The Income-tax Officer, Jammu V. The Branch Manager, Jammu

ITA 210/ASR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 21020914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 23-04-2012
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NOS.206 TO 210(ASR)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2006-07 TO 2010-2011 PAN: AMRTI0529B THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) VS. THE BRANCH MANAG ER, JAMMU. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD. JAMMU. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH. TARSEM LAL, DR RESPONDENT BY:SH. R.K. GUPTA, CA DATE OF HEARING :23/04/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:24/04/2012 ORDER PER BENCH: THESE FIVE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECT ED AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE CIT(A), JAMMU, DATED 22.0 2.2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2010-11 RESPECTIVELY. A S THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL, THESE WERE HEARD T OGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CO NVENIENCE. 2 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEALS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE COMMON IN ALL THE APPEALS EXCEPT VARIATION IN AMOUNTS. HOWEVER, THE C OMMON GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO.206(ASR)/2011 ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT T HE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT ANY TAX AT SOURCE ON INTEREST ACCRUED ON FDRS HELD BY THE JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RELYIN G ON THE NOTIFICATION NO.3489 DATED 22.10.1970. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE FA CT THAT THE JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IS NOT A CORPORATION BU T A LOCAL AUTHORITY AND IS ALSO FILING ITS RETURN OF INCOME I N THE STATUS OF LOCAL AUTHORITY. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE FA CT THAT IN VIEW OF THE AMENDMENT MADE IN SECTION 10(20) W.E.F. 01.04.2 003 THE BENEFITS CONFERRED BY CLAUSE (20A) NO SUCH AUTHORIT Y WAS TAKEN AWAY. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, AMEN D, MODIFY, DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT TH E TIME OF HEARING. 3. FIRST OF ALL, WE WILL DEAL WITH ITA NO.206(ASR)/ 2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CAS E ARE THAT IN THE COURSE OF INSPECTION OF TDS, ITO (TDS) NOTICED THAT THE ASSES SEE FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON THE INTEREST ACCRUED ON THE FDRS PURCH ASED BY THE JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AMOUNTING TO RS.83,24,956/- I N THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE AO A ND IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE REPLIED AS UNDER: 3 JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JAMMU IS A CORPORATI ON ESTABLISHED UNDER THE JAMMU & KASHMIR DEVELOPMENT ACT, 970. IN TERM OF NOTIFICATION NO.3489 DATED 22 ND OCTOBER, 1970 ISSUED IN PURSUANCE OF SEC. 194A(3) (III) (F) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, NO TA X IS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED ON INTEREST ON DEPOSITS OF ANY CORPORATIO NS ESTABLISHED BY A CENTRAL STATE OR PROVINCIAL ACT. IN VIEW OF THIS, T HERE IS NO FAILURE ON OUR PART TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON INTEREST ON DEP OSITS OF JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. 3.1. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE REPLY FURNISHED BY T HE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE REFERENCE TO SECTION 194A(3)(III) (F) UNDER WHICH JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WAS EXEMPT FROM DEDUCTION OF TAX ON INTEREST. SECTION 194(3)(III)(F) IS AS UNDER: (F) SUCH OTHER INSTITUTION, ASSOCIATION OR BODY OR CLASS OF INSTITUTIONS, ASSOCIATIONS OR BODIES WHICH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY, FOR REASONS TO BE RECORDED IN WRITING, NOTIFY IN THIS BEHALF IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE; AS PER ABOVE CLAUSE INSTITUTIONS, ASSOCIATIONS OR B ODIES WHICH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY, FOR REASONS TO BE RECORDED IN WRITI NG, NOTIFY IN THIS BEHALF IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE IS EXEMPT FROM DEDUCTION OF TAX BUT THE NAME OF THE JDA HAS NOT BEEN NOTIFIED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE F OR THIS PURPOSE. THE PERSONS RESPONSIBLE HAS REFERRED TO NOTIFICATION NO .3489 DATED 20.10.1970 IN SUPPORT OF THIS CLAIM. IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IS COVERED BY ABOVE NOTIFICATION AS PER SR. NO.39 WHIC H READS AS UNDER: ANY CORPORATION ESTABLISHED BY A CENTRAL/STATE OR PROVINCIAL ACT. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE AO MENTIONED THAT THE JAMM U DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IS NOT A CORPORATION AND WAS ESTABLISHED IN THE YEAR 1970 I.E. YEAR 4 OF ISSUE OF ABOVE NOTIFICATION AND CAN NOT BE SAID TO BE COVERED BY THE SAME. THE JDA IS FILING ITS INCOME TAX RETURN IN THE STAT US OF LOCAL AUTHORITY. 3.2. THE AO ALSO DISCUSSED THE AMENDMENT MADE AS TO THE ADDITION OF AN EXPLANATION TO SECTION 10(20) OF THE I.T.ACT TO DEM ONSTRATE THAT W.E.F. 01.04.2003 THE INCOME OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES WAS TAXA BLE. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WAS WRONG IN W RITING TO BRANCHES OF THE BANK THAT NO TDS WAS TO BE DEDUCTED. THE AO FUR THER STATED THAT THE JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY COULD NOT DO SO WITHOUT THE AUTHORIZATION FROM THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. ACCORDINGLY, HE CRE ATED A DEMAND OF RS.4,71,580/- U/S 201 AND 201(1A) OF THE I.T.ACT. 4. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITI ON MADE BY THE AO BY HOLDING AS UNDER: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO SUCCEED. THE EXCEPTIONS PROVID ED IN SECTION 194A(3) (III)(F) OF I.T. ACT AND AS PER NOTIFICATIO N U/S JAMMU DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION IS A CREATION OF J & K DEVE LOPMENT ACT AND SATISFIED THE CONDITION AT S.NO.39 OF SUCH NOTIFICA TION. THE CHAPTER II, CLAUSE 1(2) OF THE J & K DEVELOPMENT ACT READS THAT THE AUTHORITY SHALL BE A BODY CORPORATE BY THE NAME OF THE LOCAL AREA HAVING PERPETUAL SUCCESSION AND A COMMON SEAL WIT POWER TO ACQUIRE HOLD AND DISPOSE OF. IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT SUCH AUTH ORITY IS A BODY CORPORATE CREATED THROUGH A STATE ACT. THE OBJECTI ON OF AO THAT THE YEAR OF CREATION OF THE JDA AND THE NOTIFICATION IS THE SAME IS NOT RELEVANT AS THE NOTIFICATION INCLUDES ALL THE CORP ORATION CREATED UNDER CENTRAL OR STATE ACTS, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE YEAR OF THEIR COMING INTO BEING. THE DISCUSSION AS TO THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES C OMING INTO THE TAX 5 NET W.E.F.01.04.03 IS ALSO NOT RELEVANT AS THE SOLE ISSUE HAVE IS WHETHER TDS WAS DEDUCTIBLE OR NOT ON THE INTEREST ACCRUED T O M/S. JDA. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I HOLD THAT NO TAX WAS DEDUCT IBLE ON ACCRUED INTEREST ON FDRS OF JDA WITH M/S. THE J & K BANK LT D. THE DEMAND CREATED U/S 201(1A) IS DELETED AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT BE TREATED IN DEFAULT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE REVEN UE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS BENCH. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. DR, SH. TARSEM L AL RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE ALSO FILED THE W RITTEN SUBMISSION, THE CONTENTS OF THE SAME ARE AS UNDER: IN THIS CASE, THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHEREBY THE LD. CIT(A) HAS VACATED T HE AOS ORDER PASSED U/S 201(1) AND 201(IA) OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE-PR WAS NOT UNDER ANY OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE OUT OF THE INTEREST ON FDR PAYABLE TO JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER READS AS U NDER: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO SUCCEED. THE EXCEP TIONS PROVIDED IN SECTION 194A(3) (III)(F) OF I.T. ACT AN D AS PER NOTIFICATION U/S JAMMU DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION IS A CREATION OF J & K DEVELOPMENT ACT AND SATISFIED THE CONDITIO N AT S.NO.39 OF SUCH NOTIFICATION. THE CHAPTER II, CLAUS E 1(2) OF THE J & K DEVELOPMENT ACT READS THAT THE AUTHORITY SHA LL BE A BODY CORPORATE BY THE NAME OF THE LOCAL AREA HAVING PERPETUAL SUCCESSION AND A COMMON SEAL WIT POWER TO ACQUIRE H OLD AND DISPOSE OF. IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT SUCH AUTHORIT Y IS A BODY CORPORATE CREATED THROUGH A STATE ACT. THE OBJECTI ON OF AO THAT THE YEAR OF CREATION OF THE JDA AND THE NOTIFICATIO N IS THE SAME IS NOT RELEVANT AS THE NOTIFICATION INCLUDES ALL T HE CORPORATION 6 CREATED UNDER CENTRAL OR STATE ACTS, IRRESPECTIVE O F THE YEAR OF THEIR COMING INTO BEING. THE DISCUSSION AS TO THE L OCAL AUTHORITIES COMING INTO THE TAX NET W.E.F.01.04.03 IS ALSO NOT RELEVANT AS THE SOLE ISSUE HAVE IS WHETHER TDS WAS DEDUCTIBLE OR NOT ON THE INTEREST ACCRUED TO M/S. JDA. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I HOLD THAT NO TAX WAS DEDUCT IBLE ON ACCRUED INTEREST ON FDRS OF JDA WITH M/S. THE J & K BANK LTD. THE DEMAND CREATED U/S 201(1A) IS DELETED AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT BE TREATED IN DEFAULT. THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE ALLOWING THE APPEAL HAS COMMIT TED TWO FUNDAMENTAL ERRORS OF LAW I.E. A) HE HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT AS PER NOTIFICA TION ISSUED IN PURSUANCE OF SUB-CLAUSE (F) OF CLAUSE (III) OF S B-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 194A OF THE ACT, THE EXEMPTION HAS BEEN PRO VIDED TO ANY CORPORATION ESTABLISHED BY A CENTRAL, STATE OR PROVINCIAL ACT AT ENTRY NO.39 OF THE SAID NOTIFICATION. THE JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IS NOT A CORPORATION ES TABLISHED BY THE STATE ACT. IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED UNDER THE JAMMU & KASHMIR DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1970. THERE IS GREAT DIFFE RENCE BETWEEN A CORPORATION ESTABLISHED UNDER THE CENTRAL OR STATE ACT AND A CORPORATION UNDER A CENTRAL OR STATE ACT. THE CRITICAL DIFFERENCE HAS BEEN ELABORATED BY THE HONBLE SUPRE ME COURT IN THE CASE OF DALCO ENGINEERING PVT. LT. VS. SHREE SATISH PRABHAKAR PADHYE & OTHERS IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.1886 O F 2007 DATED 31.3.2010 AT PARA 11 OF ITS ORDER. AS ILLUSTR ATION OF A CORPORATION ESTABLISHED BY A CENTRAL ACT, THE HONB LE SUPREME COURT HAS CITED THE EXAMPLES OF STATE BANK OF INDIA AND LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ESTABLISHED THAT SUCH CORPORATION ARE ESTABLISHED BY THE NAME NOTIFIED. T HE JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HAS CLEARLY BEEN ESTABLISHED UNDER THE JAMMU & KASHMIR DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1970 AND IT HAS NO T BEEN NOTIFIED BY ITS NAME ITSELF. IT IS EXPRESSLY MENTIO NED IN SECTION 3(1) OF THE J & K DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1970 THAT AS SOON AS MAY BE AFTER THE COMMENCEMENT OF THIS ACT, THE GOVERNME NT, MAY BY NOTIFICATION IN THE GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, DECL ARE ANY AREA TO BE LOCAL AREA FOR PURPOSES OF THIS ACT AND CONSTITUTE, THEREFORE, AN AUTHORITY TO BE CALLED THE DEVELOPMEN T 7 AUTHORITY. IT IS THUS OBVIOUS THAT THE JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HAS BEEN CONSTITUTED UNDER THE SAID ACT A ND NOT BY THE SAID ACT. THEREFORE, THE MISTAKE IN THE CIT(A) S ORDER IS TOO APPARENT WHICH THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL MAY KINDLY RECT IFY AND ORDER THE RESTORATION OF THE AOS ORDER AND VACATIO N OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER. (B) THE OTHER FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE WHICH THE LD. CIT (A) HAS COMMITTED LIES IN HIS NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE JAM MU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IS NOT A CORPORATION BUT A BO DY CORPORATE AS IS MENTIONED AT SECTION 3(2) OF THE J& K DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1970. THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 194A(3)(III)(F) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 HAS BEEN PROV IDED TO A CORPORATION AND NOT A BODY CORPORATE AS PER ENTRY N O.39 OF THE NOTIFICATION. THERE IS AGAIN A BIG DIFFERENCE IN A CORPORATION AND A BODY CORPORATE. A BODY CORPORATE ESSENTIALLY HAS PERPETUAL SUCCESSI ON AND A COMMON SEAL WITH POWER TO ACQUIRE, HOLD AND DISPOSE OF PROPERTY AND TO CONTRACT AND IS BY ITS NAME SUES AN D BE SUED AS MENTIONED AT SECTION 3(2) OF THE J & K DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1970. ON THE CONTRARY, A CORPORATION IS AN ENTITY SEPARAT E AND DISTINCT FROM ITS OWNERS WHICH ARE OWNED BY THEIR STOCKHOLDE RS WHO ARE SHARE IN PROFITS AND LOSSES AND HAVE THREE DISTINCT CHARACTERISTICS I.E. (1) LEGAL EXISTENCE CAN BUY, SELL, OWN ENTER INTO A CONTRACT AND SUE OTHER PERSONS AND FIRMS AND BE SUED BY THEM IT CAN COMMIT OFFENCE AND BE PUNISHED. (2) LIMITED LIABILITY; ITS SHARE HOLDERS HAVE LIMIT ED LIABILITY TO THE CREDITORS UNLESS THEY GIVE PERSONAL GUARANTEES. (3) CONTINUITY OF EXISTENCE AS ITS OWNERSHIP CAN BE TRANSFERRED THROUGH A SALE OR GIFT OF SHARES. THUS, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CORPORATION AND A B ODY CORPORATE IS TOO OBVIOUS. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) COULD NOT APPRECIATE THIS SUBTLE DIFFERENCE AND WAS GROSSLY M ISLED IN HOLDING THAT THE JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IS A C ORPORATION ESTABLISHED BY THE STATE ACT AND THUS WRONGLY ALLOW ED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, IT MAY FURTHER BE MENTIONED THAT THE JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HAS BEEN 8 CLAIMING ITSELF TO BE A LOCAL AUTHORITY IN ITS RETU RNS OF INCOME AN AS SUCH THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS A CORPORATION. FURTHER, EVEN A LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY FROM THE PURVIEW OF EXEMPTION P ROVIDED U/S 10(2) OF THE ACT W.E.F. 1.4.2003. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, IT IS PRAYED THA T THE ORDER OF THE AO MAY KINDLY BE RESTORED AND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) BE VACATED. 5.1. THE LD. DR ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS NOT IFICATION ATTACHED BY THE ASSESSEE AT PAGES 16 & 17 OF THE PAPER BOOK, ES PECIALLY ENTRY AT SL. NO.39 (ANY CORPORATION ESTABLISHED BY A CENTRAL, ST ATE OR PROVINCIAL ACT) AND FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT COVERED BY ENTRY AT SL. NO.39 OF NOTIFICATION NO.3489 OF THE CBDT DATED 22.10.1970 . HE ALSO STATED THAT CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE, AS CONTAINED IN PAPER BOOK PAGES 19 TO 51 ARE NOT IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF ASSESSEES CASE. HE REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMEN T BE ALLOWED BY CANCELING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHO RITY. 5.2. ON THE CONTRARY, SH. R.K. GUPTA, CA, THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPEL LATE AUTHORITY AND STATED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE BY THE DECISION OF ITAT, DELHI BENCH I, NEW DELHI, IN THE CASE OF CHIEF/SENIOR MANAGER, ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, 9 GHAZIABAD VS. ITO (TDS & SURVEY) GHAZIABAD, PASSED IN ITA NO.2228/DEL/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, D ATED 15 TH JULY, 2011, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED IN THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOO K AT PAGES 41 TO 43. HE REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT M AY BE DISMISSED AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE UPHELD. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CO NTENTION, HE FILED PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 51, AS PER DETAILS GIVEN HEREUNDER: S.NO . PARTICULARS PAGE NO. 1. COPY OF J & K LAND DEVELOPMENT 1-15 ACT (ACT NO.XIX OF 1970) 2. LIST OF NOTIFICATION U/S 194A(3)(III) 16-18 (F) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. COPIES OF CASE LAWS I) DALCO ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. VS. SHREE SATISH PRABHAKAR PADHYE & OTRS (CIVIL APPEAL NO.1886/2007) WITH FANCY REHABILITATION TRUST & ANR. VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS (CIVIL APPEAL NO.1858/2007) (ADJUDICATED BY HONBLE SC OF INDIA, DATED MARCH 31,2010 19-40 II) CHIEF/SENIOR MANAGER, ORIENT BANK OF COMMERCE VS. ITO(TDS & SURVEY) GHAZIABAD. ITA NO.2228/DEL/2011 (ADJUDICATED BY HONBLE ITAT, DELHI BENCH I NEW DELHI, DT.15.7.2011 41-43 10 III) DCIT, CIR.3(1), HYDERABAD VS. RITHWIK JOINT VENTURE ITA NO.719/HYD.)2010 (ADJUDICATED BY ITAT, HYDERABAD BENCH B, DATED 18.02.2011 44-51 5.3. LASTLY, HE REQUESTED THAT THE ARGUMENT ADVANCE D BY THE LD. DR IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND FACTS APPLICABLE IN THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, HAVING NO RELEVANCY ON THE ISSUE IN DISP UTE, REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT MAY BE DISMISSED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US, ESPECIALLY THE ORDER PASSED BY TH E LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ALONGWITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY TH E LD. DR AS WELL AS THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH, IN THE CASE OF CHIEF/SENIOR MANAGER, ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE VS. ITO (TDS & S URVEY), GHAZIABAD, ITA NO.2228/DEL/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-0 6, DATED 15.7.2011 AND FIND THAT EXACTLY SIMILAR ISSUE, WHICH IS IN D ISPUTE, BEFORE US, HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED AND DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE, BY THE SAID DECISION OF THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH I. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH I (SUPRA) I S REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 11 ITA NO.2228/DEL/2011 FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06, DATED 15.7.2011 CHIEF/SENIOR MANAGER, ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, GH AZIABAD VS. ITO (TDS & SURVEY) GHAZIABAD. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) GHAZIABAD DATED 01.02.2011 FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSE E READ AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LD. LOWER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN CHARGIN G THE INTEREST U/S 201/201(1A) OF THE I.T ACT, 1961 OF RS.11,748/- AS WELL AS SHORT CHARGE OF TDS AMOUNT O F RS.35,268/- IN THE CASE OF GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES. 2. THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE FALLS U/S 194A(3)(III) OF THE IT.ACT, 1961. 3. THAT THE INTEREST SO CHARGED AND DEPOSITED OF SH ORT CHARGE OF TDS IS EXCESSIVE, ARBITRARY AND UNCALLED FOR. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A BRANCH OF NATIONALIZED BANK. A SURVEY CONDUCTED ON 02.02.2008 AT THE BRANCH OF THE ASSESS EE. THE DISCREPANCY IN THE AMOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURC E NOTED IN RESPECT OF INTEREST PAID TO GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND GANGA JAL PARIYOJNA, GHAZIABAD. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT GHAZ IABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IS A NOTIFIED INSTITUTION UND ER SECTION 194A(3)(III)(F), THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-S ECTION (1) OF SECTION 194A ARE NOT APPLICABLE. HE PLEADED THAT HIS CASE I S COVERED BY ENTRY NO.39 WHERE ANY CORPORATION ESTABLISHED BY A CENTRA L, STATE OR PROVINCIAL ACT IS A NOTIFIED INSTITUTION WHERE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194(1) ARE NOT APPLICABLE. HE HAS FILED A COPY OF T HE LIST WHERE ENTRY NO.39 STATES ABOUT ANY CORPORATION ESTABLISHED BY A CENTRAL, STATE OR PROVINCIAL ACT. HE ALSO SUBMITTED A COPY OF UTTAR P RADESH URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1993 WHICH PROVIDES F OR THE DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN AREAS OF UTTAR PRADESH, ACCO RDING TO PLANT AND FOR MATTER ANCILLARY THERETO AND IT WAS ALSO PLEADE D THAT GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED UNDER TH E UTTAR PRADESH URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1993, THEREFORE , IT IS A CORPORATION ESTABLISHED BY A STATE ACT WHICH IS COV ERED BY ENTRY NO.39. 12 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDE RS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND AFTER HEARING, WE HOLD THAT GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND GANGA JAL PANI PARIYOJNA ARE IN EXEMPTED CATEGORY WHERE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 194(1) ARE NOT APPLICABLE. IN VIEW OF THIS MATTER, WE SET ASIDE TH E ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALLOW THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. 6.1. THUS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID ORD ER OF THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH I, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVEN UE BY HOLDING THAT THE JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IS IN EXEMPTED CATEGORY WHERE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194(1) ARE NOT APPLICABLE. WE ALSO HOLD THAT EXCEPTION PROVIDED IN SECTION 194A(3)(III)(F) OF THE ACT AND AS PER NOTIFICATION, THE JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IS A CREATION OF J & K DEVELOPMENT ACT AND SATISFIES THE CONDITION AT ENTRY NO.39 OF THE SAID NOTIFICATION AND WE HOLD THAT NO TAX WAS DEDUCTIBLE ON ACCRUED INTEREST ON F DRS OF JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WITH J & K BANK LTD. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE HOLD THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLE D FOR IN THE WELL REASONED IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AU THORITY AND ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE SAME. HENCE, THE APPEAL OF THE REVEN UE IN ITA NO. 206(ASR)/2011 IS DISMISSED. 13 7. NOW WE TAKE UP APPEALS IN ITA NOS.207 TO 210(ASR )/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2010-11. AS THE ISSUE I NVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE SIMILAR TO THE ISSUES ADJUDICATED AND D ECIDED BY US IN ITA NO.206(ASR)/2011 (SUPRA) IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, TH EREFORE, THE FINDINGS GIVEN THEREIN SHALL EQUALLY APPLY TO THESE APPEALS. ACCORDINGLY, ALL THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FIVE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NOS. 206 TO 210(ASR)/2011 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24TH APRIL, 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 24TH APRIL, 2012 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE:THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE J & K BANK LTD . JAMMU. 2. THE ITO (TDS), JAMMU. 3. THE CIT(A), 4. THE CIT, 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, ASR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH : AMRITSAR.