The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Pathankot V. The Gurdaspur Central Coop Bank Ltd, Gurdaspur

ITA 99/ASR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7712 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 02-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRIK CHANDDR
• Assessee Lawyers: J S BHASIN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence
• Section: 194C

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. NO. 99(ASR)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08 PAN:AAAAT0711A THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, VS. THE GURDASPUR CE NTRAL CO-OP. CIRCLE, PATHANKOT. BANK LTD. GURDASPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH. AMRIK CHAND,DR RESPONDENT BY: SH. J.S. BHASIN, ADV. DATE OF HEARING :02/05/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:07/05/2012 ORDER PER BENCH: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARISES FROM THE ORDER O F THE CIT(A), AMRITSAR, DATED 21.12.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A), AMRITSAR, ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.12,0 0,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON THE PLEA THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS SQUARELY COVERED U/S 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF ASSETS CLASSIFIED BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AS DOUBTFUL ASSETS OR LOSS OF ASSETS IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH GUIDELINES ISSUED BY IT IN THIS BEHALF. 2 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A), AMRITSAR, ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.28,3 3,460/- MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING THAT THE PAYMENT MADE TO PE TROL PUMP FOR PURCHASE OF PETROL USED IN SUCH HIRED VEHICLES WAS NOT LIABLE TO TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT SINCE THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XVIIB WERE NOT COMP LIED WITH, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 40(A))(IA) OF THE ACT WAS CORRECT AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN UPHELD. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), AMRITSAR, BE VACATED AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 4. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ADD ANY OR MO RE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. IN THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL, THE BRIEF FACTS A RE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXPENDITURE OF RS.12,00,000/- UNDER THE HE AD PROVISIONS ON STANDARD ASSETS. THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASK ED TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF THIS DEDUCTION BUT INSPITE OF NUMBER OF OPPORTU NITIES GIVEN, IT FAILED TO GIVE ANY EXPLANATION ON THIS ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, TH E DEDUCTION OF RS.12,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION ON STANDARD ASSET WAS DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE.. 4. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED WR ITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH ARE REPRODUCED IN CIT(A)S ORDER IN PARA 5 ON PAGES 8 & 9. THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE PARA 7 OF HIS ORDER DELETED THE ADDITI ON OBSERVING THAT THE AO HAD GIVEN NO REASONS FOR THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENS E. THEREAFTER, THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE EXPENSE IS DEBITED NOTIONALL Y @ 0.1% TO 0.4% OF SUCH ASSETS TO MAINTAIN AND RETAIN ALL STANDARD ASSETS, AS PER MASTER CIRCULAR ON 3 INCOME RECOGNITION ASSET CLASSIFICATION, PROVISIONI NG AND OTHER RELATED MATTERS ISSUED BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. HE FUR THER MENTIONED THAT U/S 35A OF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949, THE RESERV E BANK OF INDIA HAS BEEN EMPOWERED TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS TO ALL THE BANKS AS TO REGULATE THE BANKING BUSINESS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR IN THE I NTEREST OF BANKING POLICY. AFTER DISCUSSING WHAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASS ESSEE BEFORE HIM, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO OPTION BUT TO CLAIM THE SAME AND THE CLAIM, EVEN IF NOTIONAL, IS EXCLUSIVELY LAID OU T FOR THE PURPOSE OF SMOOTH RUNNING OF BANKING BUSINESS AND THEE IS NO REASON NOT TO ALLOW THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS A STATUTORY CLAIM ALLOWABLE ON THE ANALOGY OF 30% DEDUCTION ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF INCOME UNDER THE HE AD HOUSE PROPERTY, WITHOUT MAKING IT NECESSARY TO SHOW THE EVIDENCE O F SUCH EXPENSE HAVING BEEN ACTUALLY INCURRED. THE AO HAD FAILED TO APPREC IATE THAT SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) IS AMENDED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2007 TO INCLUDE CO-OPERATIVE BANKS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SECTION RETROSPECTIVELY FROM IST APRIL, 2007 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THIS AMENDMENT WAS BROUGHT TO GIVE RELIEF TO THE CO-OPERATIVE BAN KS WHICH HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN AS A DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P. REFERRI NG TO THE RULE 6ABA, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VII A) IS A NOTIONAL 4 DEDUCTION, WHICH IS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE SAID S ECTION. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. 5. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.2, THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED RS.26,33,460/- ON ACCOUNT OF HIRE OF VEHICL ES BUT NO TDS HAD BEEN DEDUCTED ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO THE VEHICLE OWNERS. INSPITE OF SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, THE A SSESSE FAILED TO FILE ANY EVIDENCE THAT PROVISIONS OF TDS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PAYMENTS MADE FOR HIRED VEHICLES. THEREFORE, AS PER PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, THE AMOUNT OF TDS WAS NOT DEDUCTED IN COMPUTING THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFIT AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROF ESSION ON WHICH TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE UNDER CHAPTER XVIIB . ACCORDIN GLY, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE MADE THE WRI TTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH ARE AVAILABLE AT PAGES 9 TO 13 OF CIT(A)S OR DER. ON THE BASIS OF THE SUBMISSIONS BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE PA RA 8 OF HIS ORDER AT PAGES 15 TO 18 DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING T HAT CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF BANK EMPLOYEES ARE ENTITLED TO FACILITY OF STAFF V EHICLE FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES. SINCE THE BANK DID NOT OW N A FLEET OF ITS OWN VEHICLES SO AS TO PROVIDE IT TO A NUMBER OF ITS EMPLOYEES EN TITLED TO IT AT HO AND AT ITS 44 BRANCHES, THE BANKING BOARD HAS FORMULATED A PO LICY TO ALLOW VEHICLE 5 MAINTENANCE EXPENSES AT A FIXED RATE ON DAILY BASIS TO ALL SUCH EMPLOYEES, HAVING REGARD TO THEIR RANK AND TYPE OF VEHICLE ENT ITLED TO. IT IS FOR THE CONCERNED EMPLOYEES TO ARRANGE THE VEHICLE OF ITS O WN AND JUSTIFY THE EXPENSE CLAIMED. THE FUEL CHARGES ARE TO BE BORNE BY THE BANK. THE VEHICLE OWNER IS NOT UNDER ANY CONTRACT WITH THE BANK OR AN Y OF ITS EMPLOYEES TO PROVIDE HIS VEHICLE. IT DEPENDS UPON THE AVAILABILI TY OF THE VEHICLES, WHICH MAY BE HIRED AGAIN OR NOT. THEREFORE, THE FACTUAL A SPECTS OF THE MATTER ARE NOT COVERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THE AGGREGATE PAYMENT NEVER EXCEEDED THE LIMIT OF RS.50 ,000/- IN A YEAR WHICH COULD ENTAIL LIABILITY OF TDS. THE AO HAS NOT BROUG HT ON RECORD EVEN A SINGLE INSTANCE THROUGH OUT AND ARBITRARILY INVOKE D THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF THE SAID VEHICLE INCLUDES PETROL EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.11,84,383/- SEPARATELY BO RNE BY THE BANK BUT INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT. THE AO HAS FAILED TO NOTICE THE SAME. THE SAID AMOUNT IS NOT LIABLE TO TDS. THE AUDITOR OF THE ASS ESSEE HAS REPORTED IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT IN COL. 27 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XXVII-B. THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE MA DE BY THE AO UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WAS JUSTIFIED AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS.28,33,460/- WAS DELETED. 6 7. THE LD. DR, SH. AMRIK CHAND, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE ARGUED THAT NO DETAILS WERE SUBMITTED WITH REGARD T O THE PROVISIONS ON STANDARD ASSETS INSPITE OF NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. ALSO WITH REGARD TO CLAIM OF EXPENSES OF RS.28,33,4 60/- ON ACCOUNT OF HIRED VEHICLE, A SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE AS SESSEE TO FILE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF TDS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. PAY MENTS WERE MADE TO THE OWNERS OF HIRED VEHICLES BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE SUCH DETAILS. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASS ESSE AND WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE, WH ICH IS IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. ON MERIT, THE LD. DR ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHOWN THE PROVISIONS AS TO HOW THE R.B.I. ACT IS APPLICABLE U/S 36(1)(VIIA), WHICH SPECIFICALLY SPEAKS OF THE PROVI SIONS FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBT AND NO PROVISION OF STANDARD ON ASSET IS THERE IN THE INCOME TAX ACT. 7.1. AS REGARDS THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40( A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR HIRED VEHICLES, AS PER DETAILS PLACED BEFORE THE L D. CIT(A), THE PAYENTS HAVE BEEN MADE ON PERIODICAL BASIS MOSTLY ON MONTHLY BA SIS, WHICH CAN ONLY BE PART OF THE CONTRACT. THE TOTAL PAYMENTS MADE PER IODICALLY, MONTHLY OR HALF YEARLY HAVE BEEN BIFURCATED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY AS HIRING CHARGES, PETROL CHARGES AND OTHER CHARGES. THE LD. DR, THEREFORE, P RAYED BEFORE THE BENCH 7 TO RESTORE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY RE VERSING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON BOTH THE GROUNDS. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE, SH. J.S. BHASIN, STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AN D REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM ON BOTH THE GROUNDS. HE FILED PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 23 BEFORE THE BENCH WHICH WA S FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD NOT SUBMITTED ANY EXPLANATION OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR THE CLAIM O F RS.12,00,000/- AS PER PROVISIONS OF STANDARD ASSETS. SIMILARLY, INSPITE OF SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF R S.28,33,460/- ON ACCOUNT OF HIRED VEHICLES, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF TDS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PAYMENTS MADE FOR HIRED VEHICLES. IN SUCH SITUATION AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THERE WAS NO ALTERNATIVE LEFT WITH THE AO BUT TO DISALLOW BOTH THE CLAIMS MA DE BY THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE MADE SUBMISSION S AND AS CLAIMED HAS SUBMITTED THE CIRCULAR OF THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA , AUDIT REPORT OF THE RBI AND OTHER DETAILS IN PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGE S 1 TO 23. ON THE BASIS OF WHICH, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD DELETED THE ADDITIONS BY ACCEPTING THE EXPLANATION 8 OF THE ASSESSEE. NOW THE QUESTION ARISES WHETHER TH E LD. CIT(A) IS AUTHORIZED TO ADMIT SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WHICH ARE IN THE FORM OF R.B.I. GUIDELINES, LIST OF ADVANCES ADVANCED BY THE BANK, RELEVANT PAGES OF STATUTORY AUDIT SHOWING CALCULATION OF STANDARD AS SETS & PROVISION OF RS. 12 LACS, DETAILS OF HIRED VEHICLES SHOWING PETROL E XPENSES DEBITED UNDER THIS HEAD AND RELEVANT TAX AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO.3CD A T PB 1 TO 23, WHICH WERE ONLY FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). UNDER RULE 4 6A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962, IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT THE APPELLAN T IS NOT ENTITLED TO PRODUCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ANY EVIDENCE, WHETHER ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY, OTHER THAN THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY HIM DURING THE COURSE OF P ROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXCEPT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES REFE RRED TO UNDER RULE 46A(1), WHICH FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY ARE REPRODUCE D AS UNDER: (A) WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REFUSED TO ADM IT EVIDENCE WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED; OR (B) WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIEN T CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE WHICH HE WAS CALLED UP ON TO PRODUCE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER; OR (C) WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ANY EVI DENCE WHICH IS RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL; OR (D) WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO TH E APPELLANT TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. 9 9.1. AS PER RULE 46A(2), NO EVIDENCE CAN BE ADMITTE D BY THE LD. CIT(A) UNDER SUB-RULE (1) UNLESS HE RECORDS IN WRITING T HE REASONS FOR ITS ADMISSION. UNDER RULE 46A(3), IT IS CLEARLY MENTION ED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED U NDER SUB-RULE (1) UNLESS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN ALLOWED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT OR TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE WI TNESS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT, OR TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT OR ANY WITNESS IN REBUTTAL OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT. AS REGARDS RULE 46A(4), IT HAS ALSO BEEN MENTIONED THAT NOTHIN G CONTAINED IN THIS RULE SHALL AFFECT THE POWER OF THE CIT(A) TO DIRECT TH E PRODUCTION OF ANY DOCUMENT TO ENABLE TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL, OR FOR ANY OTHER SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE INCLUDING THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE ASSESSMENT OR PENALTY, WHETHER ON HIS OWN MOTION OR ON THE REQUEST OF THE AO. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE DETAILS WITH REGARD TO H IRING CHARGES, PETROL CHARGES AND OTHER CHARGES BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AN D OTHER EVIDENCES TO SHOW THAT THE CLAIM OF RS.12,00,000/- IS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MOVED ANY APPLIC ATION FOR ADMISSION OF ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOM E TAX RULES, 1962. EVEN IF THE APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A HAS NOT BEEN FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN THAT THE AO HAS REFUSED TO ADMIT THE EVIDENCE 10 WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED OR THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE WHICH HE WAS CALLED UPON TO PRODUCE BY THE AO; OR WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVEN TED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING BEFORE THE AO ANY EVIDENCE WHICH IS RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL; OR WHERE THE AO HAS MADE THE ORDER APPEA LED AGAINST WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO A DDUCE EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. 9.2. THE LD. CIT(A), WITHOUT APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A AND WITHOUT RECORDING ANY REASON FOR ADMITTING THE DOCUMENTS AN D EXPLANATION FILED BEFORE HIM AND WITHOUT AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTU NITY TO EXAMINE SUCH EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE HIM BY THE AO H AD DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS CLEAR VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IT IS NOT A CASE UNDER RULE 46A(4) THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAD DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE FOR PRODUCTION OF ANY DOCUMENT TO ENABLE H IM TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) I S IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND BAD IN LAW. BUT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, SINCE THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) REMAINED TO BE EXAMINED BY THE AO, THOUGH THE SAME WERE NOT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO IN SPITE OF NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN. THEREFORE, THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 ARE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WHO WILL DECIDE THE ISSUE DENOVO BUT BY 11 PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSE E AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). AC CORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.99(ASR)/2011 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7TH MAY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 7TH MAY, 2012 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE:THE GURDASPUR CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD. GURDASPUR. 2. THE DCIT, CIRCLE, PATHANKOT. 3. THE CIT(A), ASR. 4. THE CIT, ASR. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH : AMRITSAR.