IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 43 TO 46 /P A N/201 6 (ASST. YEAR S: 2011 12, 2012 13, 2013 14, 2014 15) ANDHRA BANK BRANCH MANAGER, BELAGAVI BRANCH SAMSUKHA COMPLEX, KHADE BAZAR BELAGAVI 590 001 . V. THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER (TDS) FK COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, OPP OSITE . DISTRICT HOSPITAL. DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD BELAGAVI 59 0 001 PAN NO. AABCA 7375C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SHIVPRASAD S PARNATTI CA . DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH . - DR DATE OF HEARING : 13/02/2017 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13/02/2017 . O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER 1 . THESE ARE THE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED. CIT(A ) BELAGAVI REFUSING TO GRANT STAY OF DEMAND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 12, 2012 13, 2013 14, 2014 15. SHRI SIVAP RASAD S PARNATHI, CA, REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI MANJIT SING LEARNED. DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 2 . AT THE TIME OF HEARING IT IS FAIRLY AGREED BY BOTH THE SIDES THAT THE ISSUE IN THESE APPEALS WAS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE IN ITA NO. 464 TO 467 / PNJ / 2015 DATED 03.01.2017 WHER EIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS FOLLOWS: 5. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE HIGH COURT AT ALLAHABAD HAS ADMITTED A SIMILAR QUESTION IN THE CASE OF PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME 2 ITA NO S . 43 TO 46 /P A N/201 6 ANDHRA BANK, BELAGAVI TAX I AAYAKAR BHAWAN LUCKNOW V. M/S U.P SHIRAM EVAM NIRMAN SHANKARI SANGH LTD., LUCKNOW. THE QUE STION ADMITTED IS: - Q.1. WHETHER UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FAILED TO CONSIDER ITS OWN THIRD MEMBER BENCH JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF RAJYA KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI PARISHAD VS. ITO 2(2), LUCKNOW DAT ED 22.04.2014 FOR A.Y. 2001 02 TO 2003 04 AND 2006 07 IN 153 ITD 101(TM) (LKO) (2015) WHEREIN, IT HAD BEEN HELD THAT APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR GRANT OF STAY OF TAX DEMAND WERE NOT MAINTAINABLE AND, THEREFORE, THE LEARNED ITAT OUGHT TO HAVE DISMISSE D THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE INSTEAD OF ADMITTING & ALLOWING THE APPEAL CONTRARY TO LAW....... 6 . SINCE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AT ALLAHABAD IS DEALING WITH THIS QUESTION IN THE CASE AS NOTICED BY US IT WOULD NOT BE PROPER FOR US TO PROCEED WITH THE MATTER FURTHER. 7. AN APPREHENSION HAS BEEN EXPRESSED BY THE COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE WE HAVE NOT PRONOUNCED UPON THE REFERENCE, THE INTERESTS OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE P ROTECTED. WE FIND THAT THIS APPREHENSION IS NOT WELL FOUNDED AS I T IS ALWAYS OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE A PROPER APPLICATION FOR STAY OF RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. 3 . I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION . RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SPECIAL BENCH, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISPOSED OFF ON IDENTICAL LINES AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SPECIAL BENCH REFER (SUPRA). 4 . IN THE RESULT APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON MONDAY , THE 13 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017 AT GOA . SD/ - (GEORGE MATHAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 13 TH FEBRUARY, 2017. VSSGB / - 3 ITA NO S . 43 TO 46 /P A N/201 6 ANDHRA BANK, BELAGAVI COPY TO: 1 . THE ASSESSEE. 2 . THE REVENUE. 3 . THE CIT 4 . THE CIT(A), 5 . THE D.R. 6 . GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PANAJI