M/s. Mysore Co-operative Bank Ltd, Mysore v. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward, Mysore

ITA 1956/BANG/2018 | 2013-2014
Pronouncement Date: 19-03-2021 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 195621114 RSA 2018
Assessee PAN AAAAT3068L
Bench Bangalore
Appeal Number ITA 1956/BANG/2018
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 13 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Mysore Co-operative Bank Ltd, Mysore
Respondent Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward, Mysore
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 19-03-2021
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags 194
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 19-03-2021
Date Of Final Hearing 18-03-2021
Next Hearing Date 18-03-2021
Last Hearing Date 02-04-2019
First Hearing Date 26-11-2018
Assessment Year 2013-2014
Appeal Filed On 06-06-2018
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT A NO . 1956/B ANG/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013 - 14 MYSORE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. GANDHI SQUARE MYSORE. PAN: AAAAT 3068L VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS WARD MYSORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : S HRI S.V. RAVISHANKAR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K ANNAN NARAYANA JT. C IT(DR)(ITAT ) BENGALURU. DATE OF HEARING : 18 . 0 3 .2021 D ATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 .0 3 .202 1 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED 28.02.2018 OF THE CIT(APPEALS) MYSURU FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX [APPEALS] PASSED UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND 201(1A) O F THE ACT IN SO FAR AS IT IS AGAINST THE APPELLANT IS OPP OSED TO LAW WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE PROBABILITIES FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE. 2. THE APPELLANT DENIES ITSELF LIABLE TO BE TREATED AS AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 28 27 447/- UNDER S ECTION ITA NO.1956/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 15 201(1) OF THE ACT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE. 3. THE APPELLANT DENIES ITSELF LIABLE TO BE CHARGED INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT SINCE THE APPELLA NT DENIES ITSELF TO BE TREATED AS AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT UNDE R SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT THE INTEREST PA ID WAS TO ITS MEMBERS WAS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 194A(3)(V) OF THE ACT AND HENCE HAS NOT MADE OUT A CASE THE FACT OF WHICH WAS NOT IN DISPUTE EVEN BY THE AO ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN N OT HOLDING THAT THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND 201( 1A) OF THE ACT WAS BAD IN LAW AS IT WAS PASSED WITHOUT I SSUE OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE. 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN STATING THAT AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEA RING HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT BRINGING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY THE SAME THEREBY PASSING AN E RRONEOUS ORDER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 7. THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN APPRECIA TING THAT THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND 201(1A) O F THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AS NO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED WHICH IS AN ESSENTIAL PREREQUISITE BEFORE PASSING O RDER UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT ON THE PARITY OF REASONING OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME CO URT IN THE CASE OF HOTEL BLUEMOON REPORTED IN 321 ITR 362 AND CONSEQUENTLY LIABLE TO BE QUASHED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 8. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER I S NOT JUSTIFIED IN PASSING THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT MERELY ON THE BASIS OF SURVEY UN DER ITA NO.1956/BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 15 SECTION 133A OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN QUASHED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE. 9. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE INTERPRETATION SOUGHT TO BE MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND THE MEMBERS OF THE APPELLANT OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO TDS PROVISIONS ON THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE. 10. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT IS JUSTIFIED IN LA W IN NOT DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE ON PAYMENTS OF INCOME REFER RED IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 194A OF THE ACT TO ITS M EMBERS IN VIEW OF THE CLAUSE (V) TO SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTIO N 194A OF THE ACT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 11. THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED ON FACTS I N APPRECIATING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS RIGHTLY DEDUCTE D TAX AT SOURCE ONLY ON PAYMENTS TO NON-MEMBERS IN ACCORDANC E WITH CLAUSE (VIIA) READ WITH CLAUSE (I)(B) TO SUB-S ECTION (3) OF SECTION 194A OF THE ACT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE. 12. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE PERIOD OF LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201 (1A) SHOULD HAVE BEEN RESTRICTED TO THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF TAX ON SUCH INTEREST BY THE MEMBER OF TH E SOCIETY ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 13. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE IS NO LIABILITY TO PAY TAX ON THE ANALOGY OF SECTION 206C(6) IN THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 201 OF THE ACT AND THUS THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE ACT CAN BE RAISED ON THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF AND CONSEQUENTLY THE AMOUNT CANNOT BE COLLECTED FROM TH E APPELLANT. 14. THE APPELLANT DENIES ITSELF LIABLE TO BE TREATE D AS AN ASSESSEE-IN-DEFAULT AS THERE EXISTED SUFFICIENT CA USE FOR NOT DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE VIZ. THE CIRCULAR NO. 09 O F 2002 AND ITA NO.1956/BANG/2018 PAGE 4 OF 15 CONSEQUENTLY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 201(1) ARE N OT ATTRACTED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E. 15. WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT CONCEDING THAT T DS IS DEDUCTIBLE NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS BY THE APPELLANT O N A BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE MEMBERS IN RECEIPT OF THE INTEREST ARE LIABLE TO PAY THE TAX ON SUCH INCOME RECEIVED B Y THEM AND FROM THE INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 194A(3) THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TDS FROM MEMBERS AND ON THE BASIS OF REASONING PROVIDED IN THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN VEGETABLE PRODUCTS THE APPELLANT OUGHT NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AS AN ASSESSE-IN-DEFAULT TO FURTHE R THE CAUSE OF NATURAL JUSTICE ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE. 16. WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT CONCEDING THAT T DS IS DEDUCTIBLE EVEN THEN THE INTEREST IS NOT LEVIABLE UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 17. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194A ( 1) OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CO-OPE RATIVE SOCIETY ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 18. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 191 OF THE ACT WHICH PROVIDES THAT IN A CASE OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHI CH PROVISION IS NOT MADE UNDER THIS CHAPTER XVII-B OF THE ACT FOR DEDUCTING INCOME-TAX AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT IN COME- TAX SHALL BE PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECT AND CON SEQUENTLY PASSED A PERVERSE ORDER UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE. 19. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE BANGALORE ITAT IN THE CASE OF THE BAGALKOT DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD VS. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ITA # 1572/BANG/2 013 AY 2009-2010) THE FACTS OF WHICH ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE APPELLANT. 20. WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE AMOUNT DETERMINED IS VERY HIGH AND REQUIRES TO BE REDUCED SUBSTANTIALLY. ITA NO.1956/BANG/2018 PAGE 5 OF 15 21. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD ALTER SUBST ITUTE AND DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL URGED AB OVE. 22. FOR THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS TO BE URGED DUR ING THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL BE ALLOWED IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A CO- OPERATIVE BANK REGISTERED AS A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY. DURING THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE AO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON TIME DEPOSITS OF ITS MEMBERS AND THEREFORE ORDER U/S. 201(1) & 201(1A) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 [ THE ACT] WAS PASSED HOLDING THE ASSESSEE AS AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT TO T HE EXTENT OF TAX DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTING TO RS.28 27 447. FURTHER HE ALSO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE FOR PAYMENT OF INTEREST U/S. 20 1(1A) AMOUNTING TO RS. 6 50 313. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID COMBINED ORDER MADE ULS. 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED THIS AP PEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). 4. BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ISSUED WITH A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE AND THEREFORE THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS BAD IN LAW. THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN A DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD ON 24/02/2015 CALLIN G UPON TO SHOW-CAUSE AS TO WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS AN ASSESSEE I N DEFAULT IN TERMS OF SEC.201(1) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE THE CIT(A) REJE CTED THIS GROUND. 5. ON THE ISSUE PERTAINING TO NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE INTEREST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS MEMBERS THE C IT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE AO HELD THAT THE AFORESAID PAYMENTS OF INTEREST MA DE WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAXES AT SOURCE FOR INDIVIDUAL PAYMENTS EXCEEDING R S. 10 000/- IN EACH CASE ATTRACTED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.194A(3)(I)(B) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO CO-OPER ATIVE SOCIETIES MUST HAVE BEEN APPLIED SINCE WAS EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS O F TDS U/S.194A (3) OF ITA NO.1956/BANG/2018 PAGE 6 OF 15 THE ACT. THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SECTION 1 94A(3)(I)(B) OF THE ACT IS A PROVISION WHICH MANDATES DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOUR CE BY A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKING WHERE THE INCOME IN THE FORM OF INTEREST WHICH IS PAID BY SUCH SOCIETY IS IN EXC ESS OF TEN THOUSAND RUPEES. SECTION 194A(3)(V) OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT TAX NEED NOT BE DEDUCTED AT SOURCE WHERE THE INCOME IN THE FORM OF INTEREST IS CREDITED OR PAID BY A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY TO A MEMBER THEREOF OR TO ANY OTHER CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY. IN THE INSTANT APPEAL THE CIT(A ) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE WITH CREDIBLE AND VERIFIABLE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT THE INTEREST OF RS.2 82 7 4 477 PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WAS EXEMPT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 194A(3)(V) OF THE ACT. AS NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE WAS ADDUCED TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE FAILURE TO DEDUCT TAXES AT SOURCE FROM THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST OF RS 2 82 74 477 ATTRACTED THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 194A(3)(I)(B) OF THE ACT AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO. 6. ON THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE IMPUG NED ORDER WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION OF TIME THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS MADE WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED UND ER SECTION 201(3) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE DISMISSED THE SAME. 7. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE ARE OF THE OP INION THAT SIMILAR ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE O F BAGALKOT DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK V. JCIT 48 TAXMANN.COM 117 (BA NG. TRIB) AND VIDE ORDER DATED 30.5.2014 IT WAS HELD AS UNDER:- 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE LEARN ED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AFTER REFERRING TO THE RELEVANT PR OVISIONS OF SEC.194A(3)(I)(B) 194A(3)(V) AND 194A(3)(VIIA) OF THE ACT (THESE PROVISIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN EXTRACTED IN TH E EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER AND ARE NOT BEING REPEATED) SUBMITTED T HAT AN ANALYSIS OF THE PROVISIONS WOULD DISCLOSE THAT: ITA NO.1956/BANG/2018 PAGE 7 OF 15 (A) U/S. 194A(3)(I)(B) A CO-OPERATIVE BANK NEED NO T DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE IF THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST PAID DOES N OT EXCEED RS. 10 000 WHETHER THE PAYMENT IS MADE TO A MEMBER OR NON-MEMBER OR WHETHER THE INTEREST IS ON TIME DEPOS IT OR NON-TIME DEPOSIT. (B) U/S 194A (3)(V) A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY IRRESPE CTIVE OF ITS NATURE OF ACTIVITY NEED NOT DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON ANY INTEREST PAID TO ITS MEMBERS WHETHER ON TIME DEPOSI TS OR NON-TIME DEPOSITS (C) U/S 194A(3)(VIIA)(A) A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL C REDIT CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY OR A COOPERATIVE LAND MORTGAGE BA NK OR A CO-OPERATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK NEED NOT DEDUC T TAX AT SOURCE ON ANY INTEREST PAID BY IT IN RESPECT OF DEPOSITS RECEIVED BY IT. (D) U/S 194A(3)(VIIA)(B) OF THE ACT A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY OTHER THAN A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY OR A BANK REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A) NEED NOT DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON INTERES T PAID ON ANY DEPOSIT OTHER THAN TIME DEPOSITS. 2.3 THE FOLLOWING CHART EXPLAINS THE POSITION: TYPE OF INTEREST/ PAYEE RS. 10 000 OR LESS 194A(3)(I)(B) ANY AMOUNT/ANY TYPE OF INTEREST PAID BY A CO-OP SOCIETY 194A(3)(V) INTEREST ON DEPOSITS OTHER THAN TIME- DEPOSITS 194A(3)(VIIA)(B) INTEREST ON TIME DEPOSIT 194A (3)(V) MEMBER EXEMPT EXEMPT EXEMPT EXEMPT NON- MEMBER EXEMPT TDS TO BE MADE EXEMPT TDS TO BE MADE ACCORDING TO HIM THE ABOVE CHART WOULD CLEARLY SHOW THAT WHEN A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY IS PAYING INTEREST TO ITS MEMB ERS IT NEED NOT DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE MYSORE CO -OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT VIDE THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE RE GISTRAR OF CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES. ITA NO.1956/BANG/2018 PAGE 8 OF 15 13. WITH REGARD TO THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LEARN ED ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT PUNE BE NCH IN BHAGANI NIVEDITA SAHAKARI BANK LTD. V. ASSTT. CIT [ 2003] 87 ITD 569 IT WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT IN THAT CASE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE PROVISION OF S. 194A(3)(V) O F THE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO A CO-OPERATIVE BANK. THE HON'BLE TRIB UNAL HELD THAT U/S. 194A(3)(V) WERE TO APPLY TO A CO-OPERATIV E BANK THERE WILL BE A CONFLICT BETWEEN 194A(3)(VIIA)(B) AND S. 194A(3)(V). IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THERE IS NO CONFLICT. S.194 A(3)(VIIA)(B) WOULD APPLY TO ALL CO-OPERATIVE BANKS WHEN THEY PAY INTEREST ON DEPOSITS OTHER THAN TIME DEPOSIT WHETHER TO MEMBERS OR NON- MEMBERS WHEREAS S. 194A(3)(V) APPLIES TO PAYMENT TO MEMBERS INCLUDING INTEREST ON TIME-DEPOSITS. THE CLASSIFICA TION ITSELF IS DIFFERENT. S.194A(3)(V) CLASSIFIES THE PAYEES INTO MEMBERS OR NON-MEMBERS WHEREAS 194A(3)(VIIA)(B) CLASSIFIES THE NATURE OF INTEREST WHETHER IT IS ON TIME DEPOSIT OR A NON-TIM E DEPOSIT. WHEN THE CLASSIFICATION IS ON A TOTALLY DIFFERENT CRITER ION THERE CANNOT BE ANY CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TWO SECTIONS. THEY OPERATE IN TWO DIFFERENT FIELDS. IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE HON'BLE ITAT BENCH ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE IS A CONFLICT BET WEEN 194A(3(V) AND 194A(3)(VIIA)(B). IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY H IM THAT THE HON'BLE ITAT PUNE BENCH DID NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF CIRCULAR NO. 9/2002 DATED 11.9.2002 (257 ITR ST 36). IN THIS CIRCULAR THE BOARD HAS CLARIFIED AS UNDER: 'BOARD HAS CONSIDERED THE MATTER AND IT IS CLARIFIE D THAT A MEMBER OF A CO-OPERATIVE BANK SHALL RECEIVE INTERES T ON BOTH TIME DEPOSITS AND DEPOSITS OTHER THAN TIME DEP OSITS WHERE SUCH CO-OPERATIVE BANK WITHOUT TDS UNDER SECT ION 194A BY VIRTUE OF EXEMPTION GRANTED VIDE CLAUSE (V) OF SUP-SECTION (3) OF THE SAID SECTION. THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (VIIA) OF THE SAID SUB-SECTION ARE APPLICABL E ONLY IN CASE OF A NON-MEMBER DEPOSITOR OF THE CO-OPERATIVE BANK WHO SHALL RECEIVE INTEREST-ONLY ON DEPOSITS OTHER T HAN TIME DEPOSITS MADE ON OR AFTER JULY 1 1995 WITHOUT TDS UNDER SECTION 194A'. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT THE LEARNED ASSES SING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT THE CIRCULAR WAS STRUCK DOWN IN JAL GAON DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.'S CASE (SUPRA). ACCO RDING TO HIM THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO IN THIS REGARD WERE NOT CORRECT AS THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT STRUCK DOWN ONLY THAT PORTION OF CIRCULAR ITA NO.1956/BANG/2018 PAGE 9 OF 15 WHICH DEALT WITH BOARDS CLARIFICATION AS TO WHO IS A MEMBER. THE COURT NEVER HAD AN OCCASION TO GO INTO A QUESTION W HETHER S. 194A(3)(V) OF THE ACT WOULD COVER- A CO-OPERATIVE B ANK OR NOT. IT WAS FINALLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION AND NO DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 14. THE LEARNED DR WHILE REITERATING THE STAND OF T HE AO/CIT(A) FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT PANAJI B ENCH IN ITA NO.85/PN/2013 FOR AY 09-10 IN THE CASE OF THE BAILH ONGAL URBAN CO-OP BANK LTD. V. JT. CIT ORDER DATED 28.8.2 013 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF SMC BENCH IN THE CASE OF BHAGANI NIVEDITA SAHAKARI BANK LTD. (SUPRA). WITHOU T PREJUDICE TO HIS SUBMISSION THAT TDS PROVISIONS WERE APPLICAB LE EVEN IN THE CASE OF PAYMENT OF INTEREST TO MEMBER DEPOSITOR S BY A CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY IT WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO/CIT(A) IS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHETHER THE INTEREST D ISALLOWED PERTAINS TO INTEREST PAID TO MEMBERS OR NON-MEMBERS AND THIS ASPECT HAS TO BE VERIFIED IF NECESSARY. IN PARTICU LAR IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IF CLAUSE (V) OF SEC.194A(3) EXEMPTS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES FROM THE PROVISIONS OF TDS WHEN IT PAYS I NTEREST TO ITS MEMBERS THEN THERE WAS NO NEED TO HAVE SEC.L94A(3)( VIIA) OF THE ACT SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTING CERTAIN CO-OPERATIVE SOC IETIES FROM THE OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE WHEN IT PAYS INT EREST. TO THIS ARGUMENT WE HAVE ALREADY NOTICED THE ARGUMENT OF T HE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE TWO PROVISIONS OPERATE IN DIFFERENT FIELD. WE MAY CLARIFY HERE THAT THE SAID ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS A CLEAR ANSWER TO THE ABOVE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED DR. THE LEARNED DR ALSO FIL ED WRITTEN SUBMISSION BEFORE US IN WHICH THE STAND OF THE REV ENUE AS REFLECTED IN THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES H AS BEEN REITERATED. 15. WE HAVE GIVEN A VERY CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO T HE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE SUBMISSION S MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO BE ACCEPTED. AS RIGHTLY CONTENDED BY HIM SEC.194A(3)(I)(B) OF THE A CT IS A PROVISION WHICH MANDATES DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE BY A CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKI NG WHERE THE INCOME IN THE FORM OF INTEREST WHICH IS PAID BY SUC H SOCIETY IS IN EXCESS OF TEN THOUSAND RUPEES. SEC.194A(3)(V) OF TH E ACT PROVIDES THAT TAX NEED NOT BE DEDUCTED AT SOURCE WH ERE THE ITA NO.1956/BANG/2018 PAGE 10 OF 15 INCOME IN THE FORM OF INTEREST IS CREDITED OR PAID BY A CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY TO A MEMBER THEREOF OR TO ANY OTH ER CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY. THIS PROVISION THEREFORE APPLIES TO ALL CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES INCLUDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BANKING. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO EXCLUDE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BANKING FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SEC194A(3)(V) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAM E IS COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.194A(3)(I)(B) OF THE ACT. SEC.194A(3)(V) OF THE ACT REFERS TO PAYMENT BY A CO-OPERATIVE SOCI ETY TO A MEMBER AND PAYMENT BY A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY TO NON- MEMBER WOULD CONTINUE TO BE GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.194A(3)(I)(B) OF THE ACT. SIMILARLY U/S.194A(3) (VIIA)(B) INTEREST ON DEPOSITS OTHER THAN TIME DEPOSITS EVEN IF THE PAYMENT IS MADE TO A NON-MEMBER BY A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY THE CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY NEED NOT DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE. TH US THIS SECTION CARVES OUT ANOTHER EXCEPTION TO SEC.194A(3)(I)(B) O F THE ACT. WE DO NOT THINK THAT ANY OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS CAN B E CALLED A GENERAL PROVISION AND OTHER PROVISIONS CALLED SPECI FIC PROVISIONS. EACH PROVISION OVER-LAP AND IF READ IN THE MANNER A S INDICATED ABOVE THERE IS PERFECT HARMONY TO THE VARIOUS PROV ISIONS. WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE PUNE ITAT SMC IN THE CASE OF BHAGANI NIVEDITA SAHAKARI BANK LTD. (SUPRA) WHEN IT SAYS THAT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AS MENTIONED IN CL. (V) I S A GENERAL SPECIES WHEREAS THE OTHER FIVE CATEGORIES OF CO-OP ERATIVE SOCIETIES WHICH ARE SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO IN OTH ER PROVISIONS ARE SPECIFIC COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES. THE FURTHER CONCLUS ION IN THE SAID DECISION THAT THE TERM 'CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY' IN CL . (V) OF S. 194A(3) HAS TO BE INTERPRETED AS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIE TY OTHER THAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK IS AGAIN UNSUSTAINABLE. THE LAW IS WELL SETTLED THAT BY A PROCESS OF INTERPRETATION ONE CANNOT ADD ON WORDS THAT ARE NOT FOUND IN THE TEXT OF THE STATUTE. SUCH A CO URSE IS PERMITTED ONLY WHEN THERE IS 'CAUSUS OMISUS'. WE DO NOT THINK THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.194A(3)(V) SUFFERS FROM ANY CAUSU S OMISUS AS HAS BEEN INTERPRETED BY THE ITAT PUNE/BENCH SMC. 16. WE ARE ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT THE DECISION OF TH E HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MOOLAMATTOM ELECTR ICITY BOARD EMPLOYEES CO-OP BANK LTD. IN RE [1999] 238 ITR 630 /106 TAXMAN 242 SUPPORTS THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. THE PETITIONERS IN THAT CASE WERE PRIMARY CREDIT SOCIET IES REGISTERED UNDER THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT. IN VIE W OF THE ITA NO.1956/BANG/2018 PAGE 11 OF 15 SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF SEC.194A(3)(VIIA) OF THE ACT THEY CLAIMED THAT THEY NEED NOT DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON INTEREST PAID. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER THAT SUB-S.194A(3)(V) D EALS WITH SUCH INCOME CREDITED OR PAID BY A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY T O A MEMBER WHEREAS SUB-S. (3)(VIIA)(A) PROVIDES A TOTAL EXEMPT ION TO DEPOSITS WITH THE PRIMARY CREDIT SOCIETY. THE HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT ACCEPTED THEIR PLEA AND IN THEIR JUDGMENT HAVE OBSE RVED THAT SEC.194A (3)(I) EXEMPTION LIMIT OF RS. 10 000 TO IN TEREST PAID ON TIME DEPOSITS WITH CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ENGAGED I N CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF BANKING IS ALLOWED BUT THAT DOES NOT ME AN THAT ALL CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES WHO HAVE CREDITED OR PAID EXCEE DING RS. 10 000 ARE LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE. THE COUR T HELD THAT CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN CARRYING ON BUSINESS O F BANKING AND PRIMARY CREDIT SOCIETIES STAND ON DIFFERENT FOOTING AND BELONG TO DIFFERENT CLASS. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT SEC.194A(3 )(V) OF THE ACT IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES OT HER THAN CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BAN KING AS OBSERVED IN PARA-37 OF ITS JUDGMENT THE PUNE ITAT I N THE CASE OF BHAGANI NIVEDITA SAHAKARI BANK LTD. (SUPRA). IN FAC T IN PARA-2 OF CIRCULAR NO. 9 DATED 11.9.2002 THE CBDT HAS VERY C LEARLY LAID DOWN THAT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES CARRYING ON BANKIN G BUSINESS WHEN IT PAYS INTEREST ON DEPOSITS BY ITS MEMBERS NE ED NOT DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.194A (3)(V) OF THE ACT. 17. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE CBDT IN CIRCULAR NO.9 DAT ED 11.9.2002 CLARIFIED CERTAIN ASPECTS WHICH ARE RELEVANT TO THE PRESENT CASE. THE SAME READS THUS: 'CIRCULAR NO.9 OF 2002 SUB : TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIO NS IN RESPECT OF INCOME PAID OR CREDITED TO A MEMBER OF C O- OPERATIVE BANKREG. 11/09/2002 TDS 194A UNDER SECTION 194A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE FROM ANY PAYMENT OF INCOME BY WAY OF INTEREST OTHER THAN INCOME BY WAY OF INTEREST ON ITA NO.1956/BANG/2018 PAGE 12 OF 15 SECURITIES. CLAUSE (V) OF SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTIO N 194A EXEMPTS SUCH INCOME CREDITED OR PAID BY A CO-OPERAT IVE SOCIETY TO A MEMBER THEREOF FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF TDS. ON THE OTHER HAND CLAUSE (VIIA) OF SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 194A EXEMPTS FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF TDS SU CH INCOME CREDITED OR PAID IN RESPECT OF DEPOSITS (OTH ER THAN TIME-DEPOSITS MADE ON OR AFTER 1ST JULY 1995) WITH A CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN CARRYING ON THE BUSINE SS OF BANKING. 2. REPRESENTATIONS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN THE BOARD SEEKING CLARIFICATION AS TO WHETHER A MEMBER OF A C O- OPERATIVE BANK MAY RECEIVE WITHOUT TDS INTEREST ON TIME DEPOSIT MADE WITH THE CO-OPERATIVE BANK ON OR AFTER 1ST JULY 1995. THE BOARD HAS CONSIDERED THE MATTER AND IT IS CLARIFIED THAT A MEMBER OF A CO-OPERATIVE BANK SHAL L RECEIVE INTEREST ON BOTH TIME DEPOSITS AND DEPOSITS OTHER THAN TIME DEPOSITS WITH SUCH CO-OPERATIVE BANK WITH OUT TDS UNDER SECTION 194A BY VIRTUE OF THE EXEMPTION GRANTED VIDE CLAUSE (V) OF SUB-SECTION (3) OF THE S AID SECTION. THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (VIIA) OF THE SAI D SUB- SECTION ARE APPLICABLE ONLY IN CASE OF A NON-MEMBER DEPOSITOR OF THE CO-OPERATIVE BANK WHO SHALL RECEI VE INTEREST ONLY ON DEPOSITS OTHER THAN TIME DEPOSITS MADE ON OR AFTER 1ST JULY 1995 WITHOUT TDS UNDER SECTIO N 194A. 3. A QUESTION HAS ALSO BEEN RAISED AS TO WHETHER NO RMAL MEMBERS ASSOCIATE MEMBERS AND SYMPATHIZER MEMBERS ARE ALSO COVERED BY THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 194A(3)(V). IT IS HEREBY CLARIFIED THAT THE EXEMPTI ON IS AVAILABLE ONLY TO SUCH MEMBERS WHO HAVE JOINED IN APPLICATION FOR THE REGISTRATION OF THE CO-OPERATIV E SOCIETY AND THOSE WHO ARE ADMITTED TO MEMBERSHIP AFTER REGISTRATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BYE-LAWS AND RU LES. A MEMBER ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 194A(3) (V) MUST HAVE SUBSCRIBED TO AND FULLY PAID FOR AT LEAST ONE SHARE OF THE CO-OPERATIVE BANK MUST BE ENTITLED TO PARTICIPATE AND VOTE IN THE GENERAL BODY MEETINGS A ND/OR SPECIAL GENERAL BODY MEETINGS OF THE COOPERATIVE BA NK AND MUST BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE SHARE FROM THE PROF ITS OF THE COOPERATIVE BANK. [F. NO. 275/106/2000-IT(B)] (2002) 177 CTR(ST) 1' ITA NO.1956/BANG/2018 PAGE 13 OF 15 18. IT CAN BE SEEN FROM PARA-2 OF THE CIRCULAR REFE RRED TO ABOVE THAT THE CBDT HAS VERY CLEARLY LAID DOWN THAT CO-OP ERATIVE SOCIETIES CARRYING ON BANKING BUSINESS WHEN IT PAYS INTEREST ON DEPOSITS BY ITS MEMBERS NEED NOT DEDUCT TAX AT SOUR CE. THE ABOVE INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS BY THE CBDT WHICH IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN OUR VIEW IS BINDING ON THE TAX AUTHORITIES. 19. IN THE CASE DECIDED BY ITAT PANAJI BENCH IN ITA NO.85/PN/2013 FOR AY 09-10 IN THE CASE OF THE BAILH ONGAL URBAN CO-OP BANK LTD. (SUPRA) ORDER DATED 28.8.2013 THE TRIBUNAL PROCEEDED ON THE FOOTING THAT THE AFORESAID CIRCULA R HAS BEEN QUASHED BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF THE JALGAON DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. (SU PRA) AND THEREFORE CHOSE TO FOLLOW THE DECISION RENDERED BY PUNE ITAT SMC IN THE CASE OF BHAGANI NIVEDITA SAHAKARI BANK L TD. (SUPRA). IN OUR VIEW THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF JALGAON DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.'S C ASE (SUPRA) WAS DEALING WITH A CASE OF CHALLENGE TO PARA-3 OF C BDT CIRCULAR NO.9 DATED 11.9.2002 WHICH TRIED TO INTERPRET THE W ORD 'MEMBER' AS GIVEN IN SEC.194A(3)(V) OF THE ACT. IT IS ONLY T HAT PART OF THE CIRCULAR THAT HAD BEEN QUASHED BY THE HON'BLE BOMBA Y HIGH COURT AND THE OTHER PARAGRAPHS OF THE CIRCULAR HAD NO CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT . HOW COULD IT BE SAID THAT THE ENTIRE CIRCULAR HAS BEEN QUASHED BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT? IN OUR VIEW PARA-2 OF TH E CIRCULAR STILL HOLDS GOOD AND THE CONCLUSION OF THE ITAT PUN E BENCH IN THE CASE OF THE BAILHONGAL URBAN CO-OP BANK LTD. (S UPRA) ARE NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT. CONSEQUENTLY THE CONCLUSIONS DR AWN IN THE AFORESAID DECISION ALSO CONTRARY TO FACTS AND HENCE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS PRECEDENT. 20. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGH T TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE ITAT VISHAKAPATNAM BENCH IN THE CASE OF TH E ASSTT. CIT V. VISAKHAPATNAM CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. [2011] 47 S OT 295/13 TAXMANN.COM 190 HAS HELD THAT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIE S CARRYING ON BANKING BUSINESS WHEN IT PAYS INTEREST TO ITS MEMBE RS ON DEPOSITS IT NEED NOT DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE IN VIEW OF THE PRO VISIONS OF SEC.194A(3)(V) OF THE ACT. SIMILAR VIEW HAS ALSO BE EN EXPRESSED BY THE PUNE BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF ASSTT. CIT V. OZER MERCHANT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. [2014] 62 SOT 14/41 ITA NO.1956/BANG/2018 PAGE 14 OF 15 TAXMANN.COM 110. WE MAY ADD THAT IN BOTH THESE DECI SIONS THE DISCUSSION DID NOT TURN ON THE INTERPRETATION OF SE C.194A(3)(I)(B) OF THE ACT VIS-A-VIS SEC.L94A(3)(V) OF THE ACT. IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT THE PREPONDERANCE OF JUDICIAL OPINION ON THIS ISSUE IS THAT CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES CARRYING ON BANKING BUSINESS WH EN IT PAYS INTEREST TO ITS MEMBERS ON DEPOSITS. NEED NOT DEDUC T TAX AT SOURCE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 194A(3)(V) OF THE ACT. 21. FOR THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE WE HOLD THAT THE A SSESSEE WHICH IS A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY CARRYING ON BANKING BUSIN ESS WHEN IT PAYS INTEREST INCOME TO A MEMBER BOTH ON TIME DEPOS ITS AND ON DEPOSITS OTHER THAN TIME DEPOSITS WITH SUCH CO-OPER ATIVE SOCIETY NEED NOT DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194A BY VIRTUE OF THE EXEMPTION GRANTED VIDE CLAUSE (V) OF SUB-SECTION (3 ) OF THE SAID SECTION. 22. WE HOWEVER FIND AS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED DR THAT THE ORDERS ARE NOT CLEAR AS TO WHETHER THE ENTIRE INTER EST DISALLOWED U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT RELATES TO INTEREST PAID T O MEMBERS OR PART OF THE INTEREST IS ALSO PAID TO NON-MEMBERS. WE THE REFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR THE LIMITED PURPO SE OF VERIFYING AS TO ANY PORTION OF THE INTEREST DISALLOWED RELATE S TO PAYMENT TO NON-MEMBERS AND IN THAT EVENT RESTRICT THE DISALLOW ANCE IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO PAYMENT OF INTEREST BY THE ASSESSE E TO NON- MEMBERS WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. 23. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TR EATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. THIS VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL IS ALSO CONFIRMED BY T HE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CIT V. NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. 387 ITR 702 (KARN) WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT DID NOT AGREE WITH T HE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT SECTION 194A(3)(V) I S A GENERAL PROVISION GRANTING BENEFIT TO ALL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES WHE REAS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194A(3)(I)(B) OF THE ACT DEALS WITH CO-OPER ATIVE SOCIETY CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKING HENCE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS IN ANY CASE OVERRIDES THE GENERAL PROVISIONS AND THE SAME WAS REJECTED BY THE HONBLE COURT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE WORD MEMBERS IS MISSING IN CLAUSE (B). FURTHER IN ITA NO.1956/BANG/2018 PAGE 15 OF 15 CIRCULAR NO. 19/2005 DATED 27.11.2005 AT PARA 42.5 IT HAS BEEN INTER ALIA MENTIONED AS UNDER:- . HENCE THE CO-OPERATIVE BANK WAS NOT REQUI RED TO DEDUCT TAX FROM THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON THE TIME -DEPOSITS OF ITS MEMBERS PAID OR CREDITED BEFORE FIRST JUNE 2015. 9. BEING SO THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF T HE LD. DR THAT SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194A(3)(I)(B) OF THE ACT APPL IED SO AS TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON THE INTEREST ACCRUED OR PAID ON THE TIME- DEPOSITS BY THE CO- OPERATIVE BANK. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE ALLOW TH E APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 19 TH DAY OF MARCH 2021. SD/- SD/- ( N V VASUDEV AN ) ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE DATED THE 19 TH MARCH 2021. / DESAI S MURTHY / COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITAT BANGALORE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT BANGALORE.