DCIT, CHENNAI v. M/s. Lakshmi General Finance Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 1157/CHNY/2010 | 1998-1999
Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2011 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 115721714 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAACL0502B
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 1157/CHNY/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s)
Appellant DCIT, CHENNAI
Respondent M/s. Lakshmi General Finance Ltd., CHENNAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 15-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 15-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 13-07-2011
Next Hearing Date 13-07-2011
Assessment Year 1998-1999
Appeal Filed On 15-07-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH A CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER .. ITA NO. 1157/MDS./10 ASSESSMENT YEAR:1998-99 ITA NO. 1158/MDS./10 ASSESSMENT Y EAR:1999-00 ITA NO. 1159/MDS./10 ASSESSMENT Y EAR:2000-01 ITA NO. 1160/MDS./10 ASSESSMENT Y EAR:2004-05 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT CHENNAI 600 101. VS. M/S.LAKSHMI GENERAL FINANCE LTD. (MERGED WITH M/S.SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD. ) 21.PATULLOS ROAD CHENNAI 600 002. PAN AAACL 0502 B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P JACOB ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THESE FOUR APPEAL ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAIN ST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A) LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT CHE NNAI DATED 22.04.10 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 2000- 01 & 2004-05 AND DATED 09.04.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1 999-00. PAGE OF 12 ITA.1157 TO 1160 /MDS/10 M/S.LAKSHMI GENERAL FINANCE LTD. 2 2. IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 & 2000-01 GROUND N O.2 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1 15 01 114/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 AND RS.23 21 062/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 FOR E XCESS DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON WIND MILLS FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) I N ITA NO.5/07-08-2008/LTU(A) DATED 31.03.2009 IN THE CASE OF M/S.SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998- 99. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE P URCHASED TWO WIND MILLS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND HAD GIVEN THE SAME ON LEASE TO M/S.TUBE INVESTMENTS OF INDIA LTD. ON WHICH IT HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF RS.2 C RORES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE FINANCE COMPANI ES WERE THE FIRST USERS OF THE SAID WIND MILL AND HE CALCUL ATED THE ACTUAL COST OF THE WIND MILLS AT RS.84 98 886/- AND DISALLOWED THE EXCESS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.1 15 01 114/ - IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. SIMILARLY IN THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2000-01 ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED EXCESS DEPREC IATION OF RS.23 21 062/-. ON APPEAL THE COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX(A) ALLOWED CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION TO THE ASSESSE E BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- FOR A.Y.1998-99 4.2. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. I FIND THAT A SIM ILAR ISSUE WAS RAISED IN THE CASE OF M/S.SUNDARAM FINANC E LTD. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 AND THE SAME HAS BEEN DISPOSED OFF BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME PAGE OF 12 ITA.1157 TO 1160 /MDS/10 M/S.LAKSHMI GENERAL FINANCE LTD. 3 TAX(A) IN ITA NO.5/07-08/LTU(A) DATED 31.03.2009 IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL HAS FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT CHENNAI IN THE CASE OF TUBE INVESTMENT OF INDIA LTD. IN IT A NO.1650/MDS./2007 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. THE APPELLANT COMPANY MERGED WITH M/S.SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE SIMILAR TO T HAT OF M/S.SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF MY LEARNED PREDECESSOR THE ADDITION OF RS.1 15 01 114/- IS DELETED. THE APPELLANT SUCCEEDS ON THIS GROUND. FOR A.Y.2000-01 4.2. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. I FIND THAT A SIM ILAR ISSUE WAS RAISED IN THE CASE OF M/S.SUNDARAM FINANC E LTD. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 AND THE SAME HAS BEEN DISPOSED OFF BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) IN ITA NO.5/07-08/LTU(A) DATED 31.03.2009 IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL HAS FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT CHENNAI IN THE CASE OF TUBE INVESTMENT OF INDIA LTD. IN IT A NO.1650/MDS./2007 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. THE APPELLANT COMPANY MERGED WITH M/S.SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE SIMILAR TO T HAT OF M/S.SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF MY LEARNED PREDECESSOR PAGE OF 12 ITA.1157 TO 1160 /MDS/10 M/S.LAKSHMI GENERAL FINANCE LTD. 4 THE ADDITION OF RS.23 21 062/- IS DELETED. THE APPELLANT SUCCEEDS ON THIS GROUND. 4. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VERY FA IRLY CONCEDED THAT THE ISSUE WAS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CAS E OF M.S.TUBE INVESTMENT OF INDIA LTD. FOLLOWED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A). 5. SINCE THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE H AS CONCEDED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M.S.TUBE INVESTMENT OF INDIA LTD. IN ITA NO.1650/MDS./2007 F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 WHICH DECISION WAS FOLLOWE D BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) IN ALLOWING THE DEPRE CIATION TO THE ASSESSEE WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL O F REVENUE FOR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 6. GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 19 98-99 AND THE REVISED GROUND NO.2.1 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 04-05 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER OF RS.26 61 100/- IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 AN D RS.1 36 64 885/- IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-05 ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITION OF NOTIONAL INTEREST ON THE INDRAVIKAS PATRA FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X(A) IN ITA NO.5/07-2008/LTU(A) DATED 31.03.09 IN THE CASE OF M/S.SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998- 99. PAGE OF 12 ITA.1157 TO 1160 /MDS/10 M/S.LAKSHMI GENERAL FINANCE LTD. 5 7. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT FROM THE B ALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.176.40 LAKHS IN KVPS AND RS.163.35 LAKHS IN IVPS. FROM THE SUBMISSION O F SHRI DEVANATHAN IT WAS ASCERTAINED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER THAT INCOME ON THESE INVESTMENTS WAS NOT CONSIDERED DURI NG THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IVPS & KVPS ARE SAVINGS INSTRUMENTS AND INTEREST ON THESE INSTRUMENTS SHOULD BE OFFERED TO TAX ON ACCRUAL BAS IS YEAR AFTER YEAR. ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED INCOME TO TAX ALTHOUGH IT WAS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. ACCORDINGLY ASSESSING OFFICER APPLYING THE INTERES T RATE OF 12.25% ON SUCH INVESTMENTS MADE ADDITION OF RS.26 61 100/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME IN ASS ESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 AND RS.1 36 64 885/- ON ACCOUNT OF INT EREST INCOME IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. ON APPEAL T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- FOR A.Y.1998-99 5.2. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. I FIND THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED IN THE CASE OF M/S.SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 AND THE SAME HAS BEEN DISPOSED OFF BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) IN ITA NO.5/07-08/LTU(A) DATED 31.03.2009 IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT BASED ON THE DECISION OF T HE ITA NO.1002/MDS/2006 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. AS THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THAT OF M/S.SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING T HE PAGE OF 12 ITA.1157 TO 1160 /MDS/10 M/S.LAKSHMI GENERAL FINANCE LTD. 6 DECISION OF MY LEARNED PREDECESSOR THE ADDITION IS DELETED. THE APPELLANT SUCCEEDS ON THIS GROUND. FOR A.Y. 2004-05 5.2. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. I FIND THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED IN THE CASE OF M/S.SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 AND THE SAME HAS BEEN DISPOSED OFF BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) IN ITA NO.5/07-08/LTU(A) DATED 31.03.2009 IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT BASED ON THE DECISION OF T HE ITA NO.1002/MDS/2006 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. AS THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THAT OF M/S.SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING T HE DECISION OF MY LEARNED PREDECESSOR THE ADDITION IS DELETED. THE APPELLANT SUCCEEDS ON THIS GROUND. 8. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AT THE TIME OF HEARING SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED AGAIN ST THE ASSESSEE BY THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF DR. R.P.PATEL VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOTTAYAM ITA NO.109 OF 2007 VIDE ORDER DATED 3 RD APRIL 2009. 9. LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF ASSESSEE SUPPO RTED THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A). 10. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING TH E MATERIALS ON RECORD WE FIND THAT IN THE INSTANT CA SE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENTS IN KVPS AND IVPS OF RS.176.40 & RS.163.35 LAKHS RESPECTIVELY ON WHICH INTEREST INCO ME PAGE OF 12 ITA.1157 TO 1160 /MDS/10 M/S.LAKSHMI GENERAL FINANCE LTD. 7 ACCRUED DURING THE YEAR WAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR BY T HE ASSESSEE ALTHOUGH IT WAS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYST EM OF ACCOUNTING THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A DDITION FOR INTEREST ACCRUED ON THESE SAVINGS INSTRUMENTS AND M ADE ADDITION OF RS.26 61 100 IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 199 8-99 AND RS. 1 36 64 885/- IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 WHIC H WAS DELETED IN APPEAL BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S.SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD. ITA NO.1002/MDS/2006 FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE FILED A COPYOF THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DR. R.P.PATEL (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE HONB LE KERALA HIGH COURT WHILE DECIDING A SIMILAR ISSUE HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 4. QUESTION NOS.2 TO 6 PERTAIN TO ONE AND THE SAME ISSUE THAT IS WHETHER IVP IS A CAPITAL ASSET OR N OT. IT IS SEEN FROM THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT INVESTMENT IN IVP IS ASSESSED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF FRESH INVESTMENT MADE IN THE RESPECTIVE YEAR AND REINVESTMENT AFTER ENCASHMENT OF EARLIER DEPOSITS WAS IN FACT ALLOWED. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT IVP IS A CAPITAL ASSET IS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EVADING PAYMENT OF INTEREST ACCRUED ON YEARLY BASIS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCHEME OF IVP. THE SPECIFIC CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IVP IS A CAPITAL ASSET AND THEREFORE INTEREST ACCRUED IS PROFIT ASSESSABLE AS CAPITAL GAINS. THE TRIBUNAL REJECTED THE CLAIM BY HOLDING THAT IVP IS NOTHING PAGE OF 12 ITA.1157 TO 1160 /MDS/10 M/S.LAKSHMI GENERAL FINANCE LTD. 8 BUT A DEPOSIT WITH THE POST OFFICE WHICH ENTITLES THE ASSESSEE TO A SPECIFIC RATE OF INTEREST ON COMPOUNDABLE BASIS AND ASSESSEE CAN ENCASH THE DEPOSIT ONLY FOR THE MATURITY VALUE WHICH IS PRE- DETERMINED. THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON SEVERAL COURTS DECISIONS FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT IVP IS A CAPITAL ASSET. IVP IS ADMITTEDLY A DEPOSIT SCHEME FRAMED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA FOR MAKING DEPOSITS IN THE POST OFFICES. PURCHASE OF IVP AMOUNTS TO DEPOSITING A SPECIFIC AMOUNT IN POST OFFICE FOR A SPECIFIC PERIOD AT SPECIFIED RATE OF INTEREST. ON MATURITY THE HOLDER CAN ENCASH THE SAME FROM THE VERY SAME POST OFFICE. THE RATE OF INTEREST FOR IVPS PURCHASED BEFORE 31.3.1987 WAS 14.97 PER CENT PER ANNUM COMPOUNDED ON THE INITIAL SALE VALUE. FOR CERTIFICATES PURCHASED AFT GER 1.4.1987 THE RATE OF INTEREST WAS REDUCED TO 13.43% PER ANNUM. GOVERNMENT WHILE FRAMING IVP RULES OF 1986 HAS PROVIDED FOR TREATMENT OF TAX LIABILITY FO R THE INTEREST EARNINGS. RULE 8(3) OF THE IVP RULES 1986 IS AS FOLLOWS: 8(3). IN CASE OF CERTIFICATE PURCHASED ON OR BEFORE 31 ST MARCH 1987 INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 14.97 PER CENT PER ANNUM COMPOUNDED ON THE INITIAL SALE VALUE OF THE CERTIFICATE SHALL BE DEEM ED TO HAVE ACCRUED AT THE END OF EACH YEAR CALCULATED FROM THE DATE OF INITIAL PURCHASE OF THE CERTIFICAT E FROM THE POST OFFICE UP TO THE END OF THE FIFTH YEA R FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAX PAYABLE BY A HOLDER IN THE PAGE OF 12 ITA.1157 TO 1160 /MDS/10 M/S.LAKSHMI GENERAL FINANCE LTD. 9 RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE. LEARNED AR COULD NOT CITE ANY CONTRARY DECISION BEF ORE US. THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF T HE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT WE HOLD THAT INTEREST ON KVPS & IVPS IS TAXABLE ON ACCRUAL BASIS EACH YEAR. ACCORDINGLY T HE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR BOTH THE YE ARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 11. GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX(A) DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.23 21 062/- FOR EXCESS DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON WIND MILLS. 12. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO DISALLOW ANCE OF DEPRECIATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND HENCE THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT WAS WRONG. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND OF R EVENUE IS DISMISSED. 13. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 THE SOLE GRO UND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IS THAT THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE LEVY OF INTERES T OF RS.19 77 044/- U/S.234 D OF THE ACT. 14. THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED INTEREST U/S.234- D OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.19 77 044/-. LD. COMMISSIONER OF PAGE OF 12 ITA.1157 TO 1160 /MDS/10 M/S.LAKSHMI GENERAL FINANCE LTD. 10 INCOME TAX(A) OBSERVING THAT THE SPECIAL BENCH OF T HE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. EKTA PROMOTERS P. L TD. 113 ITD 719 (DEL.) (SB) HAS HELD THAT SINCE PROVISION O F SECTION 234-D HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO STATUE WITH EFFECT FROM 01.06.2003 THE SAME WILL HAVE APPLICATION ONLY WI TH EFFECT FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 DELETED THE LEVY OF I NTEREST. 15. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AT THE TIME OF HEARING SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE WAS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. KERALA CHEMI CALS & PROTEINS LTD. [2010] 323 ITR 584 (KER.) 16. LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF ASSESSEE SUPP ORTED THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A). 17. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING TH E MATERIALS ON RECORD WE FIND THAT THE PRESENT ASSES SMENT YEAR UNDER THE APPEAL IS ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000.THE PROVISIONS FOR LEVY OF INTEREST U/S.234-D OF THE AC T WAS INTRODUCED WITH EFFECT FROM 1 ST JUNE 2003 AND THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KERALA CHEMICALS & PROTEINS LTD.(SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT INTEREST U/S.234-D IS CHA RGEABLE FROM 1 ST JUNE 2003 TILL THE COMPLETION OF THE REGULAR ASSES SMENT WHERE THE REFUND GRANTED PRIOR TO THE 1 ST JUNE 2003 WHILE SENDING INTIMATION U/S.143(1) AND REGULAR ASSESSMEN T WAS COMPLETED CONVERTING THE REFUND INTO DEMAND OF TAX. WE ALSO FIND THAT HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF D IRECTOR OF INCOME TAX VS. JACABS CIVIL INCORPORATED (2011) 330 ITR 578 PAGE OF 12 ITA.1157 TO 1160 /MDS/10 M/S.LAKSHMI GENERAL FINANCE LTD. 11 HAS HELD THAT SECTION 234-D IS APPLICABLE ONLY FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AND NOT IN THE EARLIER ASSE SSMENT YEARS AND THEREFORE NO INTEREST UNDER THAT PROVISI ON COULD BE LEVIED FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THUS THERE BEING CONTRARY DECISION OF HONBLE KERAL A HIGH COURT AND HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND THERE BEING NO DECISION ON THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTIONAL MADRAS HIGH COURT WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE DELHI HI GH COURT HOLD THAT INTEREST U/S.234-D IS CHARGEABLE FROM THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AND THEREFORE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) IN DELETING THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S.234-D. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF R EVENUE IS DISMISSED. 18. IN RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 1998-99 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND APPEALS OF REVE NUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 & 2000-2001 ARE DISMISSE D AND APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IS PARTLY ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 15 TH JULY 2011. SD/- SD/- ( GEORGE MATHAN ) ( N.SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI DATED THE 15 TH JULY 2011. K S SUNDARAM COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE PAGE OF 12 ITA.1157 TO 1160 /MDS/10 M/S.LAKSHMI GENERAL FINANCE LTD. 12 DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 13.07.11 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHORITY 14.07.11 3. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO P.S. 6. KEEP FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER