED BY THE AO DIRECTLY U/S 133(6) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT (IN SHORT, THE ACT), 1961. THE AMOUNT OF RS. 7,00 ,000/- WAS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY M/S. AGGARWALLA TIMBERS PVT. LIMITED BY DEMAND DRAFT DATED 28.09.2006. THE AO ALSO NOTICED THAT TH E REPAYMENT OF RS.7,00,000/- WAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. ON ENQUIRY, THE AO FOUND THAT THE DRAFT WAS PREPARE D FROM SAVING BANK A/C NO.01192030887, OF ONE MR. PAVITTAR SINGH, MAIN TAINED WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA, JANDIALA. ON FURTHER ENQUIRY, THE AO WAS INFORMED THAT SH. PAVITTAR SINGH WAS TO BE SUPPLIED TIMBER AGAINS T THE ADVANCE OF RS.7,00,000/- BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM AFTER PURCHASING IT FROM M/S. AGGARWALLA TIMBERS PVT. LIMITED. IT WAS FURTHER EXP LAINED THAT SH. PAVITTAR SINGH WAS NOT SUPPLIED ANY TIMBER BY THE A SSESSEE FIRM DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION OR THEREAFTER, BUT THE MONEY RECEIVED FROM HIM HAD BEEN RETURNED TO HIM ON HIS REQUEST IN THE NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR. THE AO RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF SH. PAVITTAR SINGH , HE ADMITTED HAVING GIVEN ADVANCE OF RS.7,00,000/- THROUGH DEMAND DRAFT IN THE NAME OF M/S. AGGARWALLA TIMBERS PVT. LIMITED. THE AO, HOWEV ER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION AND ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS.7,00,000/- TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION . 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED T HAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.7,00,000 /- AS ASSESSEES INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. IT HAS BEEN CONTEN DED THAT SINCE THE ITA NO.408/ASR/2014 3 AMOUNT HAD BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AS AN ADVANCE BY SH. PAVITTAR SINGH, AT THE MOST, THE SAME CAN BE TREATED AS A L OAN, TREATING SH. PAVITTAR SINGH AS CREDITOR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DEP OSIT WAS TRANSFERRED DIRECTLY FROM THE NRE A/C OF SH. PAVITTAR SINGH TO M/S. AGGARWALLA TIMBERS PVT. LIMITED, AS ALSO ACCEPTED BY THE TAXIN G AUTHORITIES. THE DEPOSIT WAS LYING IN THE ACCOUNT OF SH. PAVITTAR SI NGH FOR QUITE A LONG PERIOD BEFORE ITS TRANSFER. AS AVAILABLE FROM THE B ANK STATEMENT OF SH. PAVITTAR SINGH (APB-1), A SUM OF RS.5,00,000/- WAS DEPOSITED ON 07.03.2006 THROUGH BANK TRANSFER. AN AMOUNT OF RS.3 ,58,085/- WAS DEPOSITED ON 13.06.2006, AGAIN, THROUGH BANK TRANSF ER. AS SUCH, SUFFICIENT FUNDS WERE THERE IN THE ACCOUNT OF SH.PA VITTAR SINGH. THE DRAFT WAS PURCHASED ON 28.09.2006. THEREFORE, NO CASH HAD EVER BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE SAID ACCOUNT ON OR BEFORE 28.09.20 06. THIS ADVANCE FOR PURCHASE OF WOOD IS ALSO BORNE OUT FROM THE FACT TH AT THE COST/COMMISSION FOR PURCHASE OF BANK DRAFT WAS PAID BY SH. PAVITTAR SINGH HIMSELF, WHICH FACT IS ALSO AVAILABLE FROM SH . PAVITTAR SINGHS BANK ACCOUNT (APB-1). EVEN THE DEPOSITS IN THE SAID ACCO UNT WERE MADE BEFORE THE DATE OF THE INCORPORATION OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THEN, AS ON THE DATE OF THE TRANSFER, SH. PAVITTAR SINGH HAD SUFFICIENT BANK BALANCE, PROVING HIS CREDITWORTHINESS. MOREOVER, THE TRANSFER BEING THROUGH BANK, THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IS PROVED. IN THIS M ANNER, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL BE ALLOWED ON THIS ISSUE. ITA NO.408/ASR/2014 4 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE CAT EGORICAL FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO P ROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THE TRANSACTION WAS ENTERED INTO W ITH THE CONNIVANCE OF SH.SUKHWINDER SINGH, ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASS ESSEE FIRM. THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAD SUBMITTED THAT THE REPAYMENT WAS MADE THROUGH CHEQUES REFLECTED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESS EE WITH LOCAL CAPITAL AREA BANK. HOWEVER, ON BEING ASKED AS TO WHOM THE P AYMENTS BY THREE BEARER CHEQUES AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,00,000/-, RS.3,00 ,000/- & RS.1,00,000/-, RESPECTIVELY, HAD BEEN MADE AFTER WI THDRAWING THE AMOUNT FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT FROM LOCAL CAPITAL ARE A BANK, HAD STATED IN HIS STATEMENT THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO SH . GURMEJ SINGH OF HIS VILLAGE, WHO WAS ENGAGED BY HIM FOR CONSTRUCTIO N OF HIS RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THE AO, FURTHER, FOUND THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS .6,00,000/- WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE ACCOUNT OF ONE SH. GURMUKH SING H AND RS.1,00,000/- WAS WITHDRAWN BY SH. SUKHWINDER SINGH AFTER GETTING THE CHEQUES SIGNED FROM SH.PAVITTAR SINGH, PARTNER OF T HE ASSESSEE FIRM, AS THE CHEQUES WERE FILLED IN AND GOT SIGNED FROM HIM BY SH. SUKHWINDER SINGH. HE CLEARLY STATED THAT HE RECEIVED RS.7,00,0 00/- IN CASH FROM SH. SUKHWINDER SINGH, WHICH HE PAID TO SH. GURMEJ SINGH . THUS, EVIDENTLY, THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAD PAID CASH OF RS.7,00,000/- TO SH. PAVITTAR SINGH THROUGH SH.SUKHWINDER SINGH AND THE AMOUNT IN THE A CCOUNT OF SH. PAVITTAR SINGH WAS EITHER TRANSFERRED TO THE ACCO UNT OF SH. SUKHWINDER ITA NO.408/ASR/2014 5 SINGH, OR IT HAD BEEN WITHDRAWN BY SH.SUKHWINDER SI NGH AFTER DEPOSITING THE SAME IN THE ACCOUNT OF SH.PAVITTAR S INGH. EVEN THE ACCOUNT IN THE LOCAL CAPITAL AREA BANK WAS OPENED D URING THE F.Y. 2007-08 WITH THE HELP OF SH. SUKHWINDER SINGH A FEW DAYS BEFORE DEPOSITING CHEQUES OF RS.7,00,000/-. ALL THESE FAC TS HAVE BEEN DULY TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE RI GHTLY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO RE BUT THESE CATEGORICAL FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND, THEREFORE, THE GRIE VANCE WITH REGARD TO THIS ISSUE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND THE SAME MAY REJECTED. 6. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED T HE MATERIAL ON RECORD. APROPOS THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE LD. CI T(A) WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION, HE APPEARS TO HAVE LOST SIGHT OF THE SETTLED LEGAL POSITION THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THAT THE ENTRIES REGARDING CREDIT IN A THIRD PARTY ACCOUNT WERE, IN FACT, RECEIVED FROM TH E THIRD PARTY AND ARE GENUINE, HE HAS DISCHARGED HIS ONUS. THE AMOUNT IN SUCH A CASE CANNOT BE CHARGED AS THE ASSESSEES INCOME. THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL INDICATES THAT THE AMOUNT BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARD, THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF THE CIT-1, AMRITSAR VS. SH. VARINDER RAWLLEY, 366 ITR 232 (P& H) IS DIRECTLY ON THE ISSUE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, SH.PAVITTAR SINGH IN HI S STATEMENT, HAD ADMITTED HAVING MADE THE PAYMENT FOR THE PURCHASE O F TIMBER. SH. PAVITTAR SINGH ALSO CONFIRMED THE RECEIPT OF RS.7,0 0,000/- BACK FROM THE ASSESSEE FIRM DURING THE F.Y. 2007-08, RELEVANT TO THE SUCCEEDING ITA NO.408/ASR/2014 6 ASSESSMENT YEAR, 2008-09. IN VIEW OF THIS STATEMENT OF SH.PAVITTAR SINGH, NO ADVERSE VIEW OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN ON THE BASIS OF THE FACT THAT THE CHEQUES WERE FILLED IN AND GOT SIGNED FROM SH. PAVITTAR SINGH BY SH. SUKHWINDER SINGH, PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ACCEPTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAD PAID RS.7,00,000/- TO SH. PAVITTAR SINGH AND THE REPAYMENT THEREOF. ONLY THE INTERVENTION OF SH. SUKHWINDER SINGH HAS BEEN TAKEN AGAINST THE ASS ESSEE. THIS, IN MY VIEW, IS NOT CORRECT. THE SAID SH. SUKHWINDER SINGH WAS NOT EVEN EXAMINED. NO ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO ASCERTAIN THE FACT UM OF CLEARANCE OF CHEQUES FROM THE BANK AND SUBSEQUENT REFUND OF THE AMOUNT. THUS, THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE REMAINED EFFECTIVELY U NREBUTTED. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE DEPOSIT WAS TRANSFERRED DIRECTLY F ROM THE NRE A/C TO SH.PAVITTAR SINGH TO M/S. AGGARWALLA TIMBERS PVT. L IMITED. THE TAXING AUTHORITIES HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE DRAFT WAS PR EPARED FROM THE S.B. A/C NO. 01192030887 OF SH. PAVITTAR SINGH MAINTAINE D WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA, JANDIALA. THE ASSESSEES STAND ALSO GETS BUTTRESSED FROM THE FACT THAT SH.PAVITTAR SINGH PAID THE COMMISSION FOR THE PURCHASE OF BANK DRAFT. MOREOVER, IT REMAINS UNDISPUTED THAT AN AMO UNT OF RS.5,00,000/- WAS DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF SH. PAVITTAR SINGH ON 07.03.2006 AND ALSO A SUM OF RS.3,58,085/- WAS DEPOSITED ON 13.06. 2006. BOTH THESE DEPOSITS WERE THROUGH BANK TRANSFER, AS AVAILABLE F ROM THE COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT OF SH. PAVITTAR SINGH. THEREFORE, SH. PAVIT TAR SINGH HAD SUFFICIENT FUNDS IN HIS ACCOUNT. THE DRAFT IN QUEST ION WAS PURCHASED ON ITA NO.408/ASR/2014 7 28.09.2006 AND NO CASH DEPOSIT WAS MADE IN THE ACCO UNT ON OR BEFORE THE SAID DATE. IT IS PERTINENT THAT THE DEPOSITS PR ECEDED THE INCORPORATION OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM, WHICH CAME ABOUT ON 28.06.20 06. 7. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS AMPLY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS OF PROVING THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR, THE GENUINENESS OF THE TR ANSACTION AS WELL AS THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR. ONCE IT WAS SO, A S PER CIT VS. VARINDER RAWLLEY (SUPRA), THE ONUS SHIFTED ON TO THE DEPART MENT, WHICH WAS NEVER DISCHARGED. RATHER, IT WAS THE ASSESSEES INC OME WHICH WAS CHARGED. THIS, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, IS ENTIRELY U NSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 8. IN CIT-1 VS. KAPOOR CHAND MANGESH CHAND, 38 TAXMAN.COM.239 (ALL.), IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HON BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT THAT WHERE THE LOAN IS ADVANCED AND REPAID TH ROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE AND THE ASSESSEE PROVIDES ALL DETAILS AND TH E LENDER HAS SUFFICIENT FUNDS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THE CASH DOES NOT STA ND DEPOSITED ON ANY DATE PRECEDING BUT AT THE TIME OF THE ISSUANCE OF CHEQUES BY THE LENDER, NO ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT IS CALLED FOR . 9. SIMILAR IS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF CIT-II, INDORE VS. VAIBHAV C OTTON (P.) LTD., 217 TAXMAN 140 (MADHYA PRADESH) (MAG.), WHERE DETAILED ACCOUNTS OF THE CONCERNED PARTIES WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE E NTRIES IN THE ACCOUNT WERE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND THE SOURCE O F THE DEPOSIT IN THE BANK WAS NOT IN DISPUTE. ITA NO.408/ASR/2014 8 10. IN VISHNU JAISWAL VS.CIT-1, 137 ITD 259 (LUCK NOW) (TM), IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED TH E INITIAL BURDEN OF PROVING THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR, THE GENUINEN ESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS BY PRODU CING THEIR RESPECTIVE BANK ACCOUNTS, IT IS NOT A FIT CASE TO MAKE ADDITIO N U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 11. IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS CONSIDERED, THE PAYMENT WAS THROUGH BANK TRANSFER. THE ACCOUNT OF THE CREDITOR CONTAINED SUF FICIENT FUNDS. THE CREDITOR PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE THE AO. 12. ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE, FINDING THE GRIEVANC E OF THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF GROUND NO.1 TO BE JUSTIFIED, THE SAME IS ACC EPTED. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD IS CANCELLE D. THE ADDITION OF RS.7,00,000/- IS DELETED. 13. SO FAR AS GROUND NO.2, THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.25,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DENIAL OF DEPRECIATION ON THE BUILDING. THE AO FOUND THAT IN THE BUILDING ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,00,000/- WAS DEPOSITED BY TRANSFER WHICH REPRESENTED OLD STRUCTU RE INTRODUCED BY SH. SUKHWINDER SINGH, PARTNER FROM HIS CAPITAL ACCOUNT. A SUM OF RS.7,46,664/- STOOD DEPOSITED FROM 28.06.2001 TO 10 .02.2007. THE AMOUNTS DEBITED WRONGLY RANGED FROM RS.10250 TO RS. 19840/-. THE ASSESSEE, ON QUERY, FILED A COPY OF BUILDING ACCOUN T ALONGWITH VOUCHERS. THE AO FOUND VOUCHERS TO BE SELF PREPARED. THE ASSE SSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE PURCHASES WERE MADE THROUGH LABOUR TO WHOM THE PAYMENTS WERE ITA NO.408/ASR/2014 9 MADE IN CASH, BUT THE BILLS WERE NOT GIVEN BY THEM /OBTAINED. THE LABOURERS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO. THE AO O BSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE EXTENT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON THE BUILDING. IT WAS AN OLD STRUCTURE, WHICH HAD BE EN BROUGHT AS THE CAPITAL OF SH. SUKHWINDER SINGH. THE CONSTRUCTION W AS ORDINARY SHED TYPE. CONSIDERING THE COVERED AREA, THE AO ESTIMATE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INFLATED THE INVESTMENT BY RS.2,50,000/- TO CLA IM HIGHER DEPRECIATION. THE FUNDS CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE WERE HELD TO HAVE BEEN USED BY THE ASSESSEES PARTNER FOR THEIR HOUSEHOLD PURPOSES, SINCE BOTH THE PARTNERS HAD DEBITED RS.5000/- EACH PER MONTH F OR THEIR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES WHICH WERE VERY INADEQUATE. AS SUCH, THE A O DISALLOWED DEPRECIATION OF RS.25,000/-. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRM ED THE DISALLOWANCE. 14. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAK ING THE ADDITION OF RS.25,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIAT ION ON BUILDING BY REDUCING THE COST OF THE BUILDING. THE AO WENT WRO NG IN MAKING AN ESTIMATE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY REFLECTED THE SAME IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. NO ENQUIRY WAS MADE BY THE AO NOR DID HE DEPUTE ANYBODY TO MAKE VERIFICATION. RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON DC IT CIRCLE-1 VS. VALLABHBHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI SURANI, 54 ITR 556 (AHD .), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE THE AO HAD NOT MADE ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY OR COLLECTED CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE EST IMATE MADE BY HIM, NO ITA NO.408/ASR/2014 10 ADDITION WAS CALLED FOR. IT HAS FURTHER BEEN CONTEN DED THAT THE AO DID NOT FIND ANY IRREGULARITY IN THE BOOK RESULTS OF TH E ASSESSEE, NOR THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE REJECTED BY HIM AND SO, THE ADDITION OUGHT NOT TO BE SUSTAINED. 15. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR, AGAIN, STRONGLY RELIED ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 16. HERE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REMAINED UNABLE TO REPEL THE CATEGORICAL FINDING AS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO BRING ANY INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE ON RECORD WITH REGARD TO COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING, NO VALUATION REPORT H AD BEEN FILED IN THIS REGARD. EVEN THE EXPENSES CONCERNED WERE FOUND TO B E SUPPORTED BY SELF MADE VOUCHERS AND THESE WERE EXPENSES, WHICH WERE N OT VERIFIABLE. THEREFORE, FINDING NO MERIT, THIS GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF GROUND NO.2 IS REJECTED. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20TH NOVE MBER, 2015. SD/- (A.D. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 20/11/2015 /SKR/ COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:M/S. SODHI AND SAMRA TRADERS, PHAGW ARA ROAD, JANDIALA. 2. THE ITO, W-2, PHAGWARA 3. THE CIT(A), JALANDHAR 4. THE CIT, JALANDHAR. 5. THE SR. DR, ITAT, ASR.