Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad V. ITO (TDS), Ghaziabad

ITA 2662/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 81888 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 13-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK WADEKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: O P SAPRA
• Section: 201(1); 263; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH C CC C : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG CHANDRA MOHAN GARG CHANDRA MOHAN GARG CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL , JUDICIAL , JUDICIAL , JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO . .. . 2662/DEL/2011 2662/DEL/2011 2662/DEL/2011 2662/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR : : : : 2003 2003 2003 2003 - -- - 04 0404 04 M/S GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT M/S GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT M/S GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT M/S GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AUTHORITY, AUTHORITY, AUTHORITY, VIKAS PATH, VIKAS PATH, VIKAS PATH, VIKAS PATH, HA HAHA HAPUR ROAD, PUR ROAD, PUR ROAD, PUR ROAD, GHAZIABAD. GHAZIABAD. GHAZIABAD. GHAZIABAD. TAN : MRTGO0108D. TAN : MRTGO0108D. TAN : MRTGO0108D. TAN : MRTGO0108D. VS. VS. VS. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), GHAZIABAD. GHAZIABAD. GHAZIABAD. GHAZIABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI O.P. SAPRA, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIVEK WADEKAR, CIT - DR. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP : :: : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (TDS), KANPUR DATED 9 TH MARCH, 2011 FOR THE AY 2003-04. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THAT THE LD.CIT(TDS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL A S ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SEC . 263 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, AND THE ORDER U/S 263 AS PAS SED IS ARBITRARY, UNJUST & ILLEGAL ON VARIOUS LEGAL & FACT UAL GROUNDS INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING :- (I) THE LD.A.O. HAS PROPERLY APPLIED MIND BEFORE PASSING ORDER U/S 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 A ND HAS ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CBDT INSTRUCTIONS AS WERE BINDING UPON HIM. ITA-2662/DEL/2011 2 (II) THAT THE ORDER U/S 154 DATED 17.09.2008 AS PAS SED BY THE LD.A.O. WAS NOT ERRONEOUS AT ALL SO AS TO JU STIFY THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 263. (III) VARIOUS OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE LD.CIT IN HI S ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION ARE EITHER FACTUALLY INC ORRECT OR ARE UNTENABLE IN LAW. (IV) CANCELLATION OF ORDER DATED 17.09.2008 BY INVO KING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 263 IS TOTALLY ILLEGAL HAV ING BEEN PASSED AGAINST THE DIRECTIONS CONTAINED IN BOARD INSTRUCTIONS F.NO.275/109/92-IT(B) DT. 21.09.1994 W HICH WERE OF BINDING NATURE. (V) THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD.CIT(TDS) THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THE APPELLANT TO THE LAND OWNER S DIRECTLY AND THAT IT WAS THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR DEDUCTING TDS IS AGAINST THE FACTS ON RECORD AND TH E IMPUGNED PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY THE APPELLANT EITHER TO THE COURT AWARDING COMPENSATION OR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION OR TO THE SLAO, THE AUTHORITY EMPOWERE D UNDER THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 TO ACQUIRE LAN D FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE, WHO IS THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR DEDUCTING TDS IN VIEW OF ABOVE CITED INSTRUCTIONS. 2. THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD.CIT U/S 263 DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED/ANNULLED. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, MODIFY AND/OR DELETE ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ITO, TDS & SU RVEY, GHAZIABAD HAS PASSED ORDER UNDER SECTION 201(1)/201(1A) OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ON 9.2.2004 FOR FY 2002-03 RAISING DEMAND OF ` 18,53,396/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HELD THAT THE SECRETARY, GHAZ IABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (GDA) HAS MADE PAYMENT OF INTEREST OF `1, 43,81,119/- ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION AGAINST LAND ACQUISITION IN G OVINDPURAM SCHEME GHAZIABAD THROUGH COURT TO VARIOUS PERSONS D URING FY 2002-03 AND TDS UNDER SECTION 194A OF THE ACT WHICH HAD NOT BEEN MADE BY ITA-2662/DEL/2011 3 THE GDA WHO IS PERSON RESPONSIBLE TO DEDUCT AND PAY TAX TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT. THE SIMILAR ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE ITO, TDS FOR FY 2002-03 RAISING THE DEMAND OF `7,30,655/ -. ON APPEAL FOR FY 2003-04, THE ITAT BY THEIR ORDER DATED 31 ST MARCH, 2008 IN ITA NO.2902/DEL/2006 HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, VIDE ORDER UNDER SE CTION 154 DATED 9.2.2004, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF ITAT FOR FY 200 3-04, RECTIFIED THE ORIGINAL ORDER DATED 9.2.2004 PASSED UNDER SECTION 201(1)/201(1A) AND REDUCED THE DEMAND TO NIL. THE CIT IN THE ORDE R UNDER SECTION 263 DATED 9.3.2011 (WHICH IS THE ORDER IN APPEAL BEFORE US) HELD THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL T O THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AND HELD AS UNDER:- 11. IN VIEW OF FOREGOING DISCUSSION, I CONSIDER TH AT THE ORDER DATED 17.09.2008 U/S 154 READ WITH 201(1)( & 201(1A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PASSED BY THE I.T.O. (TDS & SURVEY), GHAZIABAD IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENU E AND THEREFORE, THE AFORESAID ORDER IS HEREBY CANCELLED AND THE ORIGINAL ORDER DATED 09.02.2004 U/S 201(1)/201( 1A) PASSED BY THE I.T.O. (TDS & SURVEY), GHAZIABAD IS REVIVED. THE I.T.O. (TDS & SURVEY), GHAZIABAD IS B EING DIRECTED TO PASS ORDER GIVING EFFECT OF THIS ORDER. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE CIRCULAR OF CBDT VIDE F.NO .275/109/92-I.T.(B) DATED 21 ST SEPTEMBER, 1994 WHEREIN CBDT HELD AS UNDER:- 2. IT HAS NOW BEEN DECIDED IN CONSULTATION WITH TH E MINISTRY OF LAW & JUSTICE THAT THE RESPONSIBILITY F OR MAKING DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194 A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, SHOULD BE THAT OF THE COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION) OR ANY OTHER AUTHORITY EMPOWERED UNDER THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, TO ACQUIRE LAND FOR THE PUBLIC PURPOSE AS LAID DOWN BY THAT ITA-2662/DEL/2011 4 ACT. WHEN THE CONCERNED PARTIES, WHOSE LAND HAS BE EN ACQUIRED, GO TO THE COURT OF LAW, SEEKING HIGHER COMPENSATION (WITH INTEREST) AND THE COURT ALLOWS T HEIR CLAIMS THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY WHICH HAD ACQUIRED THEIR LAND, SHALL, WHILE PAYING THE COMPENSATION, D EDUCT TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST FORMING P ART OF THE COMPENSATION, AND DEPOSIT THE REMAINING AMOU NT WITH THE COURT OF LAW, FOR DISBURSEMENT TO THE SUCCESSFUL LITIGANTS. THE SAME AUTHORITY SHALL ALS O ISSUE THE TDS CERTIFICATES TO THE CONCERNED PARTIES IN TH E PRESCRIBED FORM 16A. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT T HE MINISTRY OF FINANCE IN CONSULTATION WITH THE MINISTRY OF LAW & JUSTICE HELD THAT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF DEDUCTING THE TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194 SHOULD BE ONLY COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION) OR ANY OTHER A UTHORITY EMPOWERED UNDER THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT TO ACQUIRE LAND FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR DEDUCTING THE TAX, HOW CAN THE ASSESSEE BE HELD IN DEFAULT FOR NOT DEDUCTING THE TAX. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE THE ENTIRE PAYMENT TO THE COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION) AND THE REAFTER, THE COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION) MADE THE PAYMENT TO TH E PERSON WHOSE LAND WAS ACQUIRED. HE REITERATED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY PAYMENT TO THE PERSONS WHOSE LAND WAS ACQUIRED. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THIS CIRCULAR WAS NOT REFERRED TO BY EITHER OF THE PARTIES AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE THE ITAT FOR FY 2003-04 AND, THER EFORE, THE ITAT HAD NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER THIS CIRCULAR. HE, THEREFO RE, SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CIRCULAR, THE ORDER OF THE CIT PA SSED UNDER SECTION 263 MAY BE QUASHED. 6. LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, STATED THAT THE L IMITED ISSUE BEFORE THE ITAT IS WHETHER THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER PASSED UNDER SECTION 154 WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE ITA-2662/DEL/2011 5 REVENUE OR NOT. THAT THE ITAT HAD DECIDED THE ISSU E AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR FY 2003-04 (AY 2004-05) AND THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, FOLLOWING THE SAID ORDER OF THE ITAT, RECTIFIED HIS OWN ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 201(1)/201(1A) FOR THE CURRENT FINANC IAL YEAR. THUS, THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED UNDER SECTION 154 WAS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS AND CIT WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING H IS JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ORD ER OF THE CIT PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 SHOULD BE SUSTAINED. HE ALTERNAT IVELY SUBMITTED THAT IF AT ALL THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE DEPARTME NT IS NOT ACCEPTED AND THE BENCH IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE BOARDS CIRCU LAR NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED, THEN, THE ENTIRE MATTER SHOULD BE SET A SIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BECAUSE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CIRCULAR WAS NEVER CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. MOREOVE R, THE FACTS STATED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL I.E., THE ASSESSEE, DID NOT MAKE ANY PAYMENT TO THE PERSONS WHOSE LAND WAS ACQUIRED AND PAYMENT MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY TO THE COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITIO N), WOULD ALSO REQUIRE VERIFICATION AT THE END OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER. 7. IN THE REJOINDER, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A STATUTORY BODY AND SIMILAR DISPUTES W ERE ARISING IN RESPECT OF LAND ACQUIRED BY VARIOUS STATUTORY BODIE S AND THEREFORE, CONSIDERING ALL THESE ASPECTS, THE CIRCULAR WAS ISS UED BY THE CBDT. THE CIRCULAR OF THE CBDT IS BINDING ON THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WHETHER IT WAS REFERRED TO OR NOT BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF PASSING OF ORDER UNDER SECTION 201(1)/201(1A). HE STATED THAT HE HA D NO OBJECTION FOR SENDING THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER FOR VERIFICATION OF THE FACTS IN THE LIGHT OF THE CIRCULAR OF THE CBDT. ITA-2662/DEL/2011 6 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 154, WE FIND THAT THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE ORDER FOLLOWING THE BOARDS CIRCULAR AND NOT THE DECISION OF THE ITAT AS CANVASSED BY THE LEARNED DR AND AS MENT IONED BY THE CIT IN THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263. FOR READY R EFERENCE, IT WOULD BE ESSENTIAL TO REPRODUCE THE ENTIRE ORDER PASSED U NDER SECTION 154:- ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 READ WITH SECTION 201(1) & 201(1A) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN THIS CASE A RECTIFICATION APPLICATION U/S 154 O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS FILED ON 15.05.2008 BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE & COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SH. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN, CA. IN THE APPLICAT ION THE AR MENTIONED WITH VARIOUS LAW OF LAND ACQUISITI ON, BOARDS INSTRUCTIONS, ADVISE NOTE OF MINISTRY OF LA W & JUSTICE & CA (DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS) AND JUDI CIAL PRONOUNCEMENT THAT AT THE TIME OF PASSING THE ORIG INAL ORDER U/S 201(1) & 201(1A) ON 30.01.2005 THE THEN A O HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE CORRECT PROVISIONS OF LAW, AND IN SUBMISSION CITED RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAND ACQUISITION, ACT, 1894, CBDT INSTRUCTION AND VARIOU S CASE LAWS APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE C ASE. ON THE PERUSAL OF THE BOARD INSTRUCTION NO.275/109/92-I.T.(B) DATED 21.09.1994 IT IS CLEAR THAT FOR ACQUISITION THE LAND FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE AND TO DISBURSE THE COMPENSATION, AWARD ENHANCED COMPENSATION THE COLLECTOR IS THE AUTHORITY EMPOWER ED UNDER THE ACT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ARE DIRECTED TO PAY THE AMOUNT TO ADM(LA) OR SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITI ON OFFICER, AFTER GETTING AMOUNT FROM AUTHORITY ADM(LA ) OR SLAO PAID THE MONEY TO THE CONCERNED PERSON WHOSE LAND IS BEING ACQUIRED AFTER APPLYING THE RELEVANT PROVISION OF LAND ACQUISITION, ACT, 1894. AS PER ABOVE BOARD INSTRUCTION, JUDGEMENT OF SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT ON THE SAME ISSUE AND PROVISION OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 THE ASSESSE E, ITA-2662/DEL/2011 7 I.E. GDA WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING ANY INCOME TO THE RECIPIENT IN PURSUANCE OF COURT DECREE WITHIN MEANING OF SECTION 204 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ONLY ADM(LA) WAS PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING AND WAS ALSO LIABLE TO DEDUCT TDS. IN PURSUANCE OF ORDER OF HONBLE ITAT, DELHI H BENCH IN ITA NO.2902/DEL/06 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 4- 05 DATED 31.03.2008 ORDER U/S 201(1)/201(1A) IS REDUCED TO NIL. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, LEGAL POSITION AS LAID DOWN BY THE BOARD, SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS CORRECT. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ORDER U/S 201(1)/201(1A ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 09.02.2004 IS ACCORDINGLY, RECTIFIED AND DEMAND IS NIL. 9. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REFERRED THE BOARDS INSTRUCTION DATED 21 ST SEPTEMBER, 1994 AND FOUND THAT AS PER BOARDS CIRCULAR, IT IS EVIDENT THAT TH E ASSESSEE I.E., GDA WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING THE AMOUNT TO THE RE CIPIENT IN PURSUANCE TO THE COURT DECREE. ONLY THE ADM (LA) W AS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING AND WAS ALSO LIABLE TO DEDUCT TDS. AFTER AR RIVING AT THE ABOVE FINDING, HE REFERRED TO THE ORDER OF THE ITAT FOR F Y 2003-04 I.E. AY 2004-05. THEREAFTER, IN THE CONCLUDING PARAGRAPH, HE MENTIONED CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, LEGAL POSITION A S LAID DOWN BY THE BOARD, SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS CORRECT. CONS EQUENTLY, THE ORDER U/S 201(1)/201(1A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATE D 09.02.2004 IS ACCORDINGLY, RECTIFIED AND DEMAND IS NIL . THUS, HE INITIALLY DISCUSSED THE BOARDS CIRCULAR AND ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR DEDUCTING THE TDS. IT IS THE A DM(LA) WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING MONEY TO THE PERSONS CONCERN ED WHOSE LAND IS BEING ACQUIRED AND THEREFORE, HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DEDUCTING TDS. THEREAFTER, INCIDENTALLY, HE MENTIONED THE ORDER OF THE ITAT FOR AY 2004-05 BUT IN A FINAL CONCLUSION, HE RELIED UPON T HE BOARDS CIRCULAR ITA-2662/DEL/2011 8 ONLY. THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT WHETHER THE ABOVE BOARDS CIRCULAR OF 1994 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN OR MODIFIED TIL L DATE. THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT THE SAME WAS APPLICABLE AND THE ASSESS ING OFFICER WAS BOUND BY IT. ONCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS BOUND BY IT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTIO N 154 WHICH WAS PASSED IN PURSUANCE TO THE BOARDS CIRCULAR AND NOT IN PURSUANCE TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT AS CANVASSED BY THE LE ARNED DR AS WELL AS BY THE CIT, KANPUR. THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECT ION 154 IN PURSUANCE TO THE CIRCULAR OF CBDT, CANNOT BE SAID T O BE ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE SO AS TO EMPOWER THE CIT TO INVOKE JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263. IN VIEW OF T HE ABOVE, WE QUASH THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 AND RESTORE THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH OCTOBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- ( (( ( CHANDRA MOHAN GARG CHANDRA MOHAN GARG CHANDRA MOHAN GARG CHANDRA MOHAN GARG ) )) ) (G.D. AG (G.D. AG (G.D. AG (G.D. AG RAWAL RAWAL RAWAL RAWAL ) )) ) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 20.10.2014 VK. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : M/S GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHOR ITY, M/S GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, M/S GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, M/S GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VIKAS PATH, HAPUR ROAD, GHAZIABAD. VIKAS PATH, HAPUR ROAD, GHAZIABAD. VIKAS PATH, HAPUR ROAD, GHAZIABAD. VIKAS PATH, HAPUR ROAD, GHAZIABAD. 2. RESPONDENT : INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), GHAZIABAD . INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), GHAZIABAD. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), GHAZIABAD. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), GHAZIABAD. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR