9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 727X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nos. 623 & 624(Asr)/2011 - - - Dated:- 9-7-2012 - SH. H.S. SIDHU AND SH. B.P.JAIN, JJ. Appellant by:Sh. Tarsem Lal, DR Respondent by:Sh. R.K. Gupta, CA ORDER PER BENCH ; The Revenue has filed the present appeals against the consolidated order of CIT(A), Jammu, dated 03.10.2011 for the assessment 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 reproduced hereunder: 1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee was not liable to deduct any tax at source on interest accrued on FDRs held by the Jammu Development Authority relying on the Notification No.3489 dated 22.10.1970. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 is as to whether the Jammu Development Authority to whom the assessee bank paid interest without deduction of tax comes within the ambit of entry No.39 of the Notification. It was explained to the Hon ble Bench by way of written submissions that the Jammu Development Authority has not been established by a Central, State or Provincial Act and is rather a body formed under the Jammu Kashmir Development Act, 1970. The distinction between a corporate body established by a Central o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therein lies the mistake in its aforesaid order dated 24.04.2012. The Ld. counsel for the assessee will claim that the 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 adjournment in this case may kindly be granted for a longer period as the department is in the processing of filing a Misc. Application in this case and alternatively the mistake as pointed out can be suo moto rectified by the Hon ble Bench and then this appeal can be taken up for hearing. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench, in the case Chief/Senior Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce vs. ITO (TDS Survey) Ghaziabad, passed in ITA No2228/Del/2011 for the A.Y. 2005-06, dated 15.07.2011. In order to following the rule of consistency, we have to follow the decision rendered by this Bench as well as other co-ordinate Benches. 4.1. The arguments raised by the Ld. DR in his written submissions dated 02.07.2012 have fully been discussed in the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Bench, in the case Chief/Senior Manager, Oriental Bank 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 appeals, as decided by the ITAT Delhi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el/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 assessee s own case are reproduced hereunder: 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the relevant material placed before us, especially the order passed by the ld. first appellate authority alongwith written submissions filed 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 Commerce vs. ITO (TDS Survey), Ghaziabad, ITA No.2228/Del/2011 for the assessment year 2005-06, dated 15.7.2011 and find that exactly similar issue, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded that his case is covered by Entry No.39 where any Corporation established by a Central, State or Provincial Act is a notified institution where the provisions of section 194(1) are not applicable. He has filed a copy of the list where entry No.39 states about any corporation established by a Central, State or Provincial Act. He also submitted a copy of Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1993 which provides for the development of certain areas of Uttar Pradesh, according to plant and for matter ancillary thereto and it was also pleaded that Ghaziabad Development Authority has been established under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1993, therefore, it is a Corporation established by a State Act which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
