The I, Jammu V. The Branch Manager, Jammu

ITA 624/ASR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7724 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 02-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Rule of consistency

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 623 & 624(ASR)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2007-08 & 2008-09 PAN :AMRJI0209D THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), VS. THE BRANCH MANA GER, JAMMU. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD. JAMMU. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH. TARSEM LAL, DR RESPONDENT BY:SH. R.K. GUPTA, CA DATE OF HEARING:02/07/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:09/07/2012 ORDER PER BENCH ; THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEALS AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF CIT(A), JAMMU, DATED 03.10.2011 FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 & 2008-09. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED COMMON GROUNDS IN BOTH THE APPEALS. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO.623(ASR)/2011 ARE REPR ODUCED HEREUNDER: 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING TH AT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT ANY TAX AT SOURCE ON INTER EST ACCRUED ON FDRS HELD BY THE JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RELYIN G ON THE NOTIFICATION NO.3489 DATED 22.10.1970. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE FA CT THE JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IS NOT A CORPORATION BUT A LO CAL ITA NOS. 623 & 624(ASR)/2011 2 AUTHORITY AND IS ALSO FILING ITS RETURN OF INCOME I N THE STATUS OF LOCAL AUTHORITY. 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING TH E FACT THAT IN VIEW OF THE AMENDMENT MADE IN SECTION 10(2) W.E.F. 01.10.2003 THE BENEFITS CONFERRED BY CLAUSE (20A) ON SUCH AUTH ORITY WAS TAKEN AWAY. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, AMEN D, MODIFY, DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT TH E TIME OF HEARING. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING SH. R.K. GUPTA, CA, AUTHO RISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT EXACTLY SIMILAR ISSUE I N DISPUTE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEALS HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED AND DECIDED I N FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH, VIDE ORDER DATED 24TH APRI L, 2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2010-2011 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. HE HAS ALSO FILED A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 24 TH APRIL, 2012 FOR PERUSAL OF THE BENCH. HE STATED THAT KEEPING IN VIEW THE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 24 TH APRIL, 2012, THE PRESENT APPEALS FILED BY THE DEPA RTMENT MAY BE DISMISSED. 3. THE LD. DR, MR. TARSEM LAL, ON THE OTHER HAND, F ILED HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 02.07.2012 BEFORE THE BENCH IN RE SPECT OF BOTH THE APPEALS. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE CONTENTS OF HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, HONBLE BENCH HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSES SEE VIDE ORDER IN ITA NO.206 TO 210/ASR/2011 DATED 24.04.2012. IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID ORDER CARRIES MISTAKES AND OMISSIONS IN SO FAR AS THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE UNDERSIGNED HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AND ADJUDICATED. THE CORE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS ITA NOS. 623 & 624(ASR)/2011 3 IS AS TO WHETHER THE JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T O WHOM THE ASSESSEE BANK PAID INTEREST WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TA X COMES WITHIN THE AMBIT OF ENTRY NO.39 OF THE NOTIFICATION. IT WAS EX PLAINED TO THE HONBLE BENCH BY WAY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS THAT T HE JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BY A CENTRAL, STATE OR PROVINCIAL ACT AND IS RATHER A BODY FORMED UNDER TH E JAMMU & KASHMIR DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1970. THE DISTINCTION BETW EEN A CORPORATE BODY ESTABLISHED BY A CENTRAL OR STATE OR PROVINCIA L ACT AND A BODY FORMED UNDER A STATE ACT WAS DULY EXPLAINED TO THE HONBLE BENCH BY TAKING STEELY SUPPORT FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DALCO ENGINEERING PRIVATE LTD . VS. SHREE SATISH PRABHAKAR PADHYE & OTHERS IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.1886 O F 2007 DATED 31.3.2010. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE DELHI BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF CHIEF/SENIOR MANAGER , ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE VS. ITO (TDS & SURVEY) DATED 15.07.2011 ALSO CONTAINED A MISTAKE IN AS MUCH AS THE HONBLE DELHI BENCH HAD NOT TAKEN NOTE OF THE FACT THAT AS PER ENTRY NO.39, A B ODY CORPORATION ESTABLISHED BY A CENTRAL ACT OR STATE ACT OR PROVIN CIAL ACT IS EXEMPT FROM THE DEDUCTION OF TAX AND NOT A BODY WHICH WAS FORMED UNDER ANY CENTRAL OR STATE OF PROVINCIAL ACT. THEREFORE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE DELHI BENCH S AFOREMENTIONED ORDER WOULD AMOUNT TO COMMITTING AGAIN A MISTAKE AN D IT WAS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE SAID ORDER OF THE HONBLE DELHI BEN CH MAY NOT BEEN FOLLOWED AND THE ISSUE BE DECIDED ON MERITS OF THE CASE AS ARGUED BEFORE THE HONBLE BENCH IN WHICH THE PRIME CONTEN TION OF THE UNDERSIGNED HAD BEEN THAT THE JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AU THORITY HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BY ANY STATE ACT AND HAS BEEN RATH ER FORMED UNDER THE JAMMU & KASHMIR DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1970. THUS, TH E HONBLE BENCH HAS NOT ADJUDICATED THIS PRIME ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE AND HAS WRONGLY FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DE LHI BENCH OF THE ITAT AND THEREIN LIES THE MISTAKE IN ITS AFORESAID ORDER DATED 24.04.2012. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WILL CLAIM THAT T HE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE AFOREMENTIONED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL . IT IS SUBMITTED TAT IF THE AFOREMENTIONED ORDER WHICH CONTAINS THE MISTAKES AS POINTED OUT ABOVE, IT WILL AMOUNT TO COMPOUNDING PREJUDICE ALREADY CAUSED TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE IN THE AFORESAID ORDER DATED 24.04.2012. IN SUCH A SITUATION, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT ADJOURN MENT IN THIS CASE MAY KINDLY BE GRANTED FOR A LONGER PERIOD AS THE DE PARTMENT IS IN THE PROCESSING OF FILING A MISC. APPLICATION IN THIS CA SE AND ALTERNATIVELY THE MISTAKE AS POINTED OUT CAN BE SUO MOTO RECTIFIE D BY THE HONBLE BENCH AND THEN THIS APPEAL CAN BE TAKEN UP FOR HEA RING. ITA NOS. 623 & 624(ASR)/2011 4 SD/- (TARSEM LAL) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ITAT, AMRITSAR. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE O RDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF THE IT AT, AMRITSAR BENCH, DATED 24.04.2012 IN THE CASE OF ITO (TDS), JAMMU VS. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD. JAMMU IN ITA NOS. 206 TO 210(ASR)/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2010-2011. IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT IN THE PRESENT APPEALS, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED EXACTLY SIMILAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS TAKEN IN ITA NOS. 206 TO 210(ASR)/2011 (S UPRA) AND THE LD. DR HAS ALSO ARGUED ALMOST ON SIMILAR LINES AND FACTS. BUT IN THE PRESENT APPEALS, SH. TARSEM LAL, THE LD. DCIT(DR) HAS RAISED VARIOUS ISSUES IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 02.07.2012 AS REPRODUCED ABOVE. W E HAVE THOROUGHLY GONE THROUGH THE CONTENTS OF THE SAID WRITTEN SUBMI SSIONS AND WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AVERMENTS MADE BY THE LD. DCIT(DR), S H. TARSEM LAL ARE NOT EXPECTED FROM HIM BECAUSE HE HAS STATED THAT THERE ARE VARIOUS MISTAKES AND OMISSIONS IN THE ORDER DATED 24.04.2012 OF THE TRI BUNAL (SUPRA) AND THIS BENCH SHOULD NOT FOLLOW THE SAME. IF ACCORDING TO T HE LD. DR, THERE IS ANY MISTAKE OR OMISSION IN THE ORDER DATED 24.04.2012 T HEN THERE ARE REMEDIES AVAILABLE UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR RECTI FICATION OF THE SAME. BUT WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS BENCH DA TED 24 TH APRIL, 2012, WHICH HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE BY RESPECTFU LLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION ITA NOS. 623 & 624(ASR)/2011 5 OF THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH, IN THE CASE CHIEF/SENIOR MANAGER, ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE VS. ITO (TDS & SURVEY) GHAZIABAD, PASSE D IN ITA NO2228/DEL/2011 FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06, DATED 15.07.2 011. IN ORDER TO FOLLOWING THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY, WE HAVE TO FOLLO W THE DECISION RENDERED BY THIS BENCH AS WELL AS OTHER CO-ORDINATE BENCHES. 4.1. THE ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE LD. DR IN HIS WRIT TEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 02.07.2012 HAVE FULLY BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE DECISIO N OF THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH, IN THE CASE CHIEF/SENIOR MANAGER, ORIENTAL B ANK OF COMMERCE VS. ITO (TDS & SURVEY) GHAZIABAD, PASSED IN ITA NO2228/ DEL/2011 FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06, DATED 15.07.2011. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS RAISED EXACTLY SIMILAR GROUNDS IN THE PRESENT APPEA LS, AS DECIDED BY THE ITAT DELHI BENCH. THEREFORE, WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE DECIS ION RENDERED BY THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH (SUPRA) AND HAVE RESPECTFULLY BE EN FOLLOWED BY THIS BENCH VIDE ORDER DATED 24.04.2012. 4.2. THE LD. DR HAS ALSO EXCEEDED HIS JURISDICTION BY COMMENTING UPON THE DECISION OF ITAT, DELHI BENCH (SUPRA) BY STATIN G IN THE SAID WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS THAT THAT ORDER ALSO CARRIES MISTAKES A ND OMISSIONS AND IF THIS BENCH FOLLOW THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH (SU PRA), IT WOULD AMOUNT TO COMMITTING AGAIN A MISTAKE. HE FURTHER STATED TH AT THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, ITA NOS. 623 & 624(ASR)/2011 6 DELHI BENCH (SUPRA) MAY NOT BE FOLLOWED. THESE ARGU MENTS ARE NOT EXPECTED FROM THE LD. DCIT(DR), WHO IS HOLDING A VERY RESPON SIBLE POST AND IS DUTY BOUND TO ASSIST THE BENCH AND NOT TO DIRECT OR GUID E THE BENCH. THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 02.07.2012 FILED BY THE LD. DR IN DICATE THAT THE LD. DCIT(DR), WANT THE DECISION FROM THIS BENCH AS DES IRED BY HIM, WHICH IS NOT POSSIBLE FROM THE QUASI JUDICIAL BODY. WE ARE N OT APPRECIATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. DR BY WAY OF FILING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 02.07.2012 IN THE PRESENT APPEALS. BUT KEEPIN G IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASES AND ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED AND DECIDED, WE HAVE T O FOLLOW THE DECISION RENDERED BY THIS BENCH DATED 24.04.2012 (SUPRA), WH ICH IS ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISION OF ITAT, DELHI BENCH, IN THE CASE CHIE F/SENIOR MANAGER, ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE VS. ITO (TDS & SURVEY) GH AZIABAD, PASSED IN ITA NO2228/DEL/2011 FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06, DATED 15. 07.2011. HOWEVER, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, PARAGRAPHS 6 & 6.1 OF THE ORDER DATED 24.04.2012 PASSED BY THIS BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN C ASE ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US, ESPECIALLY THE ORDER PAS SED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ALONGWITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS F ILED BY THE LD. DR AS WELL AS THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH, IN THE CASE OF CHIEF/SENIOR MANAGER, ORIENTAL BANK OF COMM ERCE VS. ITO (TDS & SURVEY), GHAZIABAD, ITA NO.2228/DEL/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, DATED 15.7.2011 AND FIND T HAT EXACTLY ITA NOS. 623 & 624(ASR)/2011 7 SIMILAR ISSUE, WHICH IS IN DISPUTE, BEFORE US, HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED AND DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, BY THE SAID DECISION OF THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH I. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVE NIENCE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH I (SUPRA) IS REPR ODUCED AS UNDER: ITA NO.2228/DEL/2011 FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06, DATED 1 5.7.2011 CHIEF/SENIOR MANAGER, ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, GH AZIABAD VS. ITO (TDS & SURVEY) GHAZIABAD. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) GHAZIABAD DATED 01.02.2011 FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE AS SESSEE READ AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LD. LOWER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN CHARGIN G THE INTEREST U/S 201/201(1A) OF THE I.T ACT, 1961 OF RS.11,748/- AS WELL AS SHORT CHARGE OF TDS AMOUNT O F RS.35,268/- IN THE CASE OF GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES. 2. THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE FALLS U/S 194A(3)(III) OF THE IT.ACT, 1961. 3. THAT THE INTEREST SO CHARGED AND DEPOSITED OF SH ORT CHARGE OF TDS IS EXCESSIVE, ARBITRARY AND UNCALLED FOR. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A BRANCH OF NATIONALIZED BANK. A SURVEY CONDUCTED ON 02.02.2008 AT THE BRANCH OF THE ASSESS EE. THE DISCREPANCY IN THE AMOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURC E NOTED IN RESPECT OF INTEREST PAID TO GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT A UTHORITY AND GANGA JAL PARIYOJNA, GHAZIABAD. THE ASSESSEE CL AIMS THAT GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IS A NOTIFIED INSTI TUTION UNDER SECTION 194A(3)(III)(F), THEREFORE, THE PROVI SIONS OF SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 194A ARE NOT APPLICABLE. HE PLEADED THAT HIS CASE IS COVERED BY ENTRY NO.39 WHERE ANY CORPOR ATION ESTABLISHED BY A CENTRAL, STATE OR PROVINCIAL ACT I S A NOTIFIED INSTITUTION WHERE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194(1) ARE NOT APPLICABLE. HE HAS FILED A COPY OF THE LIST WHERE E NTRY NO.39 STATES ABOUT ANY CORPORATION ESTABLISHED BY A CENTR AL, STATE OR PROVINCIAL ACT. HE ALSO SUBMITTED A COPY OF UTTAR P RADESH URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1993 WHICH PROV IDES FOR ITA NOS. 623 & 624(ASR)/2011 8 THE DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN AREAS OF UTTAR PRADESH, ACCORDING TO PLANT AND FOR MATTER ANCILLARY THERETO AND IT WA S ALSO PLEADED THAT GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HAS BE EN ESTABLISHED UNDER THE UTTAR PRADESH URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1993, THEREFORE, IT IS A CORPORATI ON ESTABLISHED BY A STATE ACT WHICH IS COVERED BY ENTR Y NO.39. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDE RS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND AFTER HEARING, WE HOLD THAT GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND GANGA JAL PANI PARIYOJNA ARE IN EXEMPTED CATEGORY WHERE THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 194(1) ARE NOT APPLICABLE. IN VIEW OF THIS MATTER, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALLOW THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. 6.1. THUS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID ORD ER OF THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH I, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BY HOLDING THAT THE JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHO RITY IS IN EXEMPTED CATEGORY WHERE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 194(1) ARE NOT APPLICABLE. WE ALSO HOLD THAT EXCEPTION PRO VIDED IN SECTION 194A(3)(III)(F) OF THE ACT AND AS PER NOTIF ICATION, THE JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IS A CREATION OF J & K DEVELOPMENT ACT AND SATISFIES THE CONDITION AT ENTR Y NO.39 OF THE SAID NOTIFICATION AND WE HOLD THAT NO TAX WAS D EDUCTIBLE ON ACCRUED INTEREST ON FDRS OF JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHO RITY WITH J & K BANK LTD. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE DISC USSIONS, WE HOLD THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE W ELL REASONED IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AU THORITY AND ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE SAME. HENCE, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 206(ASR)/2011 IS DISMISSED. 5. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED AND D ECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THIS BENCH VIDE ORDER DATED 24.04.2012 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, ITA NOS. 623 & 624(ASR)/2011 9 WHICH IS BASED ON THE DECISION OF ITAT, DELHI BENCH , IN THE CASE CHIEF/SENIOR MANAGER, ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE VS. ITO (TDS & SURVEY) GHAZIABAD (SUPRA). RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING T HE SAME, THE PRESENT APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE RE VENUE ARE DISMISSED ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9TH JULY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 9 TH JULY, 2012 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE JAMMU & KASHMI R BANK LTD. JAMMU. 2 THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITS AR. 3 THE ITO(TDS), JAMMU. 4 THE CIT(A) 5 THE CIT 6. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR. ITA NOS. 623 & 624(ASR)/2011 10