M/s. PMS Diesels, Phagwara V. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Phagwara

ITA 65/ASR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7749 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 04-07-2018
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 20-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJEEV K GUBGOTRA
• Keywords: Non-deduction of tax
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 65/ASR/2016 AS SESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 PMS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., VILLAGE: JAMALPUR, G.T. ROAD, PHAGWARA [PAN: AACCP 1274G] VS. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PHAGWARA RANGE, PHAGWARA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. TARUN BANSAL (ADV.) RESPONDENT BY: SH. RAJEEV K. GUBGOTRA, (D.R.) DATE OF HEARING: 04.07.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31.07.2018 ORDER PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISING OUT OF TH E ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, JALANDHAR ( CIT(A)' FOR SHORT) DATED 20.11.2015, PARTLY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL C ONTESTING ITS ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) R/W S. 142(2A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( 'THE ACT' HEREINAFTER) DATED 10.07.2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2006-07. 2. THE APPEAL RAISES SEVEN GROUNDS, WHICH WE SHALL TAKE UP IN SERITIAM, WITH GROUND 1 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE, WARRANTING NO ADJ UDICATION. 3. GROUND 2 IMPUGNS THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40(A)(IA) AT RS.5,81,978/- ON ACCOUNT OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE (TDS) ON THE FOLLOWING SUMS: ITA NO. 65/ASR/2016 (AY 2006-07) PMS INTERNA TIONAL PVT. LTD. V. ADDL.CIT 2 (A) SHIPPING EXPENSES : RS.3,52,434/- (B) JOB WORK EXPENSES : RS. 91,620/- (C) FREIGHT EXPENSES : RS.1,37,924/- QUA THE FIRST AMOUNT, THE ASSESSEE RELIES ON THE ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS OWN CASE FOR THE SAME YEAR (AY 2006-07), I.E., IN APPEA L AGAINST A DEMAND RAISED BY THE REVENUE U/S. 201 AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT QUA THE SAID SUM (IN ITA NO. 257/ASR/2014, DATED 22.03.2016/PB PGS. 22-31). THE LD. AR, THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL, SH. TARUN BANSAL, ADVOCATE, WOULD TOWARD T HIS TAKE US THROUGH THE RELEVANT PART OF THE SAID ORDER. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARA 17 THEREOF HAS CANCELLED THE DEMAND AFORESAID, I.E., QUA THE IMPUGNED SUM OF RS.3,52,434/- CLAIMED AS SHIPP ING EXPENSES. THE LD. DR WOULD OBJECT, STATING THAT THE PAYMENTS ARE, FIRSTLY, NOT TO A NON-RESIDENT, AS APPARENT FROM THE FACT THAT THE AS SESSING OFFICER (AO) HAD INVOKED SECTION 40(A)(IA) AND NOT SECTION 40(A)(I). TWO, THE EXPENDITURE, THOUGH CLASSIFIED AS SHIPPING EXPENSES IN ACCOUNTS, IS IN THE NATURE OF CLEARING AND FORWARDING EXPENSES, COVERED U/S. 194C, AS RIGHTLY APPLIED BY THE REVENUE. AS OBSERVED BY THE BENCH DURING HEARING, EVEN AS WE AG REE THAT A DICHOTOMY ATTENDS THE ADJUDICATION WITH REFERENCE TO THE FACTS ON REC ORD, THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN HELD AS NOT IN DEFAULT QUA THE TDS ON THE IMPUGNED SUM. HOW COULD, THEN, ONE MAY ASK, SECTION 40(A)(IA) BE REGARDED AS APPLICABLE? THE ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL, AS APPARENT FROM THE APPLICA BLE MONETARY LIMITS U/S. 268A OF THE ACT, PRECLUDING THE REVENUE FROM CHALLENGING TH E SAME IN FURTHER APPEAL, HAS ATTAINED FINALITY. THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE IS ACC ORDINGLY DELETED. FOR THE NEXT TWO SUMS (AS NOTED AT (B) AND (C) ABOV E), THE ASSESSEES ONLY CASE BEFORE US WAS THAT THE MATTER BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR EXAMINATION AS TO IF THE TAX LIABILITY THEREON STAN DS DISCHARGED BY THE CONCERNED PAYEES, I.E., IN VIEW OF THE DECISION BY THE APEX C OURT IN HINDUSTAN COCA COLA ITA NO. 65/ASR/2016 (AY 2006-07) PMS INTERNA TIONAL PVT. LTD. V. ADDL.CIT 3 BEVERAGE (P.) LTD. V. CIT [2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC). WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE RA ISED BEFORE AND ADJUDICATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES I S QUA THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE IMPUGNED PAYMENTS TO TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE PROVIS IONS OF CHAPTER XVII-B OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEES PLEA IS, UNDER THE CIRCUMST ANCES, REASONABLE, TO WHICH THE LD. DR ALSO FAIRLY DID NOT DISPUTE. THE BURDEN TO P ROVE ITS CLAIM, I.E., ESTABLISH OR SHOW THAT THE TAX LIABILITY ON THE IMPUGNED SUMS HA S BEEN SINCE DISCHARGED BY THE CONCERNED PAYEES IS, WE MAY CLARIFY, ON THE ASSESSE E, FOR WHICH THE AO WHO IS ENTITLED TO MAKE ANY VERIFICATION IN THE MATTER HE DEEMS FIT, SHALL EXTEND A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. NEEDLESS TO ADD, FAILURE TO ESTABLISH THE SAME WOULD RESULT IN CONFIRMATION OF THE DISALLOWAN CE U/S. 40(A)(IA) TO THAT EXTENT. 4. GROUND 3 DISPUTES THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITUR E CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARD VARIOUS EXPENSES, VIZ. BOOKS AND PERIODICALS ; COLOUR LABOUR EXPENSES; ENGINE FITTING/TESTING LABOUR; REPAIR AND RENEWALS; PRINTING & STATIONERY; TRAVEL EXPENDITURE; FOREIGN TRAVEL (REFER PARA 9.3D OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER). THE SAME WERE DISALLOWED FOR WANT OF PROPER EVIDENCES AND IN FERENCE OF LACK OF GENUINENESS ARRIVED AT ON THE BASIS OF THE EXAMINATION OF THE C ASH VOUCHERS PRODUCED. THE LD. CIT(A), IN APPEAL, WHILE UPHOLDING THE IMPUGNED ORD ER IN PRINCIPLE, REDUCED THE QUANTUM TO 50% IN-AS-MUCH AS IT COULD NOT BE SAID T HAT THE ENTIRE OF IT IS NON- GENUINE, I.E., THAT NO EXPENDITURE AT ALL HAD BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR DID NOT SERIOUSLY DISPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE, STAT ING THAT THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE, ON ACCOUNT OF LAPSE OF CONSIDERABLE TI ME, COULD NOT BE GOT VERIFIED, SO THAT THE REMAND FOR THE PURPOSE WOULD BE OF NO HELP . AND, IS ACCORDINGLY LEFT TO THE ESTIMATION OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. DR WOULD RELY O N THE ORDERS BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THE FINDING AS TO THE ABSENCE OF SUPPO RTING EVIDENCES VOUCHING THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE IS NOT DISPUTED AT ANY STAGE. THE DISALLOWANCE/S, IN FACT, EMANATE FROM THE OBSERVATIONS BY THE AUDITOR PER HI S REPORT U/S. 142(2A). THE ITA NO. 65/ASR/2016 (AY 2006-07) PMS INTERNA TIONAL PVT. LTD. V. ADDL.CIT 4 ASSESSEE HAS BOTH BEFORE THE SPECIAL AUDITOR AS WEL L AS THE AO, WHOSE REMARKS AT PARA 9.3 (PG. 19) OF HIS ORDER ARE TELLING AND UNDI SPUTED, FAILED TO REBUT THESE FINDINGS, OR EVEN OTHERWISE IMPROVE ITS CASE IN AN Y MANNER, I.E., EVEN IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED S UBSTANTIAL RELIEF. WE ACCORDINGLY FIND NO REASON FOR INTERFERENCE. 5. GROUND 4 WAS NOT PRESSED DURING HEARING, WITH TH E LD. COUNSEL MAKING AN ENDORSEMENT TO THAT EFFECT ON THE MEMO OF GROUNDS O F APPEAL. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 6. GROUND 5 AGITATES A TRADING ADDITION OF RS.3,64, 637, WHICH STANDS DISCUSSED AT PARA 12 (PGS. 25-31) AND PARA 12 (PGS. 87-108) O F THE ASSESSMENT AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEES LEGAL P LEA BEFORE US WAS THAT THE ADDITION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AS THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE NOT BEEN REJECTED. THE SAME, AS A READING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER (PARA 12 .4D/PG. 13) AND IMPUGNED ORDER (PARA 12.2/PG. 107) WOULD SHOW, IS FACTUALLY INCORR ECT. THE AO HAS ISSUED A CATEGORICAL FINDING, RENDERED AFTER CONSIDERING THE AUDITORS REPORT U/S. 142(2A), AND DULY SHOW CAUSING THE ASSESSEE IN THE MATTER (V IDE HIS LETTER DATED 21.05.2009), THAT THE ASSESSEES TRADING RESULTS, FOR THE DETAIL ED REASONS MENTIONED THEREIN, ARE NOT VERIFIABLE. HE, ACCORDINGLY, AFTER NOTING THE G ROSS PROFIT (GP) RATES ON VARIOUS PRODUCTS AS WORKED OUT BY THE AUDITOR AND WHICH R ANGE FROM A LOW OF 24.15% (NOZZLES) TO 73.17% (ON EXTENSION SHAFT TV), ESTIMA TED THE ASSESSEES GROSS PROFIT AT 19.75%, I.E., AS STATED AS OBTAINING FOR AY 2005 -06, THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR, AS AGAINST AT 18.24% DISCLOSED FOR THE CURREN T YEAR. THE SAME STANDS ENDORSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), HOLDING AS UNDER: 12.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AS MADE BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED WRITTEN SU BMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER ITA NO. 65/ASR/2016 (AY 2006-07) PMS INTERNA TIONAL PVT. LTD. V. ADDL.CIT 5 DATED 28.02.2014. I HAVE FURTHER CONSIDERED VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS OTHER MATERIAL PLACED BY TH E ASSESSEE ON RECORD. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO REJECTION OF BOO KS OF ACCOUNT IN DETAIL IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER MAINTAINED STOCK RECOR DS NOR PRODUCED INVENTORY OF CLOSING STOCK AND OPENING STOCK, THE AUTHENTICITY O F TRADING RESULTS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE VERIFIED. MOREOVER, THE OPENING AND CLOSI NG STOCK ARE ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF THE TRADING RESULTS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF DETAILS OF CL OSING AND OPENING STOCK AND METHOD OF VALUATION ADOPTED IN VALUING THE OPENING AND CLOSIN G STOCK, THE AUTHENTICITY OF TRADING RESULTS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE CAN ALWAYS BE DOUBLED. 1 A M, THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING T HE TRADING RESULTS. I ALSO FULLY AGREE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SPECIAL AUDIT ORS WITH REGARD TO REJECTION OF TRADING RESULTS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 1 AM FURT HER OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ALSO JUSTIFIED IN APPLYING GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 19.25% (*) TO MAKE TRADING ADDITION OF RS.3,64,637/-. [EMPHASIS, OURS] [(*) THE CORRECT FIGURE IS 19.75%] HOW, THEN, WE WONDER, COULD IT BE CONTENDED, AS BEF ORE US, FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO REJECTION OF THE A SSESSEES ACCOUNTS ? WHY, IN FACT, THE ASSESSEES RELEVANT GROUND (GD. 5) BY THE ASSES SEE ITSELF STATES OF THE ADDITION AS HAVING BEEN MADE AFTER REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NT. ON MERITS, THE LD. COUNSEL WOULD ARGUE THAT THE ADD ITION MADE IS ONLY QUA THE SALE OF THE RAJKOT UNIT IN-AS-MUCH AS THE TURNOVER OF THE ONLY OTHER (PHAGWARA) UNIT IS AT RS.503.97 LACS, AND A DIFFERENTIAL ADDITION O F 1.51% (19.75% - 18.24%) WOULD WORK TO A HIGHER AMOUNT IF THE SALE OF BOTH THE UNI TS IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. FURTHER, THE BULK OF THE GOODS SOLD AT THE RAJKOT UNIT ARE T HAT TRANSFERRED FROM THE PHAGWARA UNIT (I.E., RS.218.62 LACS). THE SAME STAND SOLD AT RS.241.48 LACS, ON WHICH THEREFORE A GP ADDITION OF RS.3.64 LACS (AT THE RAT E OF 1.51%) HAS BEEN MADE. HOW COULD THE SALE OF GOODS TRANSFERRED FROM THE PHAGWA RA UNIT, WHOSE TRADING RESULTS ITA NO. 65/ASR/2016 (AY 2006-07) PMS INTERNA TIONAL PVT. LTD. V. ADDL.CIT 6 HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED, COULD BE MADE? TWO, NO ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE FOR THE RAJKOT UNIT FOR WHICH GROSS PROFIT RATE FOR THE IMM EDIATE PRECEDING YEAR WAS, IN FACT, AT 11.25%, MUCH LOWER. EVEN AS CLARIFIED AT THE OUTSET DURING HEARING, NO FRESH PLEA QUA FACTS COULD BE ADMITTED. THERE IS FIRSTLY NO FINDING ON THE REC ORD THAT THE SALE OF THE RAJKOT UNIT FOR THE CURRENT YEAR IS AT RS.241.48 LACS, AS CLAIMED. THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT THE TRADING ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ONLY WITH R EFERENCE TO THE SALE OF THE RAJKOT UNIT (SALE OF WHICH APPEARS TO BE DOMESTIC S ALES, AS AGAINST PREDOMINANTLY (99.69%) EXPORT SALE OF THE PHAGWARA UNIT), OR WITH REFERENCE TO THE SALE OF ONLY ONE OF THE TWO UNITS. THE FINDINGS AS REGARDS THE R EJECTION OF ACCOUNTS, IS WITH REFERENCE TO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED FOR BO TH THE UNITS, INCLUDING THE VALUATION OF INVENTORIES THEREAT. THE ESTIMATION OF GP IS AGAIN QUA DIFFERENT PRODUCTS, AND NOT WITH REFERENCE TO THEIR PLACE OF MANUFACTURE. THE PRODUCTS, BY OWN ADMISSION, ARE THE SAME (OR NEARLY THE SAME) FO R BOTH THE UNITS. THE VALUE OF THE GOODS TRANSFERRED FROM PHAGWARA UNIT TO RAJKOT UNIT IS IN FACT AT RS.21.86 LACS AND NOT RS.218.62 LACS, AS STATED BY THE LD. COUNSE L, WHO THOUGH WOULD ADMIT HIS MISTAKE ON THIS BEING POINTED OUT. FURTHER STILL, T HERE IS NO FINDING THAT THE GROSS PROFIT OF THE RAJKOT UNIT FOR AY 2005-06 IS AT, AS CLAIMED, 11.25%. THE AO, AS APPARENT, HAS APPLIED THE GP RATE ACRO SS THE ASSESSEES SALES, AND NOT FOR A PARTICULAR SEGMENT THEREOF. RATHER, AS AP PARENT FROM THE FINDINGS BY THE AUDITORS, QUA WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS DULY SHOW-CAUSED, THE AO HA S BEEN EXTREMELY REASONABLE IN APPLYING A GP RATE OF 19.75 %; THE SAME BEING MUCH BELOW EVEN THE MINIMUM GROSS MARGIN COMPUTED BY THE AUDIT OR FOR DIFFERENT PRODUCTS, AND WHOSE FINDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN REBUTTED. IN FACT, THE VERY FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED A UNIFORM GROSS PROFIT RATE (OF 18.24 %) FOR BOTH THE UNITS, SELLING VARIOUS ITEMS, WHICH MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE THE SAM E, BEARING DIFFERENT GP RATES, TO CUSTOMERS LOCATED AT DIFFERENT PLACES, WITH SALE S OF ONE UNIT BEING PREDOMINANTLY ITA NO. 65/ASR/2016 (AY 2006-07) PMS INTERNA TIONAL PVT. LTD. V. ADDL.CIT 7 IN THE EXPORT MARKET, IS A CLEAR POINTER TO THE GP RATE AS RETURNED BEING CONTRIVED. THAT IS, APART FROM THE DEFECTS POINTED OUT BY THE REVENUE, LEADING TO THE ACCOUNTS BEING REJECTED. THE ASSESSEES CASE IS WHOLLY WITHO UT MERIT. RATHER, AND EQUALLY, IF NOT MORE PROBABLE INFERENCE IS THAT THERE HAS BEEN A CALCULATION MISTAKE BY THE AO. WE ARE, HOWEVER, AS STATED DURING HEARING, NOT INCL INED TO DISTURB THE ADDITION ON QUANTUM, WHICH, GOING BY THE SALES, IS APPARENTLY M UCH LOWER THAN THE IMPUGNED SUM OF RS.3.64 LACS. THE FINDINGS, BOTH QUA REJECTION AS WELL AS ON MERITS, REMAINING UNREBUTTED, WE FIND NO SCOPE FOR INTERFER ENCE. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 7. VIDE GROUNDS 6 AND 7, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT I TS TRADING RESULTS HAVING BEEN ESTIMATED, NO SEPARATE DISALLOWANCE QUA EXPENDITURE, I.E., TO THE EXTENT IT RELATES TO THE TRADING ACCOUNT, COULD BE MADE. THE ARGUMENT IS UNEXCEPTIONAL IN-AS- MUCH AS THERE CAN BE NO DOUBLE DISALLOWANCE. A PERU SAL OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE, BEING THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ASSESSEES GD. 3 BE FORE US, CLEARLY SHOWS THE SAME TO BE IN THE NATURE OF INDIRECT EXPENDITURE, FORMIN G PART OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, EVEN AS EXPLICITLY STATED AT PARA 9.1 (PG. 16) OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM, THEREFORE, VALID IN PRINCIPLE, FA ILS ON FACTS. EVEN SO, IF AND TO THE EXTENT THE ASSESSEE CAN, DURING THE APPEAL GIVING-E FFECT PROCEEDINGS, SHOW THE AO THAT A PART OF SUCH EXPENDITURE STANDS IN FACT DEBI TED TO THE TRADING ACCOUNT, HE SHALL, SUBJECT TO HIS VERIFICATION, ALLOW EXPENDITU RE AS DISALLOWED BY HIM, I.E., TO THAT EXTENT. THAT LEAVES US WITH FREIGHT EXPENDITUR E AND JOB WORK EXPENSES, AGAIN STATED TO BE CLAIMED AS TRADING/MANUFACTURING EXPEN SES. THE ASSESSEE SHALL, THEREFORE, HAVE TO SHOW THE SAID EXPENDITURE TO BE FORMING PART OF THE TRADING ACCOUNT. TWO, THE DISALLOWANCE IN THEIR RESPECT, WH ERE SO (AS WE HAVE RESTORED THE MATTER FOR EXAMINING IF THE TAX LIABILITY THEREON S TANDS ALREADY DISCHARGED BY THE PAYEE/S, SO THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MAY NOT OBTAIN, I N WHOLE OR IN PART), WOULD OBTAIN ONLY U/S. 40(A)(IA). THE PRINCIPLE OF NON DOUBLE DI SALLOWANCE WOULD EQUALLY APPLY ITA NO. 65/ASR/2016 (AY 2006-07) PMS INTERNA TIONAL PVT. LTD. V. ADDL.CIT 8 FOR SUCH DISALLOWANCE. IF THE GROSS PROFIT COMPUTED BY EXCLUDING SUCH EXPENDITURE FALLS BELOW THAT ESTIMATED, THIS EXPENDITURE STANDS DISALLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF THE DIFFERENCE. WHERE NOT SO, THIS EXPENDITURE STANDS I N EFFECT ALLOWED, SO THAT THERE IS NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY, AND THE STATUTORY DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40(A)(IA) SHALL OBTAIN. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JULY 31, 2018 SD/- SD/- (N. K. CHOUDHRY) (SANJAY ARORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 31.07.2018 /GP/SR. PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE APPELLANT: PMS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., VILLAGE: JAMALPUR, G.T. ROAD, PHAGWARA (2) THE RESPONDENT: ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX, PHAGWARA RANGE, PHAGWARA (3) THE CIT(APPEALS)-2, JALANDHAR (4) THE CIT CONCERNED (5) THE SR. DR, I.T.A.T TRUE COPY BY ORDER