Punjab National Bank, Kanpur vs Department Of Income Tax

Income Tax Officer (TDS) II, Vs. Punjab National Bank, Kanpur Dy. Ka Parao Branch, Kanpur PAN:AAVPY3890M TAN:KNPP01442A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by Shri Punit Kumar, Sr. DR Respondent by Shri Pradip Mehrotra, Advocate Date of hearing 24/03/2015 Date of pronouncement /03/2015

ORDER

PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.

All these Three appeals are filed by the revenue for A. Y. 1997 - 98 to 1999 - 2000 and the same are directed against a combined order of Learned CIT (A) II, Kanpur dated 27.10.2014. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.

2. Only one identical ground is raised in these three appeals, which is as under:-

" The CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in annulling the order u/s 201 (1)/201 (1A) of the I. T. Act 1961 dated 14.02.2011 ignoring the proviso to Section 201 (3) of the I. T. Act 1961which was promulgated by Financer (No. 2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 01.04.2010 requiring to complete assessment order for Financial Year commencing on or before the 1 st day of April, 2007 at any time on or before 31st day of march, 2011."

3. Learned DR of revenue supported the order passed by the A.O. and the ground raised in appeal. Learned AR of the assessee supported the order of CIT (A). He also submitted a copy of tribunal order in the case of ITO (TDS) - II vs. Branch Manager, SBI in ITA No. 476 to 481/ Lkw/2012 dated 2

25.04.2013 and submitted that the issue involved is covered in favour of the assessee by this tribunal order.

4. We have considered the rival submissions. In the case cited by the learned AR of the assessee, it was noted by the tribunal that the orders u/s 201 (1) and 201 91A) were passed on 11.02.2011 in respect of A.Y. 1997 - 98 to 1999 - 2000 as in the present case where the orders are passed on 14.02.2011. Hence the facts are identical. In that case, the tribunal has considered various judgments of tribunal and various High Courts. The tribunal also noted that as per judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, 340 ITR219 & 202 Taxman 88 respectively, the issue was decided in favour of the revenue but as per the judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court 305 ITR 137 and 323 ITR 230, the issue was decided in favour of the assessee. Thereafter, the tribunal followed the judgment of Hon'ble apex court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products 88 ITR 192 (SC) and in turn followed the judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Hence, in the present case also, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view. We, therefore, decline to interfere in the order of CIT (A).

5. In the result, all three appeals of the revenue are dismissed.

(Order was pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page)

Sd/. Sd/.

(SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) Judicial Member Accountant Member

Dated:26/03/2015 *C.L.Singh

Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., Lucknow Asstt. Registrar