ACIT, Circle-14(2)(TDS),, Hyderabad v. M/s Margadarsi Chit Fund Private Limited,, Hyderabad

ITA 1063/HYD/2013 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 106322514 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN ARBPS4368K
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 1063/HYD/2013
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 21 day(s)
Appellant ACIT, Circle-14(2)(TDS),, Hyderabad
Respondent M/s Margadarsi Chit Fund Private Limited,, Hyderabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 30-10-2013
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 09-07-2013
Judgment Text
1 ITA.NO.1063/HYD/2013 M/S. MARGADARSI CHIT FUND PVT. LTD. HYD IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1063/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 ACIT CIRCLE 14(2) HYDERABAD. PAN ARBPS4368K VS. M/S. MARGADARSI CHIT FUND PVT. LTD. HYDERABAD PAN AABCM4751G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR APPELLANT : SHRI SOLGY JOSE T KOTTARAM (D.R) FOR RESPONDENT : SHRI V. SHIV KUMAR (A.R.) DATE OF HEARING : 30.10.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.10.2013 ORDER PER SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY J.M. THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-II HYDERABAD DATED 17.04.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011. 2. THE DEPARTMENT HAS RAISED 4 GROUNDS IN ITS APPE AL. GROUNDS NO.1 AND 4 BEING GENERAL ARE NOT REQUIRED T O BE ADJUDICATED. HENCE THEY ARE DISMISSED. 3. IN GROUND NO.2 THE DEPARTMENT HAS CHALLENGED TH E FINDING OF THE CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT NO TAX IS REQU IRED TO BE DEDUCTED ON PAYMENT OF CHIT DIVIDEND TO THE SUBSCRIB ERS. 4. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING A CHIT FUND ENT ERTAINMENT 2 ITA.NO.1063/HYD/2013 M/S. MARGADARSI CHIT FUND PVT. LTD. HYD FOOD PROCESSING AND FARM MAINTENANCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON EXAMINING DETAILS OF CHIT DIVIDENDS PAID BY THE ASSES SEE FELT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE O N PAYMENT OF SUCH DIVIDEND. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED ANY TAX ON CHIT DIVIDENDS PAID TO SUBSCRIBERS THE ASSESSING O FFICER ISSUED A NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY TAX AND INTE REST UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND 201(1A) SHALL NOT BE LEVIED. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT SINCE CHIT DIVIDENDS PAID ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF INTEREST AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 2 (28A) OF THE AC T HENCE THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF DEDUCTION OF TAX U/S. 194A OF T HE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT SINCE IN ITS OWN C ASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2007-08 THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE DISALLOWANCES MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT UNDER SECTION 201(1). THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND PASS ED AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND 201(1A) LEVYING TAX OF RS.46 14 27 806/- AND INTEREST OF RS.21 45 63 930/- AGGREGATING TO RS.67 59 91 736/-. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) . THE CIT(A) FOLLOWING HER OWN ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE OF THE V ERY SAME ASSESSEE ON IDENTICAL ISSUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND FURTHER TAKING NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE ITAT HAS U PHELD THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-0 8 BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IN ITA.NO.1 119/H/2012 DATED 07.12.2012 ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E BY DELETING THE DEMAND RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3 ITA.NO.1063/HYD/2013 M/S. MARGADARSI CHIT FUND PVT. LTD. HYD 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AN D PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS OTHER MATERIALS ON RECORD. THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX UNDER SECTION 194A OF THE ACT ON THE CHIT DIVIDENDS PAID TO THE SUBSCRIBERS. ON A PERUSA L OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IN ITA.NO.1119/HYD/2012 DATED 7.12.2012 WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL WHILE CONSIDERI NG THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HELD AS UNDER : 12. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IN QUESTION IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 973/HYD/2011 FOR AY 2008-09 VIDE ORDER DATED 24/02/2012 WHEREIN THE COORDINATE BENCH HELD AS UNDER:- 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON THIS ISSUE. AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THE ONLY ISSUE THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE NATURE OF 'DIVIDEND' DISTRIBUTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO THE SUBSCRIBERS OF ITS CHIT FUND SCHEMES EVERY MONTH AND ASSESSEE'S LIABILITY TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE WHILE DISTRIBUTING SUCH DIVIDEND SO AS TO WARRANT DISALLOWANCE IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT VARIOUS COORDINATE BENCHES OF THIS TRIBUNAL INCLUDING THE ONES AT HYDERABAD HAVE TAKEN A CONSISTENT VIEW ON THE POINT AT ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. WE MAY REFER TO A FEW OF THEM HEREIN FOR READY REFERENCE. 4. EXAMINING THE NATURE OF THE 'DIVIDEND' DISTRIBUTED BY A CHIT FUND COMPANY AMONG ITS CHIT SUBSCRIBERS AND CONSEQUENT LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCT TAX IN RELATION THERETO IN THE CONTEXT OF PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER S.201 AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT DEALING WITH THE CROSS-APPEALS IN THE CASE OF VIPANCHI CHIT FUNDS LTD. (ITA NO.804- 4 ITA.NO.1063/HYD/2013 M/S. MARGADARSI CHIT FUND PVT. LTD. HYD 805/HYD/2011) THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 11TH AUGUST 2011 FOLLOWING THE EARLIER DECISIONS OF THE BANGALORE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MARGA SOOCHI CHIT PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO.965/BANG/2008);BESIDES OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAHIB CHITS(DELHI)(P)LTD. IN I.T.A. NO.44 OF 2008 DATED 24.7.2009; AND OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. BILAHARI INVESTMENT PVT. LTD.(288 ITR 39) WHICH HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE APEX COURT IN 299 ITR 1 HELD THAT THE PAYMENT OF DIVIDEND TO THE SUBSCRIBERS OF A CHIT TOWARDS DIVIDEND DOES NOT PARTAKE THE CHARACTER OF INTEREST AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TDS UNDER S.194A OF THE ACT AND NOT LIABLE TO INTEREST U/S. 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT. 5. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HYDERABAD BENCH 'B' OF THIS TRIBUNAL TO WHICH BOTH OF US ARE MEMBERS IN THE CASES OF M/S. VINUTNA CHIT FUNDS (P) LTD.(ITA NOS.1280- 1281/HYD/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND 2007-08) VIDE ORDER DATED 31.10.2011 HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IN THOSE CASES IS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TDS U/S. 194A OF THE ACT AND NOT LIABLE FOR INTEREST U/S. 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE. 6. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASES OF M/S. VINUTNA CHIT FUNDS (P) LTD. (ITA NOS.1280-1281/HYD/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2007-08) NOTED ABOVE HYDERABAD BENCH 'A' OF THE TRIBUNAL TO WHICH AGAIN BOTH OF US ARE PARTIES IN THE CASES OF ITO V/S. LAXMAN CHIT FUND & FINANCE (P) LTD. HYDERABAD (ITA NOS.526 TO 529/HYD/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2007-08) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IN THOSE CASES WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TDS U/S. 194A OF THE ACT AND NOT LIABLE FOR INTEREST U/S. 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE. 7. THOUGH THE REVENUE SOUGHT TO DISTINGUISH THE DECISION OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BILAHARI INVESTMENTS (SUPRA) AND 5 ITA.NO.1063/HYD/2013 M/S. MARGADARSI CHIT FUND PVT. LTD. HYD OTHER DECISIONS REFERRED TO BY THE CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND ALSO CITED CERTAIN DECISIONS IN THE GROUNDS OF THIS APPEAL IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OR APEX COURT BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE REVENUE WE ARE INCLINED TO FOLLOW THE CONSISTENT VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN SIMILAR MATTERS DISCUSSED ABOVE RENDERED BY THE COORDINATED BENCHES OF THIS TRIBUNAL TO SOME OF WHICH BOTH OF WHICH ARE PARTIES INVOLVING THE DETERMINATION OF NATURE OF 'DIVIDEND' DISTRIBUTED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AMONG ITS CHIT SUBSCRIBERS MONTH AFTER MONTH AND ALSO FOLLOWING IN THAT PROCESS THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BILAHARI INVESTMENTS (P)LTD.(288 ITR 39) AND HOLD THAT THE DIVIDEND DISTRIBUTED BY THE ASSESSEE HEREIN DOES NOT PARTAKE THE CHARACTER OF 'INTEREST' AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE. 8. WE ARE FORTIFIED IN FOLLOWING THE CONSISTENT VIEW TAKEN BY THE DECISION IN SIMILAR MATTERS BY THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. L.G.RAMAMURTHY AND OTHERS (110 ITR 453) WHEREIN EMPHASIZING THE NECESSITY OF UNIFORM CONCLUSION ON SAME MATTER AND SCOPE OF ADJUDICATION BY A TRIBUNAL IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AS FOLLOWS- 'NO TRIBUNAL OF FACT HAS ANY RIGHT OR JURISDICTION TO COME TO A CONCLUSION ENTIRELY CONTRARY TO THE ONE REACHED BY ANOTHER BENCH OF THE SAME TRIBUNAL ON SAME FACTS. IT MAY BE THAT THE MEMBERS WHO CONSTITUTED THE TRIBUNAL AND DECIDED ON THE EARLIER OCCASION WERE DIFFERENT FROM THE MEMBERS WHO DECIDED ON THE PRESENT OCCASION. BUT WHAT IS RELEVANT IS NOT THE PERSONALITY OF THE OFFICERS PRESIDING OVER THE TRIBUNAL OR PARTICIPATING IN THE HEARING BUT THE TRIBUNAL AS AN INSTITUTION. IF IT IS TO BE CONCEDED THAT SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE IN THE PERSONNEL OF THE OFFICERS WHO MANNED THE TRIBUNAL IT IS OPEN TO THE NEW OFFICERS TO COME TO A CONCLUSION TOTALLY CONTRADICTORY TO THE CONCLUSION WHICH HAD BEEN REACHED BY THE EARLIER OFFICERS MANNING THE SAME TRIBUNAL ON THE SAME 6 ITA.NO.1063/HYD/2013 M/S. MARGADARSI CHIT FUND PVT. LTD. HYD SET OF FACTS IT WILL NOT ONLY SHAKE THE CONFIDENCE OF THE PUBLIC IN JUDICIAL PROCEDURE AS SUCH BUT IT WILL ALSO TOTALLY DESTROY SUCH CONFIDENCE. THE RESULT OF THIS WILL BE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON ARBITRARINESS AND WHIMS AND FANCIES OF THE INDIVIDUALS PRESIDING OVER THE COURTS OR THE TRIBUNALS AND NOT REACHED OBJECTIVELY ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS PLACED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES. IF A BENCH OF A TRIBUNAL ON THE IDENTICAL FACTS IS ALLOWED TO COME TO A CONCLUSION DIRECTLY OPPOSED TO THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY ANOTHER BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ON AN EARLIER OCCASION THAT WILL BE DESTRUCTIVE OF THE INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY ITSELF. ....' IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER THE PROVISIONS OF S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ARE NOT ATTRACTED AND ACCORDINGLY THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY RESORTING TO DISALLOWANCE IN TERMS OF S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT.. WE ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 13. SINCE THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS IDENTICAL TO THE ONE DECIDED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2008-09 (SUPRA) RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS 2 TO 6 OF THE REVENUE. 7. THE ISSUE BEFORE US BEING IDENTICAL WE RESPECT FULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BEN CH HOLD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194A ARE NOT ATTRACTED TO PAYMENT OF CHIT DIVIDENDS TO SUBSCRIBERS AS IT DOES NOT PARTAK E THE CHARACTER OF INTEREST. ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DISMISS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE DEPARTMEN T. 8. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.3 IS WITH REG ARD TO THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 7 ITA.NO.1063/HYD/2013 M/S. MARGADARSI CHIT FUND PVT. LTD. HYD 194C IS NOT ATTRACTED TO ITEMS PURCHASED BY THE ASSE SSEE AS PER ITS OWN SPECIFICATIONS IN COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS . 9. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF RS.2 10 02 430/- TOWARDS PUR CHASE OF DIARIES CALENDARS TABLE CALENDARS TELUGU PANCHAN GAM AND OTHER MEMORABILIAS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF T HE VIEW THAT SINCE ALL THESE ITEMS BEAR THE LOGO OF THE ASSESSEE THEY ARE MEANT FOR ADVERTISEMENT. HE OPINED THAT THEY ARE NOT MEANT FOR BUSINESS BUT ARE INTENDED TO FURTHER THE BUSINESS. HE THEREFORE HELD THE PURCHASES BEING MADE ARE IN THE NATURE OF ADVERTISEMENT CONTRACT ATTRACTING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. SINCE THERE HAS BEEN NO DEDUCTION OF TA X ON THE PAYMENTS MADE THE ASSESSING OFFICER RAISED DEMAND O F TAX AND INTEREST FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX. 10. IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS THE CIT(A) DELETED THE DEMAND RAISED BY ASSESSING OFFICER BY FOLLOWING HER OWN ORDE R PASSED IN CASE OF THE VERY SAME ASSESSEE ON IDENTICAL ISSUE FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY UP HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES A ND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT IDENT ICAL ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE COORDINATE BEN CH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 7.12.2012 IN ITA.1119/H /2012 WHILE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE HELD AS UNDER : 14. IN GROUND NO. 7 THE REVENUE HAS CONTESTED THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) HOLDING THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON PURCHASE OF VARIOUS ITEMS DID NOT PARTAKE THE CHARACTER OF THE PAYMENTS UNDER THE WORKS CONTRACT AND 8 ITA.NO.1063/HYD/2013 M/S. MARGADARSI CHIT FUND PVT. LTD. HYD TAX WAS DEDUCTIBLE U/S 194C WHICH WAS NOT DEDUCTED. 15. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI SIVAKUMAR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE DETAILS OF THE ITEMS AT 1 TO 14 THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED PRINTED STATIONERY ETC. FOR RS. 2 26 65 453/-. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IT PURCHASED ALL THESE ITEMS WITH THE ASSESSEES LOGO ON THE ITEMS AND THAT NO WORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 194C OF THE IT ACT IS CARRIED OUT BY THE PARTIES SO AS TO ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE IT ACT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD PAID SALES TAX ON PURCHASE OF ALL THE SAID ITEMS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. 324 ITR 199 (BOM) WHEREIN THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT TOOK NOTE OF THE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 194C (W.E.F. 01/10/2009 AND HELD THAT WORK DOES NOT INCLUDE MANUFACTURE AND SUPPLY OF PRODUCTS ACCORDING TO SPECIFICATION OF CUSTOMERS BY USING MATERIALS PURCHASED FROM THIRD PARTIES. THE LEARNED COUNSEL ALSO RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING CASES IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE: 1. BDA LTD. VS. ITO 281 ITR 99 (BOM.) 2. CIT VS. DY. CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER MARKFED KHANNA 304 ITR 17 (P&H) 3. CIT VS. DABUR INDIA LTD. 283 ITR 197 (DEL.) 4. CIT VS. REEBOK INDIA CO. 306 ITR 124(DEL.) 5. CIT VS. GIRNAR FOOD AND BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. 306 ITR 23 (GUJ) 6. CIT VS. HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. 306 ITR 25 (GUJ.) 7. ITO VS. MILAN DAIRY FOODS (P) LTD. 7 SOT 901 DE L. 8. ITO VS. DR. WILMAR SCWAABE INDIA (P) LTD. 95 TTJ 53 DEL. 9. WADILAL DAIRY INTERNATIONAL LTD. VS. ACIT 81 ITD 238 (PUNE) 10. JINDAL PHOTO FILMS LTD. VS. ITO 5 SOT 272 DEL. 9 ITA.NO.1063/HYD/2013 M/S. MARGADARSI CHIT FUND PVT. LTD. HYD 16. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RECORD AS WELL AS DECISIONS CITED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED AT PARA 15 WE HOLD THAT THE EXPENDITURE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 2 26 65 453/- DOES NOT ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. 12. FACTS AND ISSUE BEFORE US BEING IDENTICAL WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE CO ORDINATE BENCH AND UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE GROUND RAIS ED IS DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.10.2013 . SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD DATED 30 TH OCTOBER 2013. VBP/- COPY TO 1. ACIT CIRCLE 14(2) HYDERABAD. 3. M/S. MARGADARSI CHIT FUND PVT. LTD. 5-10-195 CO RPORATE OFFICE OPP. POLICE CONTROL ROOM HYDERABAD PAN AABCM4 751G 3. CIT(A) - I I HYDERABAD. 4. CIT - ( TDS ) HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. I.T.A.T. B BENCH HYDERABAD