M/s Krishna District Co-op. Central Bank Ltd., Penuganchiporlu Branch, Penuganchiprolu v. The ITO (TDS), Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

MA 101/VIZ/2010 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2010 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 10125324 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AABTT0343E
Bench Visakhapatnam
Appeal Number MA 101/VIZ/2010
Duration Of Justice 26 day(s)
Appellant M/s Krishna District Co-op. Central Bank Ltd., Penuganchiporlu Branch, Penuganchiprolu
Respondent The ITO (TDS), Ward-3(1), Vijayawada
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 07-09-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 07-09-2010
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 12-08-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO.98/VIZAG/2010 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.298/VIZAG/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 M/S. KRISHNA DISTRICT CO-OP. CENTRAL BANK LTD. JAGGAIAHPET ITO (TDS) WARD-3(1) VIJAYAWADA (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) PAN NO.AABTT 0343E MA NO.99/VIZAG/2010 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.299/VIZAG/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 M/S. KRISHNA DISTRICT CO-OP. CENTRAL BANK LTD. VATSAVAI ITO (TDS) WARD-3(1) VIJAYAWADA (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) PAN NO.AABTT 0343R MA NO.100/VIZAG/2010 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.300/VIZAG/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 M/S. KRISHNA DISTRICT CO-OP. CENTRAL BANK LTD. CHANDARLAPADU ITO (TDS) WARD-3(1) VIJAYAWADA (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) PAN NO.AABTT 0343R MA NO.101/VIZAG/2010 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.301/VIZAG/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 M/S. KRISHNA DISTRICT CO-OP. CENTRAL BANK LTD. PENUGANCHIPROLU ITO (TDS) WARD-3(1) VIJAYAWADA (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) PAN NO.AABTT 0343R APPELLANT BY: SHRI A.C. GANGAIAH RESPONDENT BY: SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH DR 2 ORDER PER SHRI S.K. YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE PREFERRED U/ S 254(2) OF THE I.T. ACT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEES CHALLENGING THE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THE GROUND THAT IT HAS WRONGLY TAKEN A VIEW THAT INDIVI DUAL APPEALS FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE REQUIRED TO BE FILED WITHOUT A PPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ONE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED FOR DIFFERENT ASSES SMENT YEARS BY THE A.O. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE LEGAL PROPOSITIONS LAID DOWN THROUG H VARIOUS JUDGEMENTS OF THE HIGH COURTS AND THE APEX COURTS AND HAS WRONGLY CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO PAY THE INTEREST U/S 201(1A) OF THE I.T. ACT THOUGH THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF TDS WAS UNKNOWN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL IS ALSO FAILED TO ADJUDICATE THE ANOTHER GROUND RAISED IN T HE APPEAL WITH REGARD TO THE DIRECTION OF CIT(A) TO IMPOSE THE INTEREST U/S 201 WITHOUT ISSUING A NOTICE OR WITHOUT HEARING THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE TRIBUNA L HAS NOT ADJUDICATED THE ISSUES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LEGAL PROPOSITIONS LA ID DOWN THROUGH VARIOUS JUDGEMENTS AND THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS AN ERROR IS CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH CALLS FOR A RECTIFICATION. BY NOT A DJUDICATING THE SPECIFIC GROUND RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO COMMITTED AN ERROR APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. THEREFORE THE NECESSARY RECTIFICATION IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 2. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND HAS SUBMITTED THA T THE TRIBUNAL HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUES IN THE LIGHT OF GIVEN FACT A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGEMENTS REFERRED TO DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEALS. WHATEVER FINDINGS ARE GIVE N BY THE TRIBUNAL THESE ARE BASED ON THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE FINDINGS CANNOT BE REVIEWED UNDER THE GARB OF RECTIFICATION. ONLY THO SE RECTIFICATIONS U/S 254(2) IS PERMISSIBLE WHICH ARE APPARENT AND DOES NOT AMOU NT TO A REVIEW OF THE ORDER. IN THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION TH E ASSESSEE SEEKS A REVIEW OF THE ORDER WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW . 3 3. SO FAR AS THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT TO IMPOSE INT EREST U/S 201 IS CONCERNED IT IS NOT AN ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME THERE FORE CIT IS NOT REQUIRED TO ISSUE A NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEES. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL VIS--VIS THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICA TIONS AND WE FIND THAT TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUES ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS REFERRED TO DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. THE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICA L FINDING THAT FOR EACH AND EVERY ASSESSMENT YEAR A SEPARATE APPEAL IS REQUIRE D TO BE FILED. IF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL THE REMEDY LIES SOMEWHERE ELSE AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO JURISDICTION TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT. SIMILAR IS THE POSITION WIT H REGARD TO THE SPECIFIC FINDING GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL WITH RESPECT TO THE C HARGEABILITY OF INTEREST U/S 201(1A) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE SCOPE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) HAS BEEN DEFINED REPEATEDLY BY THE APEX COURT AND THE VARIOU S HIGH COURTS AT A DIFFERENT POINT OF TIME. 5. IT HAS ALSO BEEN HELD BY THE APEX COURT AND VARIO US HIGH COURTS THAT UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE I.T.ACT THE TRIBUNAL CAN RECTIFY ONLY THOSE MISTAKES WHICH ARE ARITHMETICAL OR CLERICAL OR APPA RENT IN ITS ORDER. THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO JURISDICTION TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDE R UNDER THE GARB OF RECTIFICATION. THE SCOPE OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY EXAMINED BY THE APEX COURT AND VARIOUS HIGH COURTS AND IT WAS HELD THAT IF THE TRIBUNAL COMMITS AN ERROR OF JUDGEMENT THAT ER ROR CANNOT BE RECTIFIED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT A S THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT EMPOWERED BY THE STATUTE TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER. I N THE CASE OF CIT VS. VARDHMAN SPINNING; 226 ITR 296 THEIR LORDSHIPS OF T HE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT HAVE HELD IN SPECIFIC TERMS THAT THE AP PELLATE TRIBUNAL IS CREATION OF STATUTES AND IT CAN EXERCISE ONLY THOSE POWERS W HICH HAVE BEEN CONFERRED UPON IT. THE ONLY POWER CONFERRED ON THE TRIBUNAL U /S 254(2) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 IS TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD . THE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW OR MODIFY ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES U NDER THE ACT CANNOT BE INTERFERED WITH ON THE BASIS OF SUPPOSED INHERENT R IGHTS. U/S 254(1) OF THE ACT THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AFTER HEARING THE CONT ESTING PARTIES CAN PASS SUCH ORDER AS IT DEEMS FIT. SEC. 254(2) OF THE ACT SPECIFICALLY EMPOWERS THE 4 APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT ANY TIME WITHIN FOUR YEARS OF THE DATE OF AN ORDER TO AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT U/S 254(1) OF THE ACT WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD EITHER SUO MOTO OR ON AN APPLICATION MADE. WHAT CAN BE RECTIFIED UNDER THIS SECTION IS A MISTA KE WHICH IS APPARENT AND PATENT. THE MISTAKE HAS TO BE SUCH FOR WHICH NO EL ABORATE REASONS OR INQUIRY IS NECESSARY. WHERE TWO OPINIONS ARE POSSIBLE THE N IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD. 6. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUMAN TEA AND PLYWOOD INDU STRIES (P) LTD. 226 ITR 34 THEIR LORDSHIPS OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HAVE EXPRESSED SIMILAR OBSERVATIONS AFTER HOLDING THAT UNDER SECTION 254( 2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AN ORDER WHICH HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL REA CHES FINALITY THE MOMENT THE SAME IS PASSED; CANNOT BE TOUCHED THEREAFTER. BY SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT THE TRIBUNAL HOWEVER HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED TO RECTIFY MISTAKES IN ITS ORDERS WHICH ARE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECOR DS. THE EXPRESSION `MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE RECORD MEANS A MISTAKE EI THER CLERICAL OR GRAMMATICAL OR ARITHMETICAL OR OF LIKE NATURE WHIC H CAN BE DETECTED WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY NECESSITY TO RE-ARGUE THE MATTER OR TO RE-APPRAISE THE FACT AS APPEARING FROM THE RECORDS. IN ANOTHER CASE CIT VS . GOLAL CHAND AGARWAL; 202 ITR 14 THEIR LORDSHIPS OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT H AVE ALSO HELD THAT SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 EMPOWERS THE TRI BUNAL TO AMEND ITS ORDER PASSED U/S 254(1) TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPA RENT FROM THE RECORD EITHER SUO MOTO OR ON AN APPLICATION. IF IN ITS ORD ER THERE IS NO MISTAKE WHICH IS PATENT AND OBVIOUS ON THE BASIS OF THE RECORD T HE EXERCISE OF THE JURISDICTION BY THE TRIBUNAL U/S 254(2) WILL BE ILL EGAL AND IMPROPER. AN OVERSIGHT OF THE FACT CANNOT CONSTITUTE AN APPARENT MISTAKE RECTIFIABLE UNDER SECTION 254(2). THIS MIGHT AT THE WORST LEAD TO PERVERSITY OF THE ORDER FOR WHICH THE REMEDY AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IS NOT U NDER SECTION 254(2) BUT A REFERENCE PROCEEDINGS U/S 256. THE NORMAL RULE IS THAT THE REMEDY BY WAY OF REVIEW IS A CREATURE OF THE STATUTE AND UNLESS CLOT HED WITH SUCH POWER BY THE STATUTE NO AUTHORITY CAN EXERCISE THE POWER. REVI EW PROCEEDINGS IMPLY PROCEEDINGS WHERE A PARTY AS OF RIGHT CAN APPLY F OR RECONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER ALREADY DECIDED UPON AFTER A FRESH HEARING ON THE MERITS OR THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE PARTIES. SUCH REMEDY IS CE RTAINLY NOT PROVIDED BY THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 IN RESPECT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5 7. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ITAT; 143 CTR 446 HAS HELD THAT SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 2 54 CONFERS AMPLE POWERS ON THE TRIBUNAL TO PASS SUCH ORDERS IN ANY APPEAL F ILED BEFORE IT AS IT THINKS FIT. SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 254 POSTULATES THA T THE TRIBUNAL MAY AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER SUB-SEC. (1) OF SECTIO N 254 WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFYING ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. T HE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL CONFERRED BY SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 254 FOR REC TIFYING ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD CANNOT BE EXERCISED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO RECALL ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER SECTION 254(2). FURTHER REVIEWING AND RECALLING AN ORDER IS ONE THING AND RECTIFYING A MISTAKE IN THE ORDER WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IS QUITE ANOTHER. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY STATUTORY PROVISION FOR REVIEW BY TRIBUNAL THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRI BUNAL CANNOT BE RECALLED OR REVIEWED UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 254 WERE ALSO EXAMINED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF M.P . IN THE CASE OF PRAKASH CHAND MEHTA VS. CIT; 220 ITR 277 IN WHICH THEIR LOR DSHIP HAVE HELD THAT SCOPE OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT IS VER Y LIMITED AND IT IS ONLY THE APPARENT ERROR WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED. 8. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF T.S. BALARAM ITO VS. VOLKART BROTHERS; 82 ITR 50 (SC) HAVE HELD THAT A M ISTAKE APPARENT ON THE RECORD MUST BE AN OBVIOUS AND PATENT MISTAKE AND NO T SOMETHING WHICH CAN BE ESTABLISHED BY A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY BE CONCEIVABLY TWO OPINIONS. A DECISION ON A D EBATABLE POINT OF LAW IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. THEIR LORDSHIP S HAVE FURTHER HELD THAT IF A STATEMENT OF ANY PERSON HAS BEEN RECORDED WITHOUT PRODUCING HIM IN THE WITNESS BOX THE AUTHORITIES SHOULD NOT ACT UPON TH AT STATEMENT WITHOUT AFFORDING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAM INE THE WITNESS BUT THAT IS A MATTER NOT FOR RECTIFICATION BUT IT IS A MATTE R RELATING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE AS TO WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL HAS GONE WRONG IN N OT CONSIDERING THE AFFIDAVIT OF A PARTICULAR PERSON AND HAS ACTED UPON THE STATEMENT OF THE SAME PERSON WHICH WAS RECORDED BY THE ITO WITHOUT BEING PERMITTED TO CROSS EXAMINE BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS NOT A MATTER IN W HICH THE APPARENT ERROR IS INVOLVED BUT IT IS A MATTER MORE OF MERIT AND CANNO T BE RECTIFIED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF RECTIFICATION. THE POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL WHILE MAKING A RECTIFICATION 6 WERE AGAIN EXAMINED BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. HERO CYCLES PVT. LTD.; 228 ITR 463 IN WHICH THEIR LORDSHIPS HAV E HELD THAT RECTIFICATION CAN ONLY BE MADE WHEN A GLARING MISTAKE OF FACT OR LAW COMMITTED BY THE OFFICER PASSING THE ORDER BECOMES APPARENT FROM REC ORD. RECTIFICATION IS NOT POSSIBLE IF THE QUESTION IS DEBATABLE. MOREOVER A POINT WHICH WAS NOT EXAMINED ON FACTS OR IN LAW CANNOT BE DEALT WITH AS MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. ITAT; 229 ITR 651 T HEIR LORDSHIPS OF PATNA HIGH COURT HAVE ALSO EXPRESSED A SIMILAR OBSERVATIO N AFTER HOLDING THAT SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT EMPOWERS THE TRIBUNAL TO AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFYI NG A MISTAKE FROM RECORD. HOWEVER SECTION 254(2) DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE TRIB UNAL TO REVIEW ITS ORDER OR TO SIT IN APPEAL OVER ITS EARLIER ORDER. IF IT IS DONE IT WOULD AMOUNT TO AN AMENDMENT OF AN EARLIER ORDER WITH A VIEW TO RECTIF Y A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD BUT IT WOULD BE AN ORDER PASSED ON REAPPRAI SAL OF THE MATERIAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND ON A FRESH APPLICATION OF THE LEGAL POSITION WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. 9. IN THE CASE OF MS. DEEKSHA SURI VS. ITAT; 232 ITR 395 THEIR LORDSHIPS OF DELHI HIGH COURT HAVE HELD IN SPECIFIC TERMS THA T THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS A CREATURE OF THE STATUTE. IT HAS NOT B EEN VESTED WITH THE REVIEW JURISDICTION BY THE STATUTE CREATING IT. THE TRIBU NAL DOES NOT HAVE ANY POWER TO REVIEW ITS OWN JUDGEMENTS OR ORDERS. THE GROUND S ON WHICH THE COURTS MAY OPEN OR VACATE THEIR JUDGEMENTS ARE GENERALLY M ATTERS WHICH RENDER THE JUDGEMENT VOID OR WHICH ARE SPECIFIED IN THE STATUT ES AUTHORIZING SUCH SECTIONS. THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE INC OME-TAX ACT 1961 IS CLEAR. THE FOUNDATION FOR THE EXERCISING THE JURIS DICTION IS WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE RECORD AND THE OBJECT IS ACHIEVED BY AMENDING ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT. A MISTAKE APPAR ENT ON THE RECORD MUST BE AN OBVIOUS AND PATENT MISTAKE AND NOT SOMETHING WHICH CAN BE ESTABLISHED BY A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY BE CONCEIVABLY TWO OPINIONS. A DECISION ON A D EBATABLE POINT OF LAW IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE RECORD. 10. SIMILAR VIEWS HAVE ALSO BEEN EXPRESSED BY THE G UWAHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PRAHLAD RAI TODI 251 ITR 833 BY HOLDING THAT A BARE LOOK 7 AT SECTION 254(2) WILL SHOW THAT THIS SECTION GIVES THE POWER TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND NOT TO AMEND A NY ORDER PASSED BY IT AND TO MAKE SUCH AMENDMENT IF THE MISTAKE IS BROUGH T TO ITS NOTICE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE ASSESSEE. SO WHEN WE SPE AK OF AMENDMENT OR RECTIFYING THE MISTAKE THE EARLIER ORDER CAN NEVER BE RECALLED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE EARLIER ORDER MUST HOLD THE FIELD AND THE MISTA KE CAN BE RECTIFIED OR AMENDED CAN BE MADE TO THE ORDER. THE TRIBUNAL CAN NOT IN LAW AND FACTS RECALL AND DESTROY ITS FINAL ORDER AS A WHOLE WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFY THE SAME ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. THE ACTION OF THE TRIBUNAL ACTUALLY AMOUNTS TO REVIEW OF ITS EARLIER ORDER AND THAT POW ER TO REVIEW IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE TRIBUNAL. 11. IN THE LIGHT OF RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE AFORESAID JUDGEMENTS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN A SPECIFIC FIN DING WHICH CANNOT BE REVIEWED UNDER THE GARB OF RECTIFICATION. SO FAR A S DIRECTION OF CIT(A) TO IMPOSE INTEREST U/S 201 ARE CONCERNED WE ARE OF TH E VIEW THAT IT IS NOT AN ENHANCEMENT OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEES. IT IS M ERE A DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH CAN BE COMPLIED WITH AFTER AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEES. WE HOWEVER IN THE I NTEREST OF JUSTICE MODIFY THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE OF CHARGEABILITY OF INTEREST U/S 201 IN ACCOR DANCE WITH THE LAW AFTER AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSE SSEES. 12. IN THE RESULT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7.9.2010 SD/- SD/- (BR BASKARAN) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VG/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM DATED 7 TH SEPTEMBER 2010 8 COPY TO 1 KRISHNA DIST. CO-OP. CENTRAL BANK LTD. JAGGAYYAPET C/O CH. PRAMODH CA D.NO.11-62-113 FIRST FLOOR NEAR GANESH TEMPLE CANAL ROAD VIJAYAWADA 2 KRISHNA DIST. CO-OP. CENTRAL BANK LTD. VATSAVAI C/O CH. PRAMODH CA D.NO.11-62-113 FIRST FLOOR NEAR GANESH TEMPLE CAN AL ROAD VIJAYAWADA 3 KRISHNA DIST. CO-OP. CENTRAL BANK LTD. CHANDARLAPADU C/O CH. PRAMODH CA D.NO.11-62-113 FIRST FLOOR NEAR GANES H TEMPLE CANAL ROAD VIJAYAWADA 4 KRISHNA DIST. CO-OP. CENTRAL BANK LTD. PENUGANCHIPROLU C/O CH. PRAMODH CA D.NO.11-62-113 FIRST FLOOR NEAR GANES H TEMPLE CANAL ROAD VIJAYAWADA 5 ITO (TDS) WARD-3(1) VIJAYAWADA 6 THE CIT(A) VIJAYAWADA 7 THE CIT(TDS) HYDERABAD 8 THE DR ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM. 9 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM