C.G.Lucy Swithchgear Ltd., v. Jt.CIT, R-2, Nashik,

ITA 1481/PUN/2009 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2010 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 148124514 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAACC9268P
Bench Pune
Appeal Number ITA 1481/PUN/2009
Duration Of Justice 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant C.G.Lucy Swithchgear Ltd.,
Respondent Jt.CIT, R-2, Nashik,
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-08-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 31-08-2010
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 29-12-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B PUNE BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR JM AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA AM I.T.A. NO. 1481/PN/2009 : A.Y. 2006-07 M/S. CG LUCY SWITCHGEAR LTD. F-19 MIDC AMBAD NASIK 422 010 PAN AAACC 9268 P APPELLANT VS. JT. CIT R-2 NASIK RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRADEEP KAPSI RESPONDENT BY: SHRI A.C. SHUKLA ORDER PER I.C. SUDHIR JM THE ASSESSEE HAS QUESTIONED FIRST APPELLATE ORDER ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN; (1) C ONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF PURCHASES AMOUNTING T O RS. 7 05 24 601/- MADE FROM FOUR PARTIES BY TREATING TH E PURCHASES AS WORKS CONTRACT AND HOLDING THAT THE TAX WAS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ON SUCH PURCHASES U/S 194- C AND FURTHER ERRED IN APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 40- (A)(IA) OF THE ACT EVEN TO THE AMOUNT OF RS. 6 34 3 8 426/- ACTUALLY PAID DURING THE YEAR BEFORE THE END; (2) PASSING AN APPEAL IN GROSS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN AS MUCH AS HE HAS IGNORED ALL THE EVIDENCES AND PROOFS AND ITA NO. 1481/PN/2009 CG LUCY SWITCHGEAR LTD. A.Y. 2006-07 2 STATEMENTS MADE AND/OR PRODUCED BEFORE HIM; AND (3) CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A.O IN LEVY OF INTERES T U/S 234B OF THE ACT AT RS. 76 11 637/- WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPOR TUNITY OF HEARING. 2. WE HAVE HEARD AND CONSIDERED ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PARTIES IN VIEW OF THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORIT IES AND THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON. GROUND NO. 1 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE A LIMI TED COMPANY ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF SWITCHGE ARS AND OTHER ELECTRICAL APPARATUS HAD MADE PAYMENTS OF RS . 7 13 45 044/- TO DIFFERENT PARTIES TOWARDS PURCHASE OF COMPONENTS. THE A.O NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE ON THE PAYMENT OF RS. 7 05 2 4 601/- HENCE HE DISALLOWED THIS AMOUNT U/S 40(A)(IA) READ WITH SECTION 194-C OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS U PHELD THE SAME FOLLOWING HIS EARLIER ORDER ON THE ISSUE IN TH E A.Y. 2005- 06. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEAR NED CIT(A) REMAINED THAT FACTS OF THE CASE DURING THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION ARE NOT SIMILAR TO THAT OF A.Y. 2005- 06. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT FILED A SEPARATE LETTER BEFORE THE A.O REQUESTING FOR VERIF ICATION OF CERTAIN FACTS AND EVIDENCES AS THE FACTS WERE DISTI NGUISHABLE IN THE PRESENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO EXPLAIN THAT VENDORS ITA NO. 1481/PN/2009 CG LUCY SWITCHGEAR LTD. A.Y. 2006-07 3 WHO SUPPLIED COMPONENTS WERE ALSO SUPPLYING THE SAM E OR SIMILAR PRODUCTS TO THE OTHERS IN THE OPEN MARKET A ND THESE COMPONENTS HAD A GENERAL MARKETABILITY. 4. BEFORE US THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT WHILE D ECIDING THE ISSUE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) EVEN TO AN AMOUNT O F RS. 6 34 38 426/- ACTUALLY PAID DURING THE YEAR BEFORE THE END AND IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE SAID PROVISIONS WERE APPLICABLE ONLY TO AMOUNT PAYABLE AND NOT PAID AND HAS FURTH ER ERRED IN IGNORING THE AMENDMENT IN SECTION 194-C INTRODUC ED WITH EFFECT FROM 1-10-2009 ONLY. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID EXPENSES WERE INCURRED IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF GO ODS WHICH IN ESSENCE WERE A CONTRACT FOR SALE LIABLE TO EXCIS E DUTY AND SALES-TAX. THE PROPERTY IN GOODS PURCHASED WAS PAS SED TO THE ASSESSEE ONLY ON DELIVERY OF THOSE GOODS TO THE ASS ESSEE. THIS FACT WAS CONFIRMED BY THE VENDORS WHOSE STATEMENTS ON OATH WERE RECORDED BY THE A.O. THE TRANSACTIONS WERE NO T CONTRACTS FOR WORK AS HELD BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES . THE GOODS IN QUESTION HAD AN INDEPENDENT MARKET. THE PURCHAS ES WHERE ASSESSEES MATERIAL DYES AND TOOLS WERE USED AMOUN TED TO RS. 1 67 15 430/- ONLY. THE AMOUNT OF RS. 6 34 38 426/- WAS PAID BEFORE THE YEAR END AGAINST THE PURCHASES OF RS. 7 05 24 601/- AND ONLY RS. 70 86 175/- WAS PAYABLE TOWARDS THE YE AR FOR THE ITA NO. 1481/PN/2009 CG LUCY SWITCHGEAR LTD. A.Y. 2006-07 4 SAID PURCHASES. THE LEARNED AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS IN SUPPORT. (A) MRS. SHAH CHARULATA MILIND VS. ITO WARD 3 SATAR A (ITA NO. 1318/PN/2008 FOR A.Y. 2005-06 ORDER DATED 31-5 - 2010; (B) PATHARE SATISH GULABRAO VS. ITO 4 AHMEDNAGAR ( ITA NO.1462/PN/2009 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 ORDER DATED 21-5- 2010; (C) JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. VS. DCIT (2009) 123 TTJ (JPR) 888; (D) A CONSTRUCTIONS VS. ACIT (2010) 129 TTJ (HYD) ( UO) 57; (E) HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGE P. LTD. VS. CIT (2 007) 293 ITR 226 (SC) (F) MRS. MEENA S. PATIL VS. ACIT (2008) 114 ITD 181 (BANGALORE) 5. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED FURTHER THAT SINCE THE YEAR 1999 THE ASSESSEE IS IN BUSINESS WITH THE SAME CUST OMERS AND IN EARLIER YEARS THE A.O ACCEPTED THE SAME AND NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE. THUS THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSISTENCY IN THE APPROACH OF THE DEPARTMENT ON AN ISSUE UNDER THE SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. IN THIS REGARD HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHASAOMI SATSANG VS. CIT (1992) 193 I TR 321 (SC). THE LEARNED AR ALSO REFERRED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194-C ESPECIALLY THE EXPLANATION (1)(D) AFTER SUB-S ECTION (7) THEREOF WHEREIN UNDER THE DEFINITION OF SPECIFIED PERSON A COMPANY HAS ALSO BEEN INCLUDED. THE LEARNED AR POI NTED OUT ITA NO. 1481/PN/2009 CG LUCY SWITCHGEAR LTD. A.Y. 2006-07 5 THAT IN THE A.Y. 2006-07 (UNDER CONSIDERATION) THIS DEFINITION WAS NOT AVAILABLE AND ONLY SECTION 194-C(1) WAS AVA ILABLE. IN SECTION 194-C(1) AVAILABLE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION A SPECIFIED PERSON WAS ALSO DEFINED I NCLUDING A COMPANY LIKE THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AR REFERRED PAGE 65 OF THE PAPER BOOK VOL. II FOR THE CITATION IN SUPPORT. THE AR ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE HONBLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS. ARMAN SHEIKH (2007) 293 ITR 266 (GAUHATI) H AS BEEN PLEASED TO HOLD THAT WHEN TAXES HAVE BEEN PAID BY T HE ASSESSEE THEN THERE IS NO QUESTION OF MAKING DISALL OWANCE ON THE DEFAULT OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON TH E PART OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARD HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE O N THE DECISION OF BANGALORE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MRS. MEENA S. PATIL VS. ASSTT. CIT (2008) 114 ITD 181(BA NG). THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND TRIED TO JUSTIFY THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THE ISSUE. THE LEARNED DR SUB MITTED THAT ALL THE ARRANGEMENTS HAVE BEEN DEVISED BY THE ASSES SEE IN THE PRESENT CASE TO DEFEAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40 (A)(IA) READ WITH SECTION 194-C OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED DR ALSO REFERRED CONTENTS OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT. THE LEARNED DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: (A) GEOFFREY MANERS AND CO. LTD. VS. CIT (1996) 221 ITR 695 (BOM) (B) RADHASOAMI SATSANG VS. CIT (1992) 293 ITR 321 ( SC) ITA NO. 1481/PN/2009 CG LUCY SWITCHGEAR LTD. A.Y. 2006-07 6 5. IN REJOINDER LEARNED AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLEGUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAYAJI IRO N AND ENG. CO. (2002) 253 ITR 749 (GUJ). HE ALSO REFERRED PAR A 12 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITH THIS SUBMISSION THAT FRESH ST ATEMENTS WERE RECORDED BY THE A.O IN HIS REMAND REPORT DURIN G THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE LEARNED AR ALSO REFERR ED PAGES NO. 19 TO 32 OF THE PAPER BOOK VOL. II FILED ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. COPY OF ORDER DATED 23-2-2010 OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSELF FOR A.Y. 2005-06 AND SU BMITTED THAT FACTS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ARE DIFFERENT. THE APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2005-06 HAS BEEN ALLOWED PARTLY BY THE TRIBUNAL WITH THIS FINDING IF THE VENDORS PURCHASED THE MATERIAL FOR MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE IMPUGN ED PRODUCTS THE SAID PRODUCTS ARE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SECTION 194-C AND ALTERNATIVELY IF THE CUSTOMERS SUPPLIES O R SELLS THE MATERIAL TO THE VENDORS SUCH TRANSACTIONS FALL WIT HIN THE AMBIT OF DEFINITION OF WORKS. THIS VIEW WAS TAKE N FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F ASSOCIATED CEMENT CO. VS. CIT & ANR (1993) 201 ITR 435 (SC) AND IN VIEW OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 681 AND RECENT AME NDMENT TO SECTION 194-C BROUGHT BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT 2009. 6. ON PERUSAL OF ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES W E FIND THAT THE A.O HAS HELD THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA ) APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE WITH THIS OBSERVATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ITA NO. 1481/PN/2009 CG LUCY SWITCHGEAR LTD. A.Y. 2006-07 7 BEEN SUPPLYING RAW MATERIALS TO THE CONTRACTOR WHO MANUFACTURED THE GOODS AS PER SPECIFICATIONS AND DR AWINGS OF THE ASSESSEE THUS THOSE GOODS CANNOT BE SOLD TO TH IRD PARTY. THE A.O FURTHER OBSERVED THAT BY PREPARING INVOICES AS SALES INVOICES OR PURCHASE INVOICES INHERENT CHARACTER OF TRANSACTION DOES NOT CHANGE. HE ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT THERE IS NO DEPARTURE FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2005-06. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE A.O MAINLY FOLLOWING HIS ORDER IN THE CASE OF THE ASSES SEE FOR A.Y. 2005-06. THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN PARA 5 HAS OBSERVED THAT . IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE VENDORS ARE S UPPLYING VARIOUS COMPONENTS TO THE APPELLANT AS PER SPECIFIC ATION GIVEN IN THE PURCHASE ORDER. IT MAY BE TRUE THAT SUCH GOO DS WERE SOLD IN THE OPEN MARKET BY THE VENDORS BUT THE ISS UE WAS DECIDED CONSIDERING VARIOUS OTHER FACTORS NOT BASED ON ANY SINGLE ISSUE OR POINT.. THE LEARNED CIT(A) A LSO HELD THAT FACTS OF THE CASE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION ARE SIMILAR TO THAT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND THE SAID DECISION APPLIES WITH EQUAL FORCE FOR THE A.Y. 2006 -07. BEFORE US LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE FOR A.Y. 2005-06 WERE DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS IN THE PRESEN T ASSESSMENT YEAR. LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE AMONGST ITS OTHER SALES HAD MADE SALES OF CERTAIN R AW MATERIALS WORTH RS. 45 02 746/- TO ALL THE FOUR PAR TIES DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05 (A.Y. 2005-06) VIZ. PRES S METAL ITA NO. 1481/PN/2009 CG LUCY SWITCHGEAR LTD. A.Y. 2006-07 8 INDUSTRIES BUNTS TOOLS CO. RISHI LASER CUTTING LT D. AND SHUBHADA POLYMERS PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. AS PER THEIR PURCHASE ORDERS REFLECTED AS SALES AND PURCHASES BY THE RESP ECTIVE PARTIES. THESE WERE USED BY THOSE PARTIES IN MANUF ACTURING COMPONENTS CONSTITUTING PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSES SEE. THE SAID SALES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST SA LE INVOICES WITH DULY CHARGED EXCISE DUTY AND SALES-TAX. DURIN G THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD MATERIAL ONLY T O TWO PARTIES I.E. M/S. SHUBHADA POLYMER PRODUCTS PVT. LT D. AND M/S. PRESS METAL INDUSTRIES INSTEAD OF FOUR PARTIE S AMOUNTING TO RS. 46 67 594/-. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE MATERIAL PURCHASED BY USING THESE MATERIAL IS WORTH RS. 1 15 59 744/- ONLY. BASED ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y. 2005-06 THE A.O HAS MADE ADDITION APPLYING THE FACTS OF THE CASE TO ASS ESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO. IN VIEW OF THE DECI SION OF PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSEL F FOR A.Y. 2005-06 VIDE ORDER DATED 23-2-2010 IN ITA NO. 490/P N/2009 WE FIND THAT THERE WERE TWO SITUATIONS IN THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005-06. ONE SITUATION WAS WHETHER PRODUCTS WERE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE VENDORS WHO MANUFACTURED OR SUPPLIED THE PRODUCTS OUT OF HIS OW N PURCHASES. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT SUCH SITUATION I S OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF WORKS CONTRACT. STRENGTH WAS TAKEN FROM THE CLARIFICATORY AMENDMENT BROUGHT IN BY THE FINANCE ( NO. 2) ACT ITA NO. 1481/PN/2009 CG LUCY SWITCHGEAR LTD. A.Y. 2006-07 9 2009 AS WELL AS CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 681 DATED 8-3-199 4 AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF AS SOCIATED CEMENT CO. LTD. VS. CIT & ANOR (SUPRA). THE SECOND SITUATION WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE GOT THE SUPPLY OF PRODUCTS WH ICH WERE MANUFACTURED BY THE VENDORS I.E. SUB-CONTRACTOR OUT OF MATERIAL PURCHASED FORM THE CUSTOMERS AS PER THE SPECIFICATION OR DESIGN OR DYES. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT SUCH TRANSACTIONS FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF DEFINITION OF WORK. UNDER THESE BACKGROUNDS THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWED RELIE F TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE FIRST SITUATION AND HELD THE ASSESS EE RESPONSIBLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE TREATING THE SA ME AS WORK CONTRACT PAYMENT. DURING THE YEAR THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AR BEFORE US IS THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY H AS SOLD MATERIAL ONLY TO TWO PARTIES VIZ. SHUBHADA POLYMERS PRODUCTS P. LTD. AND PRESS METAL INDUSTRIES INSTEAD OF ALL FOUR PARTIES AMOUNTING TO RS. 46 67 594/-. HIS FURTHER CONTENTI ON REMAINED THAT THE MATERIAL PURCHASED BY USING THIS MATERIAL IS RS. 1 15 59 744/- ONLY. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT TH ESE MATERIAL FACTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE VERIFIED AS TO WHETHER THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION IS WORK CONTRACT OR SALE. IT IS REQUIRE D TO BE EXAMINED IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF PUNE BENCH OF T HE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSELF FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06 (SUPRA). WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O TO EXAMINE THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ESPECIALLY WI TH THE MATTER OF TRANSACTION IN QUESTION IN VIEW OF THE DE CISION OF THE ITA NO. 1481/PN/2009 CG LUCY SWITCHGEAR LTD. A.Y. 2006-07 10 TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSELF FOR THE A.Y . 2005-06 (SUPRA) AND DECIDE THE ISSUE ACCORDINGLY AFTER AFFO RDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE A. O WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO TAKE INTO AC COUNT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE DECISION CITED ABOVE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING THE DECISION OF JAIPUR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA) CITED BY THE LEARNED AR. GROUND NO. 1 IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. GROUND NO. 2 6. IN THIS GROUND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALLEGED THAT THE SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCES FILED IN SUPPORT OF ITS C LAIM BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDE RED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHILE ADJUDICATING UPON THE ISSUE H ENCE THERE WAS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. SI NCE WE HAVE ALREADY SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O TO CONSIDER IT AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO TH E ASSESSEE THE GRIEVANCE IF ANY RAISED IN GROUND NO. 2 HAS BE EN MET OUT. GROUND NO. 2 HAS THUS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. THE SAME IS REJECTED AS SUCH. GROUND NO. 3 7. THE ASSESSEE HAS QUESTIONED ACTION OF LEARNED CI T(A) IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B AT RS. 76 11 637/- ON THE BASIS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN OPP ORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE UPHOLDING LEVY OF INTEREST AND H AS NOT ITA NO. 1481/PN/2009 CG LUCY SWITCHGEAR LTD. A.Y. 2006-07 11 PASSED ANY SPEAKING ORDER FOR THE SAME. THERE IS N O DOUBT THAT CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234B IS MANDATORY AND CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE STILL IT IS REQUIRED TO BE LEVIED AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSE E AND BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. SINCE THE ISSUE REGARDIN G VALIDITY OF DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 40(A)(IA) READ WITH SECTION 1 94-C IN QUESTION HAS BEEN SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION THE A.O IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE OF LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE ACT AFRESH AFTER AFFORD ING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD IN VIEW OF HIS FINDING ON THE ABOVE ISSUE. GROUND NO. 3 IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST AUGUST 2010. SD/- SD/- (R.C. SHARMA) (I.C. SUDHIR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE DATED THE 30 TH AUGUST 2010 ANKAM COPY FORWARDED TO: (1) ASSESSEE (2) DEPARTMENT (3) CIT- (A) II NASIK (4) CIT I NASIK (5) THE D.R. B BENCH PUNE TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES PUNE ITA NO. 1481/PN/2009 CG LUCY SWITCHGEAR LTD. A.Y. 2006-07 12