The Asstt.commissioner of Income Tax,Akola Circle, Akola V. The Akola Urban Co-op.Bank Limited, Akola

ITA 44/NAG/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5812 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANITA RUPAVATARAM
• Assessee Lawyers: P R RISBUD
• Keywords: Business income; Income from undisclosed sources

Judgement Text

- -- - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-E-BENCH, NAGPU R ( ! '#$ $ % '$ / THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE AT MUMBAI) '& ' '& ' '& ' '& ' ( (( (. .. . . .. . , ,, ,%+ %+ %+ %+ ' '' ' ,$-. ,$-. ,$-. ,$-., ,, ,$ $$ $. .. .' '' ' . .. . BEFORE S/SH.H.L.KARWA,PRESIDENT AN D RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER './ ITA NO.44/NAG/2011 & & & & 0& 0& 0& 0& / // / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ACIT, AKOLA CIRCLE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, AKOLA. V/S. THE AKOLA URBAN CO-OP BANK LTD. JANKALYAN, 58-59, TOSHNIWAL LAYOUT, NEAR GOVT. MOLK SCHEME, AKOLA. PAN: AAAAT4082A ( 12 / // / APPELLANT ) ( 3412 / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY : ANITA RUPAVATARAM ASSESSEE BY : P.R.RISBUD ' 56 / DATE OF HEARING : 20- 01 -201 4 7!0 56 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29- 01 -201 4 , 1961 1961 1961 1961 254 254 254 254( (( (1 11 1) )) )$ $$ $ -5&5 -5&5 -5&5 -5&5 ?$@ ?$@ ?$@ ?$@ ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA,AM - -- -$ '?A $ '?A $ '?A $ '?A, ,, ,,$-. $ ' ,$-. $ ' ,$-. $ ' ,$-. $ ' : CHALLENGING THE ORDER DT.20.12.2010 OF THE CIT(A)-I ,NAGPUR,ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: (1)ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS.2.24 LAKHS IN RES PECT OF EXCESS CASH CREDITED TO THE STATUTORY RESERVE FUND. (2)THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED TH AT THE CASH AMOUNT WAS NOT CLAIMED BY ANY PERSON FOR A LONG TIME AND AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE BYE LAWS OF THE MULTI STATE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT.THIS AMOUNT WAS LIABLE TO BE TRANSFER RED TO THE STATUTORY RESERVE FUND AND THE SAME WAS ALSO LIABLE TO BE DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C. AS EXPENDITURE AS AND WHEN CLAIMED BY THE CUSTOMER. (3)THE LEARNED CIT (A) ALSO OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIAT ED THE FACT THAT THE RATIO OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B ANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. [326 ITR 526] WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF CAUSE 52(V) OF THE MULTI STATE COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT AND SUCH AMOUNT TRA NSFERRED TO THE STATUTORY RESERVE FUND ACCOUNT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT. (4)ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.45,85,599/-IN RESPECT OF ACCUMULATED BALANCE OF STALE CHEQUES TRANSFERRED TO THE STATUTORY RESERVE FUND. (5)THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED TH E FACT THAT THESE CHEQUES WERE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF CARRYING ON THE BUSIN ESS OF BANKING AND NON-ENCASHMENT THEREOF WAS AN INCIDENTAL TRADING RECEIPT ARISING TO THE ASSESS EE DURING THE COURSE OF CARRYING ON OF THE BANKING BUSINESS. (6)THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED TH E AMOUNT CREDITED ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS CASH AND STALE CHEQUES WAS CHARGEABLE TO TAX AS BUSINESS INCOME AS PER THE RATIO OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF M/S T,V.SUNDARAM IYEN GAR & SONS LTD (222 ITR 344). (7)ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME O F HEARING 2. ASSESSEE-BANK,FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.10.2 007DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.6.16 CRORES.AO FINALISED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT,ON 25.11.1999,DETERMINING THE 2 ITA NO. 44/NAG/2011 THE AKOLA URBAN CO-OP BANK LTD TOTAL INCOME AT RS.6,74,39,970/-. FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL PERTAINS TO DELETING THE ADD ITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS.2.24 LAKHS IN RESPECT OF EXCESS CASH CREDITED TO THE STATUTORY RE SERVE FUND(SRF).DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AO FOUND THAT THE SRF HAD INCREASED BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,51,56,341/-.HE CALLED FOR DETAILS IN THIS REGARD AND FOUND THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 48,41,569/- HAD BEEN CREDITED TO THE SRF WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS:- EXCESS CASH IN SUNDRIES TRANSFERRED RS.2.24 LAKH NOMINAL SHARES AMOUNT RS. 0.32 LAKH STALE CHEQUES ACCUMULATED BALANCE TRANSFERRED- RS. 45.85 LAKH RS.48.41 LAKH WHEN INQUIRED ABOUT THE EXCESS CASH THAT EXCESS CAS H OF RS. 2.24 LAKH WAS THE AMOUNT THAT WAS AVAILABLE IN VARIOUS BRANCHES FOR WHICH THERE WERE NO CLAIMANTS,THAT THE AMOUNT WAS OUTSTANDING FOR TWO YEARS,THAT SAME WAS SUBSEQUENTLY TRANSFERRE D TO THE SRF.ACCORDING TO THE AO AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4 1(1) OF THE ACT AND WAS TAXABLE,AS THERE WAS REMISSION OF LIABILITY. 2.1. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN A PPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPEAL AUTHORITY (FAA).AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSE SSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHE HELD THAT THE AO HAD NOT POINTED OUT THE YEAR IN WHICH AMOUNT UNDER APPEAL WAS CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE, THAT PROVISION OF SECTION 41(1)COULD NOT BE INVOKED,THAT ASSESSEE WAS A BANK,THAT ANY DEPOSI T OR AMOUNT PAID INTO THE ACCOUNT COULD NOT BE TREATED I NCOME OF THE BANK,THAT THE AO HAD INVOKED THE PROVISION OF SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT WITHOUT CONSI DERING WHETHER THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED BY THE SECTION APPLIED OR NOT.SHE REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD.(326 ITR526) AND ALLOWED T HE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2.2. BEFORE US,DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUPPORTE D THE ORDER OF THE AO .AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE(AR)SUBMITTED THAT AS A NORMAL PRACTI CE OF BANKING CASH USED TO BE BALANCED WITH THE CASH BOOK EVERYDAY AND THEN ONLY IT USED TO TRA NSFERRED TO THE SAFE,THAT THE BANKS WERE NOT ALLOWED TO DEPOSIT ANY AMOUNT WITHOUT IT BEING ACCO UNTED FOR AND WHICH WAS NOT GENERATED FROM THE BANKING TRANSACTIONS,THAT ON MANY OCCASIONS CUS TOMERS WOULD RENDER MORE CASH THAN HE SHOULD HAVE,THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY WHEN CASH WO ULD BE TALLIED WITH THE CASH BOOK IT WOULD RESULT IN EXCESS CASH FOUND,THAT SOMETIMES BY MISTA KE CONSTITUENT WOULD FORGET CASH IN A BRANCH WHICH NEEDED TO BE KEPT CREDITED TO SUNDRIES ACCOUN T,THAT WHEN CONSTITUENT OF THE BANK WOULD CLAIM IT SAME HAD TO BE RETURNED,THAT DURING THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 THE BANK HAD TRANSFER - RED RS. 2.24 LAKHS WHICH WAS THE EXCESS CASH IN SUN DRIES ACCOUNT TO SRF,THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1) WERE NOT APPLICABLE AS NO EXPENDITURE /DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED IN THE EARLIER YEAR/S BY THE ASSESSEE THAT PERTAINED TO EXCESS CASH,THAT THE LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS CASH RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS CUSTOMERS WAS A LIABILITY OF THE ASSES SEE WHICH WOULD BE DISCHARGED AS AN WHEN ANY CLAIMANT WITH THE REQUIRED PROOF WOULD APPROACHES B ANK AND DEMAND PAYMENT.HE RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE HIGH COURTS OF PUNJAB & HARYAN A AND RAJASTHAN DELIVERED IN THE CASES OF CHAUDHARY COTTON GINNING AND PRESSING FACTORY (271 ITR 17)AND BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD.(SUPRA) RESPECTIVELY. 2.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1) WOULD NOT APPLY SI NCE NO DEDUCTION OF CORRESPONDING AMOUNT HAD BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ANY OF THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS OR IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR IN RESPECT OF THE EXCESS CASH,THAT THERE WAS N O REMISSION OR CESSATION OF ANY LIABILITY.THUS, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR INVOKING THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF SHIVALI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE VERY FIRST CONDITION FOR INVOKING SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT IS THAT AN ALLOWANCE OR DEDUCTION OUGHT TO HAVE 3 ITA NO. 44/NAG/2011 THE AKOLA URBAN CO-OP BANK LTD BEEN MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT FOR ANY YEAR IN RESPECT OF ANY LOSS, EXPENDITURE OR TRADING LIABILITY INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE.IN THAT MATTER IT WAS FOUN D THAT NO ALLOWANCE OR DEDUCTION HAD BEEN MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT BY THE ASSESSEE IN ANY EARLIER YE AR. THEREFORE,HONBLE COURT HELD THAT THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF INVOKING SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT.WE FIND THAT QUESTION REGARDING EXCESS CASH FOUND WITH THE BANK WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE AS SESSEE BY THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BANK OF RAJASTHAN(SUPRA).IN THAT MAT TER ISSUE TO BE ADJUDICATED UPON WAS WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE TRI BUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS CASH RECEIVED AT THE CASH COUNTERS OF THE BRANCHES IN SOME YEAR?HONBLE COURT HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED B Y THE AO AND HAD HELD THAT EXCESS CASH RECEIVED AT THE CASH COUNTERS COULD NOT BE TREATED INCOME OF THE BANK. RESPECTFULLY,FOLLOWING THE ABOVE MENTIONED ORDERS O F THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS WE HOLD THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1) ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN T HE MATTER BEFORE US AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CLAIMED ANY DEDUCTION IN EARLIER YEARS.WE ALSO HOLD THAT EXCESS CASH TRANSFERRED TO SRF IS NOT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE-BANK. GROUND NO.1 IS DECIDED AGAINST THE AO. 3. NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT DELETING THE ADDITIO N AMOUNTING TO RS.45.85 LAKHS IN RESPECT OF ACCUMULATED BALANCE OF STALE CHEQUES TRANSFERRED TO THE SRF.DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AO FOUND THAT THE AMOUNT INVOLVED IN THE STALE CHEQ UES WAS RS. 48,41,569/-,THAT IT CONSISTED OF AMOUNTS OF STALE CHEQUES LYING WITH THE BANK FROM 1 979 ONWARDS,THAT UPTO AY 2006-07 ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS SHOWN AS A LIABILITY IN THE BALANCE SHEE T,THAT IN THE FY 2006-07 ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS TRANSFERRED TO SRF.AO HELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF STALE CHEQUES TRANSFERRED TO THE SRF WAS ACTUALLY UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3.1. ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPEA L AUTHORITY (FAA).AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R SHE HELD THAT THE SRF HAD BEEN CREATED TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES OF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT AND THE MULTI STATE CO-OPERATIVE ACT,2002. THE BANK REGULATION ACT REQUIRES THAT THE BANK SHOU LD MAINTAIN ITS LIQUIDITY RATIO A MINIMUM BALANCE IN THE STATUTORY RESERVE A/C.AFTER REFERRIN G TO THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE 52(V) OF THE BYE- LAWS OF THE MULTI STATE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT HE HELD THAT IT WAS NOT CLEAR AS WHETHER THE AO HAD DISBELIEVED THE ASSESSEES VERSION THAT THE SOU RCES OF THE FUNDS CREDITED TO THE STATUTORY RESERVE FUND WERE ONLY STALE CHEQUES,THAT IT WAS NO T THE CASE OF THE AO THAT HE HAD IDENTIFIED ANOTHER SOURCE OTHER THAN THE STALE CHEQUES FOR THE SE AMOUNTS,THAT AO HAD NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING AS TO WHY THE AMOUNT WAS HELD TO BE UNACCOUNTED INC OME,THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO DISCHARGE THE AMOUNT LYING IN THE STALE CHEQUE ACCOUNT AS THE LEDGER ACCOUNT HAD DETAILS OF ALL THE STALE CHEQUES,THAT THE SRF OF THE ASSESSEE CONTINUED TO R EPRESENT A LIABILITY,THAT THE AMOUNT LYING IN THE SRF OF THE ASSESSEE WAS AVAILABLE FOR PAYING ALL TH E LIABILITIES AND CLAIMS OF THE MEMBERS. SHE FURTHER HELD THAT THE MONEY RECEIVED AGAINST THE CH EQUES/DRAFTS PURCHASED BY THE CONSTITUENTS OR THE EXCESS MONEY FOUND IN THE BANK DID NOT CONSTITU TE A HEAD OF INCOME,THAT AS AND WHEN PAYMENT WAS MADE THE LIABILITY WAS STRUCK OFF AND THE ACCOU NT GOT SQUARED OFF,THAT IN CASE OF LOSS OF AN INSTRUMENT OR FOR NON SUBMISSION OF PROOF OF OWNERS HIP OF THE MONEY LEFT IN THE BANK INADV - ERTENTLY THE LIABILITY STOOD IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS OF THE BANK,THAT WHEN THE ORIGINAL INSTRUMENTS WERE LODGED WITH THE BANK OR WHEN THE OWNERSHIP WAS PROVED THE BANK NEEDED TO MAKE THE PAYMENT OF SUCH LIABILITY,THAT THE LIABILITY WAS NOT TIME B ARRED BY THE LAW OF LIMITATIONS ALTHOUGH THE CLAIMANT LOSES THE RIGHT TO RECOURSE,THAT THE B ANK HAD PAID THE LIABILITY IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT SO OUTSTANDING AT A LATER DATE,THAT AMOUNTS IN THE STALE CHEQUE WERE NOT AN ACCOUNT OF TRADING RECEIPTS,THAT SAME WERE AMOUNTS OF DEPOSITS PAYABLE BY WAY OF DRAFTS DRAWN ON THE BANKS TO VARIOUS CUSTOMERS,THAT AMOUNTS IN QUESTION DID N OT REPRESENT TRADING RECEIPTS. 4 ITA NO. 44/NAG/2011 THE AKOLA URBAN CO-OP BANK LTD AS REGARDS ASSESSABILITY OF SUCH AMOUNT U/S.41(1)OF THE ACT,FAA RELIED UPON THE CASE OF SUGAULI SUGAR WORKS (P) LTD.(236 ITR 518)DELIVERED BY THE H ONBLE APEX COURT AND HELD THAT THE SEC. CONTEMPLATED THE OBTAINING OF A BENEFIT BY THE ASSE SSEE BY VIRTUE OF REMISSION OR CESSATION WAS THE SINE QUA NON FOR THE APPLICATION OF ITS PROVISION,T HAT THE ASSESSEE-BANK HAD MADE AN ENTRY OF TRANSFER IN ITS ACCOUNTS UNILATERALLY WOULD NOT ENA BLE THE AO TO HOLD THAT SECTION 41(1) WOULD APPLY AND THE AMOUNT WAS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTA L INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE,THT THERE WAS NO CESSATION OF LIABILITY,THAT THE AO HAD NOT ESTABLIS HED THAT THE AMOUNTS OUTSTANDING IN THE STALE CHEQUE ACCOUNT REPRESENTED THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE.AS A RESULT,FAA DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 3.2. BEFORE US,DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUBMITTE D THAT STALE CHEQUES WERE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE,THAT BEYOND A CERTAIN PERIOD ASSESSEE HAD NOT TO PAY THE AMOUNT,THAT THERE WAS TIME LIMIT ABOUT REPAYMENT,THAT AMOUNT WAS LYING WITH ASSESSEE FOR LAST SO MANY YEARS,THAT AFTER EXPIRY OF CERTAIN TIME PERIOD LIABILITY OF THE BANK WOULD EXT INGUISH.AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) SUBMITTED THAT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS STALE-CHEQU E-ACCOUNT WAS CONSIDERED CURRENT LIABILITY OF THE BANK AND SAME WAS NOT AVAILABLE FOR LENDING,THA T IF THE AMOUNTS WERE TRANSFERRED TO SRF IT CONSTITUTED AS QUASI CAPITAL OF THE BANK AND COULD BE USED IN THE MEAN TIME FOR LENDING,THAT BY TRANSFERRING THE AMOUNT TO THE SRF THE FINANCIAL PO SITION OF THE BANK WAS STRENGTHENED AND IT HELPED THE BANK TO CLAIM CERTAIN BENEFITS FROM THE CONTROLLERS LIKE THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. 3.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION IN INVOKING THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 41(1).FOR CESSATION OF LIABILITY THERE SHOULD BE LIABILITY IN THE EARLIER YEARS AS H ELD EARLIER.AO HAS NOT DOUBTED THE SOURCE OF THE STALE CHEQUES.IT IS ALSO FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID SOME AMOUNTS FROM STALE CHEQUE ACCOUNT DURING THE PERIOD 1979-2005.NON PRESENTING OF CHEQU ES/DRAFTS OF CHEQUES IN TIME IS A COMMON FEATURE OF BANKING BUSINESS.BANKS ARE UNDER A FIDUC IARY OBLIGATION TO MAKE THE PAYMENT OF THE CHEQUES EITHER THROUGH THE BANK ON WHICH IT IS DRAW N/PAYABLE OR ON CANCELLATION OF THE SAME BY THE PURCHASER.THUS,IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE LIABI LITY OF THE BANK TOWARDS CUSTOMER GETS EXTINGUISHED AFTER THE CHEQUE BECOMES STALE.BANKS A RE LIABLE TO RETURN BACK THE MONEY TO THE CUSTOMER TILL HE CLAIMS IT.THEREFORE,IN OUR OPINION ,FAA HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT TRANSFERRING THE BALANCE OF STALE CHEQUES TO SRF DOES NOT EXTINGUISH THE LIABILITY OF THE BANK.FAA HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT LATER ON THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID ITS TAX LIABILITY TOWARDS THE STALE CHEQUES. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE UNDER APPEAL,WE HOLD THAT BASIC REQUIREMENTS FOR APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1) ARE MI SSING IN THE CASE AND THE ORDER OF THE FAA DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY LEGAL INFIRMITY.SO,UPHOLDING HE R ORDER WE DECIDE GROUND NO.2 AGAINST THE AO. AS A RESULT,APPEAL FILED BY THE AO STANDS DISM ISSED. B 5C &B5 6 D ?E ,F ,5 G . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH JANUARY, 2014. ?$@ 7!0 $ - 29 , 6 , 2014 ! . SD/- SD/- (H.L.KARWA/ ( (( (. .. . . .. . ) ( ,$-. ,$-. ,$-. ,$-. / RAJENDRA) PRESIDENT/ %+ $ $ $ $ '?A '?A '?A '?A /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, ? / DATE: 29.01.2014 SK ?$@ ?$@ ?$@ ?$@ 35 35 35 35 H$05 H$05 H$05 H$05 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / 12 2. RESPONDENT / 3412 5 ITA NO. 44/NAG/2011 THE AKOLA URBAN CO-OP BANK LTD 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ 'I J , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 'I J 5. DR ITAT,NAGPUR BENCH/ K 35 , . . - . - . 6. GUARD FILE/ & L . '45 35 //TRUE COPY// ?$@ ' / BY ORDER, M / ' , DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.