The Visakhapatnam Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Visakhapatnam V. THE AddL. CIT, Visakhapatnam

ITA 362/VIZ/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9660 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 25-09-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOVINDH RAJAN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Cost of acquisition; Unabsorbed depreciation; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 143(3); 92; 234B; 40(a)(ia); 143(1); 201; 64; 43; 48; 194A; 72; 13; 22; 2(19)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO , HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO S . 362 & 371 / VIZ /201 5 (ASST. YEAR : 20 11 - 1 2 & 2012 - 13 ) M/S. THE VISAKHAPATNAM CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD. , NEAR TOWN KOTHA ROAD, MAIN ROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM . V . A CIT, RANGE - 1, VISAKHAPATNAM. PAN NO. AAAAT 0844 L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO S . 3 7 9 & 391 / VIZ /201 5 (ASST. YEAR : 20 1 1 - 1 2 & 2012 - 13 ) A CIT, RANGE - 1, VISAKHAPATNAM. V . M/S. THE VISAKHAPATNAM CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NEAR TOWN KOTHA ROAD, MAIN ROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM. PAN NO. AAAAT 0844 L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O.NO.17 & 20 /VIZ/2016 ( ITA NO S . 3 7 9 & 391 / VIZ /201 5 ) (ASST. YEAR : 20 1 1 - 1 2 & 2012 - 13 ) M/S. THE VISAKHAPATNAM CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NEAR TOWN KOTHA ROAD, MAIN ROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM. V . A CIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM. PAN NO. AAAAT 0844 L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G.V.N. HARI ADV OCATE . DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI GOVINDH RAJAN - DR DATE OF HEARING : 2 0 / 1 2 /201 6 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 / 12 /201 6 . 2 ITA NOS. 362 , 371, 379 & 391 /VIZ/2015 C.O.NO.17 & 20 /VIZ/2016 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 362 & 371 /VIZ/ 2015 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ITA NOS. 379 & 391/VIZ/2015 FIELD BY THE REVENUE ARE CROSS APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1 , VISAKHAPATNAM , DATED 2 7 /0 8 /201 5 & 29/09/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 1 - 1 2 & 2012 - 13 RESPECTIVELY . THE CROSS OBJECTION NO. 17 & 20 /VIZ/2016 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.3 7 9 & 391 /VIZ/2016 . ITA NO.3 62 /VIZ/2015 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND ALSO THE LAW APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING THE AMORTIZATION OF PREMIUM ON GOVERNMENT SECURITIES AMOUNTING TO 28,91,278/ - . 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING THE AMORTIZATION OF LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF MERGER OF BOBBILI COOPERATIVE URBAN BANK AND RAMACHANDRAPURAM COOPERATIVE URBAN BANK AMOUNTING TO 2,33,00,693/ - 4 . WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED DEPRECIATION BY TREATING THE TRANSACTION OF MERGER AS ONE OF GOODWILL ACQUIRED BY THE APPELLANT. . 5 . THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN LEVYING INTEREST UNDER PROVISION OF SECTION 23 4A AND 234B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1 . 6. FOR A NY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF APPEAL HEARING. 3 ITA NOS. 362 , 371, 379 & 391 /VIZ/2015 C.O.NO.17 & 20 /VIZ/2016 3 . THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS GENERAL IN NATURE , HENCE, NO ADJUDICATION IS REQUIRED. G ROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL RELATE S TO DISALLOWANCE OF AMORTIZATION OF PREMIUM ON GOVERNMENT SECURITIES AMOUNTING TO 28,91,278/ - . IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED AN AMOUNT OF 28,91,278/ - AS AMORTIZATION OF PREMIUM ON GOVERNMENT SECURITIES IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE BASIS ON WHICH THE CLAIM IS MADE . IT WAS SUBMITTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A BANK, IT HAS TO MAINTAIN SPECIFIED PERCENTAGE OF INVESTMENTS IN APPROVED GOVERNMENT SECURITIES , WHICH WAS VALUED AS PER RBI NORMS AT THE END OF FINANCIAL YEAR. THE REDUCTION IN VALUE WAS AMORTIZED AND CHARGED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT AMORTIZATION OF THE PREMIUM IS ONLY A PROVISION MADE WHICH IS EQUIVALENT TO A CONTINGENT LIABILITY , HENCE, HE ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 . ON APPEAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5 . ON APPEAL BEFORE US, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY HELD THAT THE LIABILITY IS A CONTINGENT LIABI LI TY AND SUBMITTED THAT IT IS AN ASCERTAINED LIABILITY, T HEREFORE, THE SAME HAS TO BE ALLOWED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE VERY SAME CAME UP BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 IN ITA NO. 449/VIZAG/2012 BY ORDER DATED 4 ITA NOS. 362 , 371, 379 & 391 /VIZ/2015 C.O.NO.17 & 20 /VIZ/2016 30/09/2016 , THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL REMANDED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 6 . ON THE OTHER HAN D, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW . 8 . WE FIND THAT THE VERY SAME ISSUED HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE (SUPRA) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION KEEPING IN VIEW THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 . HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE . 9 . GROUNDS NO. 3 & 4 RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF AMORTIZATION LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF MERGER OF BOBBILI COOPERATIVE URBAN BANK AND RAMACHANDRA PURAM COOPERATIVE URBAN BANK . 1 0 . AT THE TIME OF HEARING, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 AND DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE DEPARTMENT . 1 1 . ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY ACCEPTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 5 ITA NOS. 362 , 371, 379 & 391 /VIZ/2015 C.O.NO.17 & 20 /VIZ/2016 12 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW . 1 3 . THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL I.E. LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF MERGER HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE OR DER IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: - 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE FIRST ARGUMENT RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OF 1,56,70, 500/ - AS AMORTIZED LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF THE MERGER OF BOBBILI BRANCH WITH THE ASSESSEE. IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. HAS ASKED THE ASSESSEE WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR THE CLAIM. BEFORE THE A.O., THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO JUSTIFY IN RE SPECT OF CLAIM MADE BY THE COMPANY AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44DB & 72AB OF THE ACT. THE A.O. HAS DISALLOWED THE SAME AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE MERGER OF BOBBILI BANK WITH THE ASSESSEE BANK IS AS PER THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE RBI, THEREFORE, THIS LOSS HAS TO BE ALLOWED. THE LD. CIT(A) BY CONSIDERING THE RBI GUIDELINES, HE HAS OBSERVED THAT THE INCOME TAX ACT HAS A SPECIFIC PROVISION EMBEDDED FOR COMPUTING THE D EDUCTIONS IN THE CASE OF BUSINESS RE - ORGANISATION OF COOPERATIVE BANKS. SECTION 44DB OF THE ACT DEALS WITH THE DETAILS OF SUCH COMPUTATION IN THE CASE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIONS 32, 35D, 35DD OR 35DDA OF THE ACT. SIMILARLY, SECTION 72AB DEALS WITH THE C ARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF OF ACCUMULATED LOSSES AND DEPRECIATION IN THE CASE OF BUSINESS RE - ORGANIZATION OF THE COOPERATIVE BANKS. HE HAS OBSERVED THAT AS PER SUB - SECTION 7 OF SECTION 72AB OF THE ACT, THE ACCUMULATED LOSSES WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO CARR Y FORWARD AND SET OFF UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 72 OF THE ACT, SIMILAR IS THE CASE WITH UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION. THEREFORE, THE MAIN CONDITION WHICH NEEDS TO BE FULFILLED IS THAT THE SAID LOSS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWABLE IN THE HAND OF BOBBILI BRANCH AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE BOBBILI BANK NEVER FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME, THUS, ITS LOSS IS NOT OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE TO BE CARRY FORWARD UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 72 OF THE ACT AND HE CONFIRMED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. WE FIND THAT TH E BOBBILI COOPERATIVE BANK HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE ALSO NOT BROUGHT 6 ITA NOS. 362 , 371, 379 & 391 /VIZ/2015 C.O.NO.17 & 20 /VIZ/2016 ANYTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE BOBBILI BANK HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME. ONCE THE BOBBILI BANK WHICH IS MERGED WITH ASSESSEES BANK NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 72AB OF THE ACT, THE BOBBILI BANK IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CARRY FORWARD ANY LOSSES OR UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION. THE SAME CANNOT BE ALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE. THE LD. CIT(A) CORRECTLY BY CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT DISALLOWED THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. SO FAR AS RBI GUIDELINES WITH REGARD TO THE AMORTIZATION OF LOSSES IS CONCERNED, IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISION PROVIDED BY SECTION 72AB OF THE ACT, IN OUR OPINION, RBI GUIDELINES CANN OT PREVAIL OVER THE INCOME TAX ACT. WE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT BUSINESS LOSSES AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF AMALGAMATING CO - OPERATIVE BANK I.E. BOBBILI CO - OPERATIVE BANK CAN BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME OF SUCCESSOR CO - OPERATIVE BANK I.E. AMALGAMATED CO - OPERATIVE BANK (ASSESSEE) IF THE AMALGAMATION IS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 72AB OF THE ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AMALGAMATING COMPANY I.E. BOBBILI CO - OPERATIVE BANK NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME AS REQUIRED U/S 72AB OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY DECIDED THE ISSUE AND DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. SO FAR AS ALTERNATIVE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE EXCESS OF LIABILITIES OVER THE ASSETS OF BOBBILI BANK SHOULD BE TREATED AS THE PRICE PAID FOR ACQUISITION OF A COMMERCIAL/BUSINESS ASSET WHICH IS A DEPRECIABLE ASSET AND IT HAS TO BE TREATED AS A GOODWILL. WE FIND THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. GOODWILL MEANS IT IS AN INTANGIBLE ASSET THAT ARISES AS A RESULT OF ACQUISITION OF ONE COMPANY BY ANOTHER FOR A PREMIUM VALUE. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID ANY AMOUNT TO AMALGAMATING COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE HAS ON LY TAKEN LOSSES OF AMALGAMATING COMPANY I.E. BOBBILI CO - OPERATIVE BANK. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ACQUIRED ANY GOODWILL. THE LD. CIT(A) BY CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE CASE HAS PASSED A DETAILED ORDER BY CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. I N SO FAR AS CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PARTICULARLY IN THE CASE OF COSMOS CO - OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED (SUPRA) IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THEREFORE, WE FIND NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. I N SO FAR AS OTHER CASE LAWS RELIED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO DECIDED IN A DIFFERENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND THEREFORE, WE FIND NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 7 ITA NOS. 362 , 371, 379 & 391 /VIZ/2015 C.O.NO.17 & 20 /VIZ/2016 1 4 . IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE (SUPRA), WE FIND NO INFIRMITY TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), WHICH IS HEREBY CONFIRMED AND THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 1 5 . GROUND NO.5 RELATING TO LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A & 234B OF THE ACT IS CONSEQUENTLY IN NATURE, HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 379/VIZ/2015 16 . GROUNDS NO. 1 TO 4 RELATING TO INTEREST PAID TO THE MEMBERS OF THE BANK. 1 7 . WHEN THIS APPEAL IS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED TH A T THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 , THE SAME IS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 IN ITA NO. 444/VIZAG/2012 BY ORDER DATED 30/09/2016 DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 1 8 . ON THE OTHER HAND, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAIRLY ACCEPTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, THE SAME IS PENDING CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. 19 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MA TERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8 ITA NOS. 362 , 371, 379 & 391 /VIZ/2015 C.O.NO.17 & 20 /VIZ/2016 20 . THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER THE INTEREST ON SH A RE CAPITAL PAID TO THE MEMBERS IS ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE OR NOT? THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE SAME CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 IN ITA NO. 449 /VIZAG/2012 DATED 30/09/2016 AND DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: - 22. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF 1,57,53,6 20/ - TOWARDS INTEREST ON SHARE CAPITAL. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE SECTION 16 OF THE A.P. MUTUALLY AIDED COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1995, IT IS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. THE A.O. HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO ALLOCATE THE INTEREST ON SHARE CAPITAL ONLY UPON DETERMINATION OF THE SURPLUS ARISING FROM THE BUSINESS I.E. NET PROFIT. THIS IS NOTHING BUT APPROPRIATION OF PROFITS BUT NOT AN EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS. T HE LD. CIT(A) BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 IN ITA NO.5/VIZAG/2011 & 19/VIZAG/2011 FOR A.Y. 2007 - 08 VIDE ORDER DATED 29.8.2011 HAS DIRECTED THE A.O. TO DELETE THE AD DITION MADE BY HIM. IT IS SUBMITTED ACROSS THE BAR THAT THE VERY SAME ISSUE IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IS PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, BY FOLLOWING THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, IN VIEW OF THE DOCTRINE OF PRECEDENT , WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE (SUPRA), THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 21 . SO FAR AS GROUND NO S .5 TO 8 RELATING TO NON - DEDUCTION OF TDS UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID INTEREST AMOUNT RANGING FROM 10,000/ - AND ABOVE TO VARIOUS MEMBERS DEPOSITORS , THE 9 ITA NOS. 362 , 371, 379 & 391 /VIZ/2015 C.O.NO.17 & 20 /VIZ/2016 TOTAL AMOUNT OF WHICH FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR WORKS OUT TO 13,18,88,189/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED THE TDS ON SUCH INTEREST PAYMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR NON - DEDUCTION OF TDS. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SAME DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 AND THE HON'BLE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 29/08/2011 IN ITA NO. 5 & 19/VIZAG/ 2011 , ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING A COOPERATIVE BANK OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED TDS. SINCE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT TDS, DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 22 . ON APPEAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 IN ITA NO. 5 & 19/VIZAG/2011 DATED 29/08/2011 AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE M ADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 23 . ON BEING AGGRIEVED, REVENUE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL . 24 . LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHEREAS LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 . 25 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW . 10 ITA NOS. 362 , 371, 379 & 391 /VIZ/2015 C.O.NO.17 & 20 /VIZ/2016 2 6 . THE VERY SIMILAR ISSUE HAS COME U P BEFORE THE ITAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 IN ITA NO. 5 & 19/VIZAG/2011 DATED 29/08/2011 . T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL , HE DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: - 6.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE. I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALSO THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ITAT FOR A.Y. 2007 - 08 IN THE ASSESSEES CASE ON THIS ISSUE. I FIND THAT THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE IN DETAIL AND HELD THAT NO TDS NEEDS TO BE DEDUCTED ON INTEREST PAID BY ANY COOPERATIVE SOCIETY TOO MEMBERS. IN THIS REGARD, THE BENCH OBSERVED TH A T THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(19) OR SECTION 194A ( 3) OF THE I.T. ACT DO NOT MAKE ANY DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES CARRYING ON BANKING BUSINESS OR OTHER COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT IN ASSESSEES CASE FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 , THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE OF 13,18,88,189/ - . 2 7 . IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE CO O RD I NATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE (SUPRA) , THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. C.O.NO. 17 /VIZ/2016 28 . THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) . IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION ABOVE, THIS CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS, THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 11 ITA NOS. 362 , 371, 379 & 391 /VIZ/2015 C.O.NO.17 & 20 /VIZ/2016 ITA NO.371/VIZ/2015 29 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND ALSO THE LAW APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF 2,48,82,516/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS DISALLOWANCE OF AMORTIZED LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF MERGER OF RAMACHA NDRAPURAM AND BOBBILI BANKS. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE ALTERNATE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT TO CONSIDER THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT AS GOOD WILL AND TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION ON THE S AME. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED DISALLOWANCE THE ADDITION OF 2,49,40,630/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION FOR REDUCTION IN VALUE OF GOVERNMENT SECURITIES HELD UNDER THE CATEGORY AVAILABLE FOR SALE. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 231B OF THE ACT. 6. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF APPEAL HEARING. 3 0 . THE FIRST GROUND OF APP EAL IS GENERAL IN NATURE, HENCE, NO ADJUDICATION IS REQUIRED. GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 OF THE APPEAL RELATE TO DISALLOWANCE OF AMORTIZED LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF MERGER OF RAMACHANDRAPURAM & BOBBILI BANKS. 31 . IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED AMORTIZATION LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF MERGER OF RAMACHANDRA PURAM BANK, BOBBILI BANK, ONGOLE BANK AND BALAJI BANK, AGGREGATING TO RS. 2,48,82,516/ - IN ITS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. IT WAS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ON ACCOUNT OF MERGER, 12 ITA NOS. 362 , 371, 379 & 391 /VIZ/2015 C.O.NO.17 & 20 /VIZ/2016 ACCUMULATED LOSS WAS TAKEN OVER. THIS LOSS WAS STATED TO BE AMORTIZED OVER A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS AS PER RBI GUIDELINES AND 1/5 TH OF THE ACCUMULATED LOSS WAS CLAIMED FOR THIS YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO SATISFY THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 72AB OF THE ACT. 32 . ON APPEAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BY FOLLOWING HIS PREDECESSORS DECISION IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSELF FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008 - 09, 2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11, CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 33 . ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 IN ITA NO. 444/VIZAG/2012 BY ORDER DATED 30/09/2016. 34 . ON THE OTHER HAND, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. 35 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 36 . THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL I.E. LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF M ERGER HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: - 13 ITA NOS. 362 , 371, 379 & 391 /VIZ/2015 C.O.NO.17 & 20 /VIZ/2016 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE FIRST ARGUMENT RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OF 1,56,70,500/ - AS AMORTIZED LOSS ON ACCOU NT OF THE MERGER OF BOBBILI BRANCH WITH THE ASSESSEE. IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. HAS ASKED THE ASSESSEE WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR THE CLAIM. BEFORE THE A.O., THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO JUSTIFY IN RESPECT OF CLAIM MADE BY THE COMPA NY AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44DB & 72AB OF THE ACT. THE A.O. HAS DISALLOWED THE SAME AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE MERGER OF BOBBILI BANK WITH THE ASSESSEE BANK IS A S PER THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE RBI, THEREFORE, THIS LOSS HAS TO BE ALLOWED. THE LD. CIT(A) BY CONSIDERING THE RBI GUIDELINES, HE HAS OBSERVED THAT THE INCOME TAX ACT HAS A SPECIFIC PROVISION EMBEDDED FOR COMPUTING THE DEDUCTIONS IN THE CASE OF BUSINES S RE - ORGANISATION OF COOPERATIVE BANKS. SECTION 44DB OF THE ACT DEALS WITH THE DETAILS OF SUCH COMPUTATION IN THE CASE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIONS 32, 35D, 35DD OR 35DDA OF THE ACT. SIMILARLY, SECTION 72AB DEALS WITH THE CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF OF ACCU MULATED LOSSES AND DEPRECIATION IN THE CASE OF BUSINESS RE - ORGANIZATION OF THE COOPERATIVE BANKS. HE HAS OBSERVED THAT AS PER SUB - SECTION 7 OF SECTION 72AB OF THE ACT, THE ACCUMULATED LOSSES WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 72 OF THE ACT, SIMILAR IS THE CASE WITH UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION. THEREFORE, THE MAIN CONDITION WHICH NEEDS TO BE FULFILLED IS THAT THE SAID LOSS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWABLE IN THE HAND OF BOBBILI BRANCH AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE AC T. THE BOBBILI BANK NEVER FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME, THUS, ITS LOSS IS NOT OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE TO BE CARRY FORWARD UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 72 OF THE ACT AND HE CONFIRMED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. WE FIND THAT THE BOBBILI COOPERATIVE BANK HAS N OT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE BOBBILI BANK HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME. ONCE THE BOBBILI BANK WHICH IS MERGED WITH ASSESSEES BANK NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 72AB OF THE ACT, THE BOBBILI BANK IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CARRY FORWARD ANY LOSSES OR UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION. THE SAME CANNOT BE ALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE. THE LD. CIT(A) CORRECTLY BY CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT DISALL OWED THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. SO FAR AS RBI GUIDELINES WITH REGARD TO THE AMORTIZATION OF LOSSES IS CONCERNED, IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISION PROVIDED BY SECTION 72AB OF THE ACT, IN OUR OPINION, RBI GUIDELINES CANNOT PREVAIL OVER THE INCOME TAX A CT. WE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT BUSINESS LOSSES AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF AMALGAMATING CO - OPERATIVE BANK I.E. BOBBILI CO - OPERATIVE BANK CAN BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME OF 14 ITA NOS. 362 , 371, 379 & 391 /VIZ/2015 C.O.NO.17 & 20 /VIZ/2016 SUCCESSOR CO - OPERATIVE BANK I.E. AMALGAMATED CO - OPERATIVE BANK (ASSESSEE) IF THE AMALGAMATION IS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 72AB OF THE ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AMALGAMATING COMPANY I.E. BOBBILI CO - OPERATIVE BANK NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME AS REQUIRED U/S 72AB OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLOWE D. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY DECIDED THE ISSUE AND DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. SO FAR AS ALTERNATIVE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE EXCESS OF LIABILITIES OVER THE ASSETS OF BOBBILI BANK SHOULD BE TREATED AS THE PRICE PAID FOR ACQUISITION OF A COMMERCIAL/BUSINESS ASSET WHICH IS A DEPRECIABLE ASSET AND IT HAS TO BE TREATED AS A GOODWILL. WE FIND THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. GOODWILL MEANS IT IS AN INTANGIBLE ASSET THAT ARISES AS A RESULT OF ACQUISITION OF ONE COMPANY BY ANOTHER FOR A PREMIUM VALUE. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID ANY AMOUNT TO AMALGAMATING COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY TAKEN LOSSES OF AMALGAMATING COMPANY I.E. BOBBILI CO - OPERATIVE BANK. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ACQUIRED ANY GOODWILL. THE LD. CIT(A) BY CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE CASE HAS PASSED A DETAILED ORDER BY CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. IN SO FAR AS CASE LAWS RELIED UPO N BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PARTICULARLY IN THE CASE OF COSMOS CO - OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED (SUPRA) IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THEREFORE, WE FIND NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN SO FAR AS OTHER CASE LAWS RELI ED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO DECIDED IN A DIFFERENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND THEREFORE, WE FIND NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THIS GROUND OF APPE AL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 37 . IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE (SUPRA), WE FIND NO INFIRMITY TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), WHICH IS HEREBY CONFIRMED AND THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 38 . GROUND NO.4 RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION FOR DEDUCTION IN GOVERNMENT SECURITIES. 15 ITA NOS. 362 , 371, 379 & 391 /VIZ/2015 C.O.NO.17 & 20 /VIZ/2016 39 . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED T HAT THE AMOUNT OF 2,49,40,630/ - WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION TOWARDS PROVISION FOR DEDUCTION IN GOVERNMENT SECURITIES TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AS THE SAME IS ONLY A CONTINGENT LIABILITY. IT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION IN GOVERNMENT SECURITIES WAS ARRIVED ON THE BASIS OF VALUE OF SECURITIES AS ON 31/03/2012 AND AS THE BANKS FOLLOWS MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNT ING, THE LOSS WAS QUANTIFIED AND DEBITED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND THE SAME IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 40 . BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISION MADE TOWARDS REDUCTION IN VALUE OF GOVERNMENT SECURITIES, WHICH REPRESENTS DEPRECIATION IN THE VALUE OF GOVERNMENT SECURITIES HELD BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE CATEGORY AVAILABLE FOR SALE. THE BOOK VALUE OF THESE SECURITIES IS COMPARED WITH THE MARKET PRICE AT THE END OF EACH YEAR. DEPRECIATION/APPRECIATION IS CALCULATED FOR EACH SCRIP AND THE SAME IS AGGREGATED. IF THE NET RESULT IS DEPRECIATION, THE SAME IS PROVIDED IN THE BOOKS IN THE FORM OF A PROVISION WITHOUT DISTORTING THE BOOK VALUE OF INDIVIDUAL SCRIPS. THIS PROVISION MADE IS ALSO IN ACCORDANCE WITH RBI INSTRUCTIONS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE COMMISSIONER 16 ITA NOS. 362 , 371, 379 & 391 /VIZ/2015 C.O.NO.17 & 20 /VIZ/2016 OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: - 9.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE ABOVE AMOUNT WAS A PROVI SION MADE TOWARDS REDUCTION IN VALUE OF GOVERNMENT SECURITIES. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT SUCH PROVISION WAS MADE FOR THE ACCOUNTING PURPOSE AS PER THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE RBI. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE BANK IS NOT TRADING IN GOVERNMENT SE CURITIES SO AS TO TREAT SUCH SECURITIES AS STOCK IN TRADE. EVEN AS PER THE AR'S CONTENTIONS, THESE SECURITIES ARE CLASSIFIED UNDER THE CATEGORY OF AVAILABLE FOR SALE. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THIS IS ONLY A PROVISION MADE FOR THE AC COUNTING PURPOSE AND THAT THE RELIABILITY IS NOT YET CRYSTALLIZED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 41 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 42 . IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GAVE A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS MADE A MERE PROVISION AS PER THE ACCOUNTING PRACTICE FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THE RELIABILITY IS NOT YET CRYSTALLIZED DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THEREFORE, BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE. EVEN BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS BASED ON ACTUAL PAYMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT IS ALSO A MERE PROVISION MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACCOUNTING PRACTICE FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE CORRECTLY, HENCE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN 17 ITA NOS. 362 , 371, 379 & 391 /VIZ/2015 C.O.NO.17 & 20 /VIZ/2016 THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), WHIC H IS HEREBY CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED IS DISMISSED. 43 . SO FAR AS GROUND NO.5 IS CONCERNED, WHICH IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE, HENCE, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND. ITA NO. 391/VIZ/2015 44 . GROUNDS NO. 1 TO 4 RELATING TO INTEREST ON SHARE CAPITAL PAID TO MEMBERS. 45 . FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A BANK, FIELD ITS RETURN OF INCOME BY DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF 6,36,03,404/ - . THE RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF 4,23,37,093/ - TOWARDS INTEREST ON SHA RE CAPITAL PAID TO THE MEMBERS OF THE BANK AND CLAIMED THE SAME AS DEDUCTION AS PER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 16(1) OF A.P. MUTUALLY AIDED COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1995. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE NOTED THAT TH E INTEREST ON SHARE CAPITAL PAID TO ITS MEMBERS AMOUNT TO APPROPRIATION OF PROFITS AND NOT ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. 46 . ON APPEAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 IN ITA NO.5 & 19/VIZAG/2011, ALLOWED 18 ITA NOS. 362 , 371, 379 & 391 /VIZ/2015 C.O.NO.17 & 20 /VIZ/2016 THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 47 . ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 48 . ON THE OTHER HAND, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 49 . LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08, THE SAME ORDER HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 IN ITA NO.449 & 450/VIZAG/2012, BY ORDER DATED 30/09/2016 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME MAY BE FOLLOWED. 50 . WE HAVE HEA RD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 51 . THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IN RESPECT OF INTEREST PAYMENT BY THE SOCIETY TO ITS MEMBERS ON SHARE CAPITAL HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 AND DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: - 22. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF 1,57,53,620/ - TOWARDS INTEREST ON SHARE CAPITAL. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE SECTION 16 OF THE A.P. MUTUALLY AIDED COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1995, IT IS AN 19 ITA NOS. 362 , 371, 379 & 391 /VIZ/2015 C.O.NO.17 & 20 /VIZ/2016 ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. THE A.O. HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO ALLOCATE THE INTEREST ON SHARE CAPITAL O NLY UPON DETERMINATION OF THE SURPLUS ARISING FROM THE BUSINESS I.E. NET PROFIT. THIS IS NOTHING BUT APPROPRIATION OF PROFITS BUT NOT AN EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS. THE LD. CIT(A) BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH O F THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 IN ITA NO.5/VIZAG/2011 & 19/VIZAG/2011 FOR A.Y. 2007 - 08 VIDE ORDER DATED 29.8.2011 HAS DIRECTED THE A.O. TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY HIM. IT IS SUBMITTED ACROSS THE BAR THAT THE VERY SAME ISSUE IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IS PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, BY FOLLOWING THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, IN VIEW OF THE DOCTRINE OF PRECEDENT, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE (SUPRA), THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 52 . GROUNDS NO. 5 TO 8 RELATING TO NON DEDUCTION OF TDS UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE AC T. 53 . IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID INTEREST AMOUNT RANGING FROM 10,000/ - AND ABOVE TO VARIOUS MEMBERS DEPOSITORS , THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF WHICH FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR WORKS OUT TO 22,65,81,457/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED THE TDS ON SUCH INTEREST PAYMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR NON - DEDUCTION OF TDS. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SAME DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 AND THE HON'BLE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 29/08/2011 IN ITA NO. 5 & 19/VIZAG/2011, ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND OBSERVED THAT THE ASSES SEE BEING A COOPERATIVE BANK 20 ITA NOS. 362 , 371, 379 & 391 /VIZ/2015 C.O.NO.17 & 20 /VIZ/2016 OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED TDS. SINCE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT TDS, DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 54 . ON APPEAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 IN ITA NO. 5 & 19/VIZAG/2011 DATED 29/08/2011 AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 55 . ON BEING AGGRIEVED, REVENUE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APP EAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 56 . LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHEREAS LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. 57 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW . 58 . THE VERY SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 IN ITA NO. 5 & 19/VIZAG/2011 ORDER DATED 29/08/2011 , THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BY FOLLOWING THE SAME, DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: - 6.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE . I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALSO THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ITAT FOR A.Y. 2007 - 08 IN THE ASSESSEES CASE ON THIS ISSUE . I FIND THAT THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE AND HELD THAT NO TDS NEEDS TO BE DEDUCTED ON INTEREST PAID B Y ANY COOPERATIVE SOCIETY TO ITS MEMBERS. IN THIS REGARD, THE BENCH OBSERVED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2( 19) OR SECTION 194A(3) OF THE I.T. ACT DO NOT MAKE ANY DISTIN C TION BETWEEN 21 ITA NOS. 362 , 371, 379 & 391 /VIZ/2015 C.O.NO.17 & 20 /VIZ/2016 THE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES CARRYIN G ON BANKING BUSINESS OR OTHER COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES . RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT IN THE ASSESSEES CASE FOR A.Y. 2007 - 08 , THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE OF 22,65,81,457/ - . 59 . WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE RODER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 60 . GROUNDS NO. 9 TO 12 ARE RELATING TO AMORTIZATION OF PREMIUM PAID FOR ACQUISITION OF HTM SECURITIES. 61 . IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED AN AMOUNT OF 20,98,223/ - BEING AMORTIZATION OF PREMIUM ON GOVERNMENT SECURITIES IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE BANK WAS ASKED THE EXPLAIN THE BASIS ON WHICH THE CLAIM WAS MADE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE BANK WAS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN SPECIFIED PERCENTAGE OF INVESTMENTS IN APPROVED GOVERNMENT SECURITIES WHICH WAS VALUED AS PER RBI NORMS AT THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. THE R EDUCTION IN VALUE WAS AMORTIZED AND CHARGED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT AMORTIZATION OF PREMIUM IS ONLY A PROVISION MADE WHICH IS EQUIVALENT TO A CONTINGENT LIABILITY AND DISALLOWED THE SAME. 62 . ON APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 17/2008 DATED 26/09/2008 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RAJKOT DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK (222 TAXMANN 240). COMMISSIONER 22 ITA NOS. 362 , 371, 379 & 391 /VIZ/2015 C.O.NO.17 & 20 /VIZ/2016 OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT AND ALSO THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE CBDT, DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT PORTIO N OF THE ORDER IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: - 7.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE. ON THIS VERY SAME ISSUE, THE THEN C1T(A), VISAKHAPATNAM IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR THE ASST. YR. 2008 09 IN HIS ORDER IN [TA NO.372/10 - 11/ADDL.CIT, R - 1/VSP/2012 - 13 DATED 27.9.2012 HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO. HOWEVER, THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.17/2008, DATED 26.9.2008 PROVIDE THAT INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO OF THE BANKS IN THE CATEGORY OF 'HELD TO MATURITY (HTM)' NEED NOT BE MARKED TO MARKET AND ARE CARRIED AT ACQUISITION COST UNLESS THESE ARE MORE THAN THE FACE VALUE IN WHICH CASE THE PREMIUM SHOULD BE AMORTISED OVER THE PERIOD REMAINING TO MATURITY. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE CBDT INSTRUCTION IN PARA (VII) IS EXTRACTED BELOW: 'AS PER RBI GUIDELINES DATED 16 ' OCTOBER 2000, THE INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO OF THE BANKS IS REQUIRED TO BE CLASSIFIED UNDER THREE CATEGORIES VIZ., HELD TO MATURITY (HTM), HELD FOR TRADING (HFT) AND AVAILABLE FOR SALE (AFS). INVESTMENTS CLASSIFIED UNDER HTM CATEGORY NEED NOT BE MARKED TO M ARKET AND ARE CARRIED AT ACQUISITION COST UNLESS THESE ARE MORE THAN THE FACE VALUE, IN WHICH CASE THE PREMIUM SHOULD BE AMORTISED OVER THE PERIOD REMAINING TO MATURITY. IN THE CASE OF HFT AND AFS SECURITIES FORMING STOCK IN TRADE OF THE BANK, THE DEPRECIA TION / APPRECIATION IS TO BE AGGREGATED SCRIP WISE AND ONLY NET DEPRECIATION, IF ANY, IS REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED FOR IN THE ACCOUNTS. THE LATEST GUIDELINES OF THE RBI MAY BE REFERRED TO FOR ALLOWING ANY SUCH CLAIMS. ON THIS SAME ISSUE, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAJKOT DISTRICT CO - OPERATIVE BANK (222 TAXMANN 0240), WHILE DISMISSING THE REVENUE'S APPEAL, HELD THAT THE INSTRUCTION OF THE CBDT ISSUED UNDER SECTION 119(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WOULD BIND THE REVENUE. IN VIEW OF THE INSTRUCTION OF THE CBDT AND THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT, I DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THIS CLAIM. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHILE ALLOWING THE ABOVE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO ENSURE THE CORRECTNESS OF T HE WORKING OF THE AMOUNT AMORTIZED AND CLAIMED. 6 3. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL . 23 ITA NOS. 362 , 371, 379 & 391 /VIZ/2015 C.O.NO.17 & 20 /VIZ/2016 64 LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN EARLIER YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 , VERY SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN REMITTED BA CK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION . HENCE, THIS ISSUE MAY ALSO BE REMITTED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 65. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY ACCEPTED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN REMITTED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. 66. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 67. THE VERY SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE ITAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 0 9 IN ITA NO. 44 4 /VIZAG/2012 , ORDER DATED 30/ 09/2016 . T HE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED AND REMITTED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH EXAMINATION TO DECIDE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WE FIND IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 , AMORTIZATION OF PREMIUM ON GOVERNMENT SECURITIES HAS BEEN DISSOLVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS A CONTINGENT LIABILITY . T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS CONFIR M ED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON APPEAL , ITAT REMANDED THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALLOWED THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 17/2008 DATED 26/09/2008 A ND ALSO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJKOT DISTRICT CO - OPERATIVE BANK (SUPRA) 24 ITA NOS. 362 , 371, 379 & 391 /VIZ/2015 C.O.NO.17 & 20 /VIZ/2016 DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THIS CLAIM. IN OUR OPINION, TO MAINTAIN A CONSISTENCY , THE ISSUE HAS TO BE REMITTED BACK TO THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE AND DECIDE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WE T HEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRESH KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ALSO FOLLOWING THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. T HIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. C.O.NO. 20/VIZ/2016 6 8 . THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION ABOVE, THIS CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . 69 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . CROSS OBJECTION S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE 3 0 T H DAY OF DECEMBER , 201 6 . S D / - S D / - ( G. MANJUNATHA ) ( V. DURGA RAO ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 3 0 T H DECEMBER , 201 6 . 25 ITA NOS. 362 , 371, 379 & 391 /VIZ/2015 C.O.NO.17 & 20 /VIZ/2016 VR/ - COPY TO: 1 . THE ASSESSEE. M/S. THE VISAKHAPATNAM CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NEAR TOWN KOTHA ROAD, MAIN ROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2 . THE REVENUE. ACIT, RANGE - 1 , VISAKHAPATNAM. 3 . THE CIT - 1, VISAKHAPATNAM . 4 . THE CIT(A) - 1, VISAKHAPATNAM. 5 . THE D.R . 6 . GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., VISAKHAPATNAM