Keonjhar Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Keonjhar V. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Sambalpur, Sambalpur

ITA 453/CTK/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5345 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 05-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K PRADHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: P K MISHRA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Question of law; Bad and doubtful debts; Right to appeal
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, AM & SHRI PAV AN KUMAR GADALE, JM ./ ITA NO. 453 / CTK /20 1 4 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 0 - 20 1 1 ) M/S THE KEONJHAR CEN TRAL CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD., AT/PO: - KEONJHARGARH, DIST - KEONJHAR VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), SAMBALPUR ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : A AAJK 0851 F ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /AS SESSEE BY : SHRI P.K.MIS HRA , AR /REVENUE BY : SHRI D.K.PRADHAN, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 06 / 1 1 /201 7 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 08 / 11 /201 7 / O R D E R PER SHRI PAV AN KUMAR GADALE, JM : TH E ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AG AINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), CUTTACK , IN I.T. APPEAL NO. 660 / 2013 - 14 , DATED 10.04.2015 , PASSED U/S. 14 4/ 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 1 - 201 2 . (A) FOR THAT THE ORDERS OF THE FORUMS BELOW ARE EXCESSIVE AND ARBITRARY IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. (B) FOR THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.10,14,23,369/ - MADE U/S. 40(A)(IA) FOR ALLEGED NON - DEDUCTION OF TAX U/S. 194A OF THE I T. ACT ON INTEREST PAID IN FACT TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY AND THE PAYMENTS OF INTEREST ARE NEITHER ACCRUE D FROM TERM DEPOSIT NOR EXCEEDING THE STATUTORY LIMITS FOR EXIGIBILITY OF TDS. THEREFORE THE AMOUNT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADDED AS THE AMOUNTS ARE EXEMPTED FROM DEDUCTION OF TAX IN CASE OF PAYMENT TO THE MEMBERS AS DEFINED U/S.194 A(3)(V) OF THE I.T.ACT AS DECIDED IN THE CASE OF GUJURAT COOPERATIVE BANK FEDERATION VRS. UNION OF INDIA IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.11209 OF 2002 & 1465 OF 2003. HENCE THE ADDITION AS MADE IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. (C) FOR THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,79,508/ - CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION UNDER THE HEAD FOR STANDARD ASSETS IS NOT PROPER THAT THE CLAIM HAS BEEN SHOWN AS PER THE R.B.I./ NABARD GUIDELINES, WHICH IS 25% ON STANDARD ASSETS SO DETERMINED SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AND DISALLOWANCE AS MADE IS TO BE DELETED. (D) FOR THAT THE DISALLOWAN CE THE N.P.A. OF RS.2,89,66,953/ - AND RS.14,48,192.00 BEING THE OVERDUE INTEREST, WHICH IS UNREALIZED ITA NO. 453 /CTK/201 4 2 AND IRRECOVERABLE INTEREST ON NON PERFORMING ASSETS IN FACT IS A BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS FOLLOWED BY THE GUIDELINES OF NABARD. ACCORDINGLY AS PER THE SAID GUIDELINE THE N.P.A. AND INTEREST AMOUNT WILL BE TREATED AS INCOME ON RECEIPT BASIS ONLY. THUS, DEDUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. (E) FOR THAT THE POLICY IS BASED ON THE GUIDELINES AS APPROVED BY THE NABARD AND THEREFORE, UNREALIZED INCOME SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN UP OF INCOME AS THERE IS UNCERTAINTY ABOUT REALIZATION OF THE SAME. THE N.P.A. IS CREATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS. THE BENEFITS GIVEN FOR DEDUCTION U/S.36(I)(VII) AND 36(1) (VIIA) OF THE I.T. ACT IS A LOSS OR BAD ASSETS ARE TOTALLY TO BE WRITTEN OFF FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. FURTHER, THE PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS RELATING TO RURAL BRANCHES INCLUDING COOPERATIVE BANKS IS ALSO COVERED BY THE SEC. 36(I)(VIIA) OF THE 1.T. ACT. THE IA. CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE C LAIM AND HAS NOT DEALT THE ISSUE AT ALL AND STRAIGHT AWAY JUMPED TO SEC. 36(I)(VIIA) OF THE ACT ALLOWED DEDUCTION OF 7.5% OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT. THEREFORE, THERE WAS COMPLETE FAILURE TO CONSIDER THE PRINCIPLES DECIDED. (F) FOR THAT BOTH THE A.O. AND LD. C IT(A) HAVE WRONGLY INTERPRETED SEC.80P AND HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM WITHOUT GOING INTO THE FACTS AND RELEVANCY OF EXEMPTION U/S. 80P(4) AS THE ASSESSEE IS PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO IT'S MEMBERS ONLY CONFINED IN IT'S BANKING BUSINESS IN THE KEONJHAR DI STRICT ONLY FOR HELPING THE AGRICULTURISTS AND AS SUCH THE INCOME IS NOT TAXABLE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC - 80P(4) OF THE I.T.ACT. (G) FOR THAT THE BYLAW OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT RENEWED OR REVISED AFTER THE AMENDMENT OF SEC.80P OF THE IT ACT IN FINANC E .ACT 2007. (H) FOR THAT, AS PER THE N ABARD GUIDELINES THERE IS NO COMPOUND INTEREST IS TO BE CHARGED ON LOANS GIVEN TO THE MEMBERS FOR SHORT TERMS AND MEDIUM TERMS LOANS LIKE OTHER COMMERCIAL BANKS ARE CHARGING, HENCE DISALLOWANCE OF BENEFIT U/S.80P O F THE IT ACT IS ILLEGAL AND NOT PROPER IN LAW. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS, WHICH ARE AS UNDER: - 1. THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11, ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE A.0 BY DISALLOWING CLAIMS OF EXPENSES TOWAR DS INTEREST PAID TO MEMBERS, PROVISIONS FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS, PAYMENT OF COMMISSION & PROVISION FOR GRATUITY AND RAISED A DEMAND OF RS. 5,44,75,461.00. 2. THAT BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER PASSED LEARNED C.I.T(A),CUTTACK, THE APPELLANT BANK PREFER RED APPEAL BEFORE THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. WHILE DRAFTING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL INADVERTENTLY ONE SUBSTANTIAL GROUND REGARDING CLAIM OF DEDUCTION AVAILABLE U/S.80P(2)(D) WAS NOT TAKEN. SINCE THE ITA NO. 453 /CTK/201 4 3 APPELLANT IS IGNORANT OF TAX LAW, IT DEPENDED SOLELY ON THE GRO UNDS TAKEN BY ITS PREVIOUS COUNSEL, HOWEVER WHILE CONSULTING THE PRESENT COUNSEL, IT CAME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS GROUND HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN. THE GROUNDS THE APPELLANT NOW WANTS TO TAKE IS AS FOLLOWS; 'THAT, THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELO W SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT U/S.80P(2)(D) ON THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY IT OF RS.8,81,85,218.00 INCLUDED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, WHILE DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE NEEDS TO BE REDUCED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 3. THAT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE CASE. IF THIS GROUND IS NOT ADMITTED AND NOT ADJUDICATED THE APPELLANT WILL BE HIGHLY PREJUDICED AND WILL BE PUT TO IRREPARABLE LOSS. HENCE THE PRYAER UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES STATED ABOVE, IT IS THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT, THIS HONBLE TRIBUNAL SHALL BE GRACIOUSLY PLEASED TO CONSIDER THE GENUINE DIFFICULTIES FACED BY THE ASSESSEE AND BE FURTHER PLEASED TO ACCEPT TH E ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL ALONG WITH THE REVISED CONSOLIDATED GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE ON MERIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. LD. DR VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF ADDITIONAL GROUND S . 3. FROM THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAIS ED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THE GROUND RAISED WAS WITH RESPECT TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT OF INTEREST OR DIVIDEND INCOME OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETY AND THE PROVISIONS READS AS UNDER : - (D) IN RESPECT OF ANY INCOME BY WAY OF INTEREST OR DIVIDENDS DERIVED BY THE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY FROM ITS INVESTMENTS WITH ANY OTHER COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, THE WHOLE OF SUCH INCOME; LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUND RAISED IS LEGAL GROUND AND THE SOCIETY IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE BENEFIT . WE CONSIDERED THE SUBMI SSIONS OF LD. AR AND THE FACT REMAINS THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BEFORE US IS CONNECTED TO ASSESSEES STATUS OF BANKING ACTIVITIES AND THEREFORE ON THE PRINCIPLE S OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE DEPRIVED ANY BENEFIT ALLOWABLE ITA NO. 453 /CTK/201 4 4 UNDER LAW AND WE SUPPORT OUR VIEWS RELYING ON THE DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. VS. CIT, 229 ITR 383, WHERE IT WAS OBSERVED AS UNDER : - HELD : UNDER SECTION 254, THE TRIBUNAL MAY, AFTER GIVING BOTH THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL AN OPPORT UNITY OF BEING HEARD, PASS SUCH ORDERS THEREON AS IT THINKS FIT. THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN DEALING WITH APPEALS IS THUS EXPRESSED IN THE WIDEST POSSIBLE TERMS. THE PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TAXING AUTHORITIES IS TO ASSESS CORRECTL Y THE TAX LIABILITY OF AN ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IF, FOR EXAMPLE, AS A RESULT OF A JUDICIAL DECISION GIVEN WHILE THE APPEAL IS PENDING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, IT IS FOUND THAT A NON - TAXABLE ITEM IS TAXED OR A PERMISSIBLE DEDUCTION IS DENIED, THERE I S NO REASON WHY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE PREVENTED FROM RAISING THAT QUESTION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE FIRST TIME, SO LONG AS THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE ON RECORD IN RESPECT OF THAT ITEM. THERE IS NO REASON TO RESTRICT THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 254 ONLY TO DECIDE THE GROUNDS WHICH ARISE FROM THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). BOTH THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE DEPARTMENT HAVE A RIGHT TO FILE AN APPEAL/CROSS OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE. TRIBUNAL SHOULD BE PREVENT ED FROM CONSIDERING QUESTIONS OF LAW ARISING IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED EARLIER. THE VIEW THAT THE TRIBUNAL IS CONFINED ONLY TO ISSUES ARISING OUT OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) TAKES TOO NARROW A VIEW OF THE POWERS OF T HE TRIBUNAL. UNDOUBTEDLY, THE TRIBUNAL WILL HAVE THE DISCRETION TO ALLOW OR NOT ALLOW A NEW GROUND TO BE RAISED. BUT WHERE THE TRIBUNAL IS ONLY REQUIRED TO CONSIDER A QUESTION OF LAW ARISING FROM THE FACTS WHICH ARE ON RECORD IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THERE IS NO REASON WHY SUCH A QUESTION SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE RAISED WHEN IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THAT QUESTION IN ORDER TO CORRECTLY ASSESS THE TAX LIABILITY OF AN ASSESSEE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL HAD JURISDICTION TO EXAMINE A QUESTION OF LAW WHICH AROSE FROM THE FACTS AS FOUND BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND HAVING A BEARING ON THE TAX LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE DENIED PERMISSIBLE DEDUCTION AND THEREFORE, WE ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS A ND REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO TO EXAMINE AND VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE PROVIDED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AND COOPERATE IN SUBMITTING THE INFORMATION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER . ITA NO. 453 /CTK/201 4 5 4. ON THE SECOND DISPUTED ISSUE, LD. AR FILED APPLICATION FOR ACCEPTANCE OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF CLAIMS WHICH THE REVENUE HAS VEHEMENTLY OBJECTED. 5. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COOPERATIVE BANK ENGAGED IN BANKING BUSINESS AND FILED THE RETURN OF INCO ME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 2011 ON 14.10.2010 WITH TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,42,128/ - AND THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND NOTICE U/S.143(2) & 142(1) WERE DULY SERV ED ON THE ASSESSEE . IN COMPLIANCE, LD. AR SUBMITTED THE DOCUMENTS AND THE AO AFTER DISCUSSING THE FACTS AND PERUSING THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TDS IN RESPECT OF INTEREST PAID ON DEPOSIT. LD. AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSE E IS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TDS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194A ON THE INTEREST PAYMENTS AND WHEREAS THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TDS AND RELIED ON THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS. HOWEVER, THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBS TANTIATE WITH ANY EVIDENCE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS OBLIGATION IN PROVIDING THE DETAILS OF INTEREST PAYMENTS AND REASONS FOR NON - DEDUCTION OF TDS AND FINALLY MADE ADDITION OF RS.10,14,23,369/ - . SIMILARLY, THE AO MADE ADDITION AL PAYMENT OF COMMISSION OF RS.2,74,979/ - , PROVISION FOR STANDARD ASSETS OF RS.4,79,508/ - , RS.65,47,610/ - ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION FOR GRATUITY AND RS. 1,99,61,440/ - AND ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.12,89,29,034/ - AND PASSED THE ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT, DATED 1 1.03.2013 . ITA NO. 453 /CTK/201 4 6 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, LD. AR ARGUED THE GROUNDS AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD . AR AND FINDINGS OF THE AO AND RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT TO RS.6,44,54,443/ - . WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE ON COMMISSION AND GRATUITY THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. IN REGARD TO DEDUCTION UNDER THE HEAD STANDARD ASSETS, RESERV E FOR NPA AND OVERDUE INTEREST RESERVE, THE CIT(A) PARTLY GI VEN THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AND PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 8. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR OF THE A SSESSEE FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WITH AFFIDAVIT IN RESPECT OF DETAILS OF PAYMENT OF INTEREST MADE TO THE MEMBERS AND OTHERS AND SUBSTANTIATED WITH VOLUMINOUS DOCUMENTS, WHEREAS THE LD. DR OBJECTED TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 9. WE HAVE HEAR D RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. PRIMA FACIE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED DETAILS BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND FOR THE FIRST TIME, THIS INFORMATION IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR AND PRAYED FOR ALLOWING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. WE FOUND THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAS OBJECTED TO THIS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS THE AO WAS DEPRIVED TO VERIFY AND EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE AND THE ASSESSEE FOR VARIOUS REASONS COULD NOT FILE THIS INFORMATION IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. WE CONSIDERING THE ITA NO. 453 /CTK/201 4 7 PRINCIPLE S OF NATURAL JUSTICE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT AN OPPORTUNITY BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM BEFORE THE TAX AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, WE REMIT THE ENTIRE DISPUTED ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO TO EXAMI NE AND VERIFY THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED AND PASS THE ORDER. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE PROVIDED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AND SHALL COOPERATE IN SUBMITTING THE INFORMATION . A CCORDINGLY THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATI STICAL PURPOSES. 10. IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTION U/S.36(I)(VIIA) OF THE ACT, WE FOUND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIM OF 10% AVERAGE RURAL ADVANCE S . W E ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED AND EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR GRANTING THE RELIEF. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE SUBSTANTIAL VIEW THAT THE AO BE PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE AND PASS THE ORDER AND WE REMIT THE ENTIRE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AND WE ALLOW THI S GROUND OF ASSESSEE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 08 / 11 / 201 7 . SD/ - ( N. S. SAINI ) SD/ - ( PA V AN KUMAR GADALE ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER CUTTACK ; DATED 08 / 11 /201 7 . . / PKM , SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITA NO. 453 /CTK/201 4 8 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, ( SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ) , / ITAT, CUTTACK SR. NO. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATION SHEETS ARE ATTACHED YES SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT DICTATED ON 7 .11.2017 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 7 .11.2017 SR.PS/PS 4 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMB ER JM/AM 5 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 6 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/PS 7 ORDER PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 8 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 9 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 11 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER 1. / THE APPELLANT - M/S THE KEONJHA R CENTRAL CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD., AT/PO: - KEONJHARGARH, DIST - KEONJHAR 2. / THE RESPONDENT - ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), SAMBALPUR 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, CU TTACK 6. / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//