Income Tax Officer(TDS)-II, Kanpur V. Punjab National Bank, Kanpur

ITA 92/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 87853 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PUNIT KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: PRADIP MEHROTRA

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 92 TO 94 /LKW/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1997 98 TO 1999 - 2000 INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) II , KANPUR PAN:AAVPY3890M VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK , DY. KA PARAO BRANCH, KANPUR TAN:KNPP01442A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI PUNIT KUMAR, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY SHRI PRADIP MEHROTRA, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING 24 /0 3 /201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT /0 3 /201 5 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. ALL THESE THREE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR A. Y. 1997 98 TO 1999 2000 AND THE SAME ARE DIRECTED AGAINST A COMBINED ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A) II, KANPUR DATED 27.10.2014. ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. ONLY ONE IDENTICAL GROUND IS RAISED IN THESE THREE APPEALS, WHICH IS AS UNDER: - THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ANNULLING THE ORDER U/S 201 (1)/201 (1A) OF THE I. T. ACT 1961 DATED 14.02.2011 IGNORING THE PROVISO TO SECTION 201 (3) OF THE I. T. ACT 1961WHICH WAS PROMULGATED BY FINANCER (NO. 2) ACT, 2009 W.E.F. 01.04.2010 REQUIRING TO COMPLETE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR FINANCIAL YE AR COMMENCING ON OR BEFORE THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2007 AT ANY TIME ON OR BEFORE 31 ST DAY OF MARCH, 2011. 3. LEARNED DR OF REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. AND THE GROUND RAISED IN APPEAL. LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT (A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED A COPY OF TRIBUNAL ORDER IN THE CASE OF ITO (TDS) II VS. BRANCH MANAGER, SBI IN ITA NO. 476 TO 481/ LKW/2012 DATED 2 25.04.2013 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER. 4 . W E HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IN THE CASE CITED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE ORDERS U/S 201 (1) AND 201 91A) WERE PASSED ON 11.02.2011 IN RESPECT OF A.Y. 1997 98 TO 1999 2000 AS IN THE PRESENT CAS E WHERE THE ORDERS ARE PASSED ON 14.02.2011. HENCE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL. IN THAT CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED VARIOUS JUDGMENTS OF TRIBUNAL AND VARIOUS HIGH COURTS. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO NOTED THAT AS PER JUDGMENT OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AND HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, 340 ITR219 & 202 TAXMAN 88 RESPECTIVELY, THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE BUT AS PER THE JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT 305 ITR 137 AND 323 ITR 230, THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE REAFTER, THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VEGETABLE PRODUCTS 88 ITR 192 (SC) AND IN TURN FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, IN T HE PRESENT CASE ALSO, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW. WE, THEREFORE, DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT (A). 5 . IN THE RESULT, ALL TH RE E APPEAL S OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 26 /0 3 /201 5 *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR