Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2361 (ITAT-COCHIN)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
24-10-2019
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
DB
Assessment Year
misc
Appeal Filed On
17-09-2019
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJAR I, AM & SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JM ITA NO. 525 /COCH/201 9 : A.Y. 2013 - 2014 (24Q - Q4) ITA NO. 526 /COCH/201 9 : A.Y. 2013 - 2014 (26Q - Q4) ITA NO. 527 /COCH/201 9 : A.Y. 2013 - 2014 (27Q - Q3) ITA NO. 528 /COCH/201 9 : A.Y. 2013 - 2014 (27Q - Q4) M/S. CSB BANK LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LIMITED) THUMPAMON BRANCH PATHANAMTHITTA P AN : AABCT0024D . VS. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX , CPC, (TDS) GHAZIABAD. ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 529 /COCH/201 9 : A.Y. 2013 - 2014 (24Q - Q4) ITA NO. 530 /COCH/201 9 : A.Y. 2013 - 2014 (27Q - Q4) M/S.CSB BANK LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LIMITED) KURUPPANTHARA BRANCH KOTTAYAM PAN : AABCT0024D. VS. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CPC, (TDS) GHAZIABAD. ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 531 /COCH/201 9 : A.Y. 2013 - 2014 (24Q - Q4) ITA NO. 532 /COCH/201 9 : A.Y. 2013 - 2014 (26Q - Q4) ITA NO. 533 /COCH/201 9 : A.Y. 2013 - 2014 (27Q - Q4) M/S.CSB BANK LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LIMITED) VALLICODE BRANCH PATHANAMTHITTA PAN : AABCT0024D. VS. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (TDS) GHAZIABAD. ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 525 /COCH/2019 & ORS . M/S. CSB BANK LIMITED . 2 ITA NO. 534 /COCH/201 9 : A.Y. 2015 - 2016 (24Q - Q4) ITA NO. 535 /COCH/201 9 : A.Y. 2015 - 2016 (27Q - Q4) M/S.CSB BANK LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LIMITED) PUNNAVELI BRANCH PATHANAMTHITTA PAN : AABCT0024D. VS. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (TDS) GHAZIABAD. ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 536 /COCH/201 9 : A.Y. 2014 - 2015 (26Q - Q1) ITA NO. 537 /COCH/201 9 : A.Y. 2013 - 2014 (26Q - Q2) ITA NO. 538 /COCH/201 9 : A.Y. 2013 - 2014 (26Q - Q4) M/S.CSB BANK LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LIMITED) PATHANAMTHITTA BRANCH PATHANAMTHITTA PAN : AABCT0024D. VS. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (TDS) GHAZIABAD. ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 539 /COCH/201 9 : A.Y. 2014 - 2015 (24Q - Q1) ITA NO. 540 /COCH/201 9 : A.Y. 2014 - 2015 (26Q - Q1) ITA NO. 541 /COCH/201 9 : A.Y. 2013 - 2014 (26Q - Q2) ITA NO. 542 /COCH/201 9 : A.Y. 2013 - 2014 (26Q - Q3) M/S.CSB BANK LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LIMITED) THOTTAKKAD BRANCH KOTTAYAM. PAN : AABCT0024D. VS. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (TDS) GHAZIABAD. ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 525 /COCH/2019 & ORS . M/S. CSB BANK LIMITED . 3 ITA NO. 543 /COCH/201 9 : A.Y. 2015 - 2016 (26Q - Q3) ITA NO. 544 /COCH/201 9 : A.Y. 2015 - 2016 (27Q - Q3) M/S.CSB BANK LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LIMITED) THUMPAMON BRANCH PATHANAMTHITTA PAN : AABCT0024D. VS. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (TDS) GHAZIABAD. ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : --- NONE --- (WRITTEN SUBMISSION) RESPONDENT BY : SMT.A.S.BINDHU , SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 2 3 .10.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 .10.2019 O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, JM THESE APPEALS AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE CIT(A). THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE 2013 - 2014 TO 2015 - 2016. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE RAISED IN THESE APPEALS, THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATE ORDER. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS: T HE DY.CIT, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL (CPC), TDS RANGE, GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013 - 2014, 2014 - 2015 AND 2015 - 2016 , HAD PASSED ORDERS AND LEVIED INTEREST U/S 234E OF THE I.T.ACT. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS PASSED LEVYING INTEREST U/S 234E OF THE I.T.ACT, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEALS TO THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THERE WAS DELAY IN FILING APPEALS BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEALS ITA NO. 525 /COCH/2019 & ORS . M/S. CSB BANK LIMITED . 4 OF THE ASSES SEE WITHOUT CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE HIM AND DID NOT DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERITS. THE DETAILS OF THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE AMOUNT INVOLVED ARE AS FOLLOWS: - BR. NAME ITA NO. PERIOD & FORM DATE OF RECEIP T OF THE ORDER IN EMAIL DUE DATE FOR FILING APPEAL APPEAL FILING DATE DAYS OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL AMOUNT THUMPAMON 525 TO 258 /C/2019 2012 - 13 24Q/Q4 26.02.2015 28.03.2015 14.06.2018 1174 41325 - DO - - DO - 2012 - 13 26Q/Q4 26.02.2015 28.03.2015 14.06.2018 1174 8755 - DO - - DO - 2012 - 13 27Q/Q3 21.10.2014 20.11.2014 14.06.2018 1302 15527 - DO - - DO - 2012 - 13 27Q/Q4 26.02.2015 28.03.2015 14.06.2018 1174 5210 KURUPPAN - THARA 529 TO 530 /C/19 2012 - 13 24Q/Q4 26.01.2014 25.02.2014 17.09.2018 1665 5200 - DO - - DO - 2012 - 13 27Q/Q4 26.01.2014 25.02.2014 17.09.2018 1665 5200 VALLICODE 531 TO 533/ C/2019 2012 - 13 24Q/Q4 27.04.2014 27.05.2014 15.09.2018 1572 7200 - DO - - DO - 2012 - 13 26Q/Q4 28.07.2013 27.08.2013 15.09.2018 1845 7200 - DO - - DO - 2012 - 13 27Q/Q4 01.03.2014 31.03.2014 15.09.2018 1629 5266 PUNNAVELI 534 & 535/ C/2019 2012 - 13 26Q/Q2 06.09.2013 06.10.2013 15.09.2018 1805 16800 - DO - - DO - 2014 - 15 27Q/Q4 15.08.2015 14.09.2015 05.12.2018 1178 16520 PATHANAM - THITTA 536 TO 538/ C/2019 2012 - 13 26Q/Q2 06.09.2013 06.10.2013 15.09.2018 1805 16800 - DO - - DO - 2012 - 13 26Q/Q4 06.09.2013 06.10.2013 15.09.2018 1805 20000 ITA NO. 525 /COCH/2019 & ORS . M/S. CSB BANK LIMITED . 5 - DO - - DO - 2012 - 13 26Q/Q1 10.09.2013 10.10.2013 15.09.2018 1801 7800 THOTTAKKAD 539 TO 542/ C/2019 2012 - 13 26Q/Q2 20.12.2013 19.01.2014 24.09.2018 1709 2800 - DO - - DO - 2012 - 13 26Q/Q3 26.01.2014 25.02.2014 24.09.2018 1672 4000 - DO - - DO - 2013 - 14 24Q/Q1 02.12.2013 01.01.2014 24.09.2018 1727 8600 - DO - - DO - 2013 - 14 26Q/Q1 16.03.2014 15.04.2014 24.09.2018 1623 7000 NALUKODI 543 & 544/ C/2019 2014 - 15 26Q/Q3 29.07.2015 28.08.2015 05.12.2018 1195 16289 - DO - - DO - 2014 - 15 27Q/Q3 03.08.2015 02.09.2015 05.12.2018 1190 36400 254892 4 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) IN REJECTING THE ASSESSEES APPEALS IN LIMINE WITHOUT CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THESE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. T HE REASONS FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS EXPLAINED BY STATING THAT THE OFFICER HANDLING THE TDS ISS UE WAS TRANSFERRED FROM THE CONCERNED BRANCH AND THE HEAD OFFICE SUBSEQUENTLY NOTICED THE NEED OF FILING THE APPEALS AND HENCE THE APPEALS WERE FILED BELATEDLY. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED A BRIEF WRITTEN SUBMISSION AS REGARDS THE BELATED FILING THE APPEAL S BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND THE PRAYER FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND THE SAME READS AS FOLLOW: - PRAYER FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY . 1. THE INCOME TAX MATTERS OF THE BANK, EXCEPT PERIODIC FILING OF TDS RETURNS WHICH WERE DONE AT THE BRANCH LEVEL, ARE BEING HANDLED AT HEAD OFFICE. ITA NO. 525 /COCH/2019 & ORS . M/S. CSB BANK LIMITED . 6 THE SAID TDS RETURN WAS PROCESSED AT CPC AND INTIMATION U/S 200A WAS SERVED TO BRANCH. BRANCH OFFICIALS ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS REASONS SUCH AS PRESSURE OF WORK, AUDIT, ANNUAL CLOSING ETC., DID NOT INFORM H EAD OFFICE OF RECEIPT OF SUCH INTIMATION. WHEN THE HEAD OFFICE CAME TO KNOW ABOUT DEFAULT U/S 234E WHICH WAS FOUND FROM THE CONSOLIDATED DEFAULT REPORT OF THE BANK THE SAME WAS TAKEN UP WITH BRANCHES WHO THEN INFORMED OF RECEIPT OF SUCH INTIMATIONS. AS THE APPEALS HAD TO BE FILED AT HEAD OFFICE AND AS THERE WAS DELAY IN BRANCHES INTIMATING THE HEAD OFFICE, THE APPEALS COULD NOT BE FILED IN TIME. 2. FURTHER THERE WAS ALSO AN ISSUE AT THAT POINT OF TIME ON WHETHER APPEALS COULD BE FILED AGAINST INTIMATION U /S 200A WHICH ALSO ADDED TO THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL. FURTHER APPEALS QUESTIONING THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE SECTION WAS PENDING BEFORE VARIOUS HIGH COURTS AT THAT TIME. 3. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DERIVED ANY BENEFIT WHATSOEVER BY NOT FILING THE QUARTERLY TDS STATEMENT IN TIME AS THE AMOUNT OF TDS WAS DULY DEPOSITED IN THE GOVERNMENT TREASURY WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME AND SUCH DELAY HAS NOT CAUSED ANY LOSS TO THE REVENUE. 4. IMPOSING THE PENALTY WILL CREATE A GENUINE HARDSHIP TO STAFF MEMBERS OF THE BANK AND ALSO TO THE APPELLANT. 5. WE HUMBLY REQUEST YOU TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL AND DISPOSE THE APPEAL BASED ON THE MERITS. THE APPELLANT RELIES ON THE FOLLOW ING DECISIONS OF HON: SUPREME COURT (A) IMPROVEMENT TRUST, LUDHIANA VS UJAGAR SINGH & OTHERS. (B) COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION, ... VS MST. KATIJI & ORS ON 19 FEBRUARY, 1987, 1987 AIR 1353 ITA NO. 525 /COCH/2019 & ORS . M/S. CSB BANK LIMITED . 7 (C) NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. V. SMT. SHANTI MISRA, AIR 1976 SC 237. (D) N. BALAKRISHNAN VS M. KRISHNAMURTHY, DATE OF JUDGEMENT 03/09/1998. IN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, LUDHIANA VS UJAGAR SINGH & OTHERS IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 'AS A NORMAL RULE, DELAY SHOULD BE CONDONED. IN THE LEGAL ARENA, AN ATTEMPT SHOULD ALWAYS BE MADE TO ALLOW THE MATTER TO BE CONTESTED ON MERITS RATHER THAN TO THROW IT ON SUCH TECHNICALITIES. JUSTICE CAN BE DONE ONLY WHEN THE MATTER IS FOUGHT ON MERITS A ND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW RATHER THAN TO DISPOSE IT OF ON SUCH TECHNICALITIES AND THAT TOO ON THRESHOLD'. IT IS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR DELAY, THE ID. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONDONATION PETITION FILED BY APPELLANT AND CONDONED THE DELAY RATHER THAN DISMISSING THE APPEAL ON DELAY. 5 . THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE PRESENT SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN QUESTION IS COVERED BY THE ORDER S OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.341/COCH/20 18 & ORS. (ORDER DATED 08.10.2018). IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED DR THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, CITED SUPRA, HAD CONFIRMED THE CIT(A)S ORDERS WHEREIN THE ASSESSEES APPEALS WERE DISMISSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WITHOUT CONDONING THE DELAY. THEREFORE, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED DR THAT THE FACTS BEING IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE FACTS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE, CITED SUPRA, THESE APPEALS MAY BE REJECTED IN LIMINE SINCE THERE WAS NO JUSTIFIABLE REASONS FOR FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(A) BELATEDLY. ITA NO. 525 /COCH/2019 & ORS . M/S. CSB BANK LIMITED . 8 6 . AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE , A WRITTEN SUBMISSION HAS BEEN FILED . THEREFORE , WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THESE APPEALS AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR. 7 . WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE CIT(A) STATING THEREIN THE REASONS FOR BELATED FILING OF APPEALS BEFORE HIM. IDENTICAL REASONS ARE GIVEN IN ALL THE APP EALS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE, CITED SUPRA, HAVE CONSIDERED AN IDENTICAL ISSUE AND HAS CONFIRMED THE CIT(A)S ORDER IN REJECTING THE ASSESSEES PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES O WN CASE (SUPRA), READS AS FOLLOW: - 6. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE WERE NO AFFIDAVITS FROM THE CONCERNED PERSONS WHO ARE HANDLING THE IMPUGNED ISSUES AND WHO ARE REQUIRED TO TAKE PROPER STEPS IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(A). IN OUR OPINION, THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH IS WITHOUT DOUBT BINDING UPON US AND WE ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW IT. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, CITED SUPRA DOES NOT GIVE ANY SUCH BLANKET DIRECTION AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR TO CONDONE THE DELAY AS IT DOES NOT IN ANY WAY FETTER THE TRIBUNAL FROM EXERCISING ITS DISCRETION TO CONDONE OR NOT TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS. THE CONDONATION PETITION WILL HAVE TO BE CASE SPECIFIC AND THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL CITED BY THE LD. AR CANNOT BE R EAD SO AS TO IGNORE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASES. THUS, THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL CANNOT BE ACCEPTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE CONDONED. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO US, EACH CASE FOR CO NDONATION OF DELAY WOULD HAVE TO BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF THE EXPLANATION OFFERED FOR THE DELAY, I.E. IS IT BONAFIDE OR NOT, CONCOCTED OR NOT OR DOES IT EVIDENCE NEGLIGENCE OR NOT. FURTHER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS A SCHEDULED BANK SUPPORTED BY A LARGE NUMBER OF PERSONNEL AND ALSO ASSISTED BY QUALIFIED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS AND ADVOCATES. THE REASON AS COME OUT FROM THE ITA NO. 525 /COCH/2019 & ORS . M/S. CSB BANK LIMITED . 9 CONDONATION PETITIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AS STATED EARLIER, IS THAT THERE WAS TRANSFER OF THE OFFICER WHO WAS HANDLING THE ISSUE. WE CANNOT ACCEPT SUCH PROPOSITION AS IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASON TO CONDONE THE DELAY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IS TO BE CONDONED SINCE THE ISSUE ON MERIT COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS SUBMISSION IGNO RES THE FACT THAT THE OBJECT OF THE LAW OF LIMITATION IS TO BRING CERTAINTY AND FINALITY TO LITIGATION. THIS IS BASED ON THE MAXIM INTEREST REIPUBLICAE SIT FINIS LITIUM I.E. FOR THE GENERAL BENEFIT OF THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE, BECAUSE THE OBJECT IS EVERY L EGAL REMEDY MUST BE ALIVE FOR A LEGISLATIVELY FIXED PERIOD OF TIME. THE OBJECT IS TO GET ON WITH LIFE, IF YOU HAVE FAILED TO FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD PROVIDED BY THE STATUTE. IT IS FOR THE GENERAL BENEFIT OF THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY SO AS TO ENSURE T HAT STALE AND OLD MATTERS ARE NOT AGITATED AND THE PARTY WHO IS AGGRIEVED BY AN ORDER CAN EXPEDITIOUSLY MOVER HIGHER FORUM TO CHALLENGE THE SAME, IF HE IS AGGRIEVED BY IT. AS OBSERVED BY THE APEX COURT IN MANY CASES, THE LAW ASSIST THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS AS FOUND IN THE MAXIM VILILANTIBUS NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT. IN OUR OPINION, MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT VIGILANT, IT CANNOT FOLLOW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS BESTOWED WITH A RIGHT TO THE DELAY BEING CO NDONED. WE ARE CONSCIOUS OF THE FACT THAT THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION SHOULD NOT COME AS AN HINDRANCE TO DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE BETWEEN THE PARTIES. HOWEVER, AT THE SAME TIME, A PARTY CANNOT SLEEP OVER ITS RIGHT IGNORING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION AND WITHOU T GIVING SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY, EXCEPT ITS APPEAL TO BE ENTERTAINED MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE IS A BANK. APPEALS FILED BEYOND A PERIOD OF LIMITATION HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINED BY US WHERE THE DELAY HAS BEEN SUFFICIENTLY EXPLAINE D SUCH AS IN CASES OF BONAFIDE MISTAKE. THUS THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE WELL AWARE OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION AND SHOULD PURSUE ITS REMEDIES DILIGENTLY. IT CANNOT EXPECT THEIR APPEALS BE ENTERTAINED BECAUSE THEY ARE AFTER ALL THE ASSESSEE, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT DELAY IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY EXPLAINED. HENCE, THE DELAY IS NOT CONDONED AND THE APPEALS ARE UNADMITTED. 7 .1 SINCE THE FACTS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND THE FACTS OF THESE CASES ARE IDENTIC AL, WE FOLLOW THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH ORDER AND UPHOLD THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITYS ORDER IN THESE CASES. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO. 525 /COCH/2019 & ORS . M/S. CSB BANK LIMITED . 10 8 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 24 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 . SD/ - SD/ - ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) ( GEORGE GEORGE K ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN ; DATED : 24 TH OCTOBER, 2019 . DEV A DAS G * COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, COCHIN 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE PR.CIT, KOCHI. 4. THE J CIT RANGE - 2, THRISSUR. 5. THE DR, ITAT, COCHIN 6. GUARD FILE.
Mehul