Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Branch Manager, J&K Bank Limited

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU Sup. List Item No.55 ITA No. 134/2012 Date of order: 09.04.2019 Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs. Branch Manager, J&K Bank Limited HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, JUDGE CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE Appearance: For the Appellant(s) : For the Respondent (s) : : Ms. Aruna Thakur, Advocate. Mr. Subash C. Dutta, Advocate. Rajesh Bindal, J.01.This appeal has been filed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short „the Act‟) against the order dated 24.04.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (for short „the Tribunal‟) in ITA No. 208 (Asr)/2011 for the Assessment Year 2008-09, raising the following substantial questions of law: “(i)Whether the ITAT Amristar, was right 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 notification No. 3489 dated 22.10.1970? (ii) Whether the ITAT committed an error in ignoring the fact that notwithstanding the issuance of notification No. 3489 dated 22.10.1970 issued in terms of Section 194(3)(iii) (f) of the Income Tax Act, in view of the amendment made in Section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act w.e.f. 01.04.2003, the income of local authorities was made taxable and correspondingly the obligation to deduct tax at source was existent? (iii) Whether the benefit of notification No. 3489 dated 22.10.1970 issued in pursuance of Section 194 A(3)(iii)(f) could be available to the Jammu Development Authority even when Jammu Development Authority had been filing its returns in the status of a local authority?” 02.Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that in view of circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 and No. 279/Mis/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 08.03.2016, issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes she does not wish to press the present appeal, as the tax effect involved is less than ₹ 20 lakhs. However, she prays that liberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survives therein. 03.Dismissed as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. It is, however, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not be taken as affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. The legal issue as claimed by the revenue is left open to be adjudicated upon in an appropriate case. (Sindhu Sharma) Judge JAMMU 09.04.2019 Sunita. Whether the order is speaking? : Whether the order is reportable? : (Rajesh Bindal) Judge Yes Yes/No