Ba btie Consltans(India) Pvt.Ltd.,, Ahmedabad v. The Dy.CIT(OSD) Range-1,, Ahmedabad

ITA 1765/AHD/2009 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2011 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 176520514 RSA 2009
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 1765/AHD/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant Ba btie Consltans(India) Pvt.Ltd.,, Ahmedabad
Respondent The Dy.CIT(OSD) Range-1,, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 21-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 21-01-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 12-01-2011
Next Hearing Date 12-01-2011
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 28-05-2009
Judgment Text
- 1 - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH B AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI JM AND D.C.AGRAWAL A M BABTIE CONSULTANTS (INDIA) (P) LTD. [NOW MERGED WITH JACOBS ENGINEERING INDIA (P) LTD.] 83 NEW YORK TOWER NEAR THALTEJ CROSS ROAD THALTEJ AHMEDABAD- 380 054. VS. DY. CIT (OSD) RANGE-1 AHMEDABAD. (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :- MR. KANCHUN KAUSHAL & MR. ALIASGER RAMPURAWALA ARS RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI SANJAY RAI SR.D.R. O R D E R PER D.C. AGRAWAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RAISING FO LLOWING GROUNDS :- (1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF CONSULTANCY CHAR GES OF RS.95 89 626/-. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE LD.AO BE DIRECTED TO ALLOW TH E CONSULTANCY CHARGES OF RS.95 89 626/- SINCE THE SAID EXPENDITUR E PERTAINS TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. (2) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN NOT ITA NO.1765/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 ITA NO.1765/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 2 ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHE OF THE ACT AS COMPUTED IN THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE LD. AO BE DIRECTED TO GRANT D EDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 HHE OF THE ACT AS PER THE REVISED RETUR N OF INCOME. (3) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING THE AO TO RECOMPU TED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 HHE OF THE ACT BASED ON THE ASSESSED PROFITS OF BUSINESS. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE AO BE DIRECTED TO RECOMPUTED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHE OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF ASSE SSED PROFITS OF BUSINESS. (4) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING LEVY OF INTEREST CHARGED UN DER SECTION 234B AND UNDER SECTION 234D OF THE ACT. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE LD. AO BE DIRECTED TO GRANT THE NECESSARY RELIEF. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LTD. CO. CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF CONSULTING ENGINEERS IN THE FIELD OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANCY. THE A SSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ON OCTOB ER 26 2004 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.77 02 710/-. 3. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ENTERED INTO A SUB-CONSULTA NCY AGREEMENT WITH BABTIE GROUP LIMITED TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO TH E BABTIE GROUP IN CONNECTION WITH THE WORK CARRIED ON FOR NETWORK RAI L PROJECT. UNDER THE AGREEMENT BABTIE GROUP WAS TO PROVIDE RESOURCES TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR WHICH BABTIE GROUP WAS CHARGE A FEE TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IN RESPECT OF SUCH SERVICES PROVIDED BY TH E BABTIE GROUP TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THE BABTIE GROUP RAISED FOLLOWING BILLS ON THE ASSESSEE COMPANY:- ITA NO.1765/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 3 SL.NO. INVOICE DATE PERIOD FOR WHICH SERVICES RENDERED AMOUNT IN GBP 1. MARCH 31 2004 PERIOD ENDING JANUARY 2004 47 700 2. MARCH 31 2004 PERIOD ENDING FEBRUARY 2004 38 057 3. APRIL 6 2004 PERIOD ENDING MARCH 18 2004 42 93 1 4. APRIL 6 2004 PERIOD ENDING MARCH 31 2004 76 07 7 THE AO EXAMINED THE FOUR BILLS RAISED ON THE ASSESS EE COMPANY AND FOUND THAT BILL NOS.3 & 4 WERE RAISED IN THE MONTH OF APRIL 2004 AS ABOVE AND THEREFORE WOULD NOT FALL FOR ALLOWANCE IN ASST. YEAR 2004-05 BUT WOULD FALL FOR CONSIDERATION IN ASST. YEAR 2005 -06. ACCORDING TO HIM THE EXPENSES WERE NOT CRYSTALIZED AND THERE WAS NO LIABILITY TO PAY ON THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DURING THE F.Y. 2003-04. IN ADDITI ON TO THIS THE LD. A.O. OBSERVED THAT- EVEN THERE IS NO SUBSTANCE IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE THAT THESE TWO BILLS IN QUESTION PERTAIN TO CONSULTANCY RECEIVED D URING THE MONTH OF JANUARY FEBRUARY AND MARCH 2004. ON PERUSAL OF TH E BILLS IT CAN BE SEEN THAT NO WHERE IN THE BILL PERIOD FOR WHICH THE Y ARE RAISED IS MENTIONED. THE ONLY THING WHICH IS MENTIONED IN THE BILLS IS THAT THE BILLS ARE RAISED AS PER THE SUB CONTRACT OF 3 RD JUNE 2003. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED EVEN THE COPY OF THIS SUB CONTRACT IN ORD ER TO ASCERTAIN FOR WHICH PERIOD THESE BILLS ARE RAISED. IN VIEW OF ABOVE HE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM IN RESPECT OF TWO BILLS WHICH AMOUNTED TO RS.95 89 626/-. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION THROUGH A SHORT UNREASONED AND CURSORY ORDER AS UNDER :- KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID FACTS CIRCUMSTANCES AND VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY M ADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.95 89 626/- AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. WITH THE RESULT THE ACTION OF THE AO IS HEREBY CONFIRMED ON THIS GROUND. ITA NO.1765/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 4 THE ASSESSEE HAD RELIED ON SEVERAL JUDGMENTS AS REF ERRED TO BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON PAGE 8 OF HIS ORDER BUT NONE OF THE AUTHO RITIES WAS DISCUSSED BY HIM. 5. BEFORE US THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE BILLS PERTAINED TO THE WORK CARRIED OUT IN FY 2003-04 AS MENTIONED ON THE BILLS WHOSE COPIES ARE ANNEXED ON PAGES 3 & 4 OF THE PAPE R BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE. THE NATURE OF THE WORK WAS THE SAME AS IN RESPECT OF THE TWO BILLS RAISED IN THE MONTH OF MARCH 2004 WHOSE COPI ES ARE ALSO ANNEXED AT PAGES 1 & 2 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK BUT THE LD . AO HAS CHOSEN TO DISALLOW THE CLAIM IN RESPECT OF BILL NOS.3 & 4 WHE REAS HE WAS KIND ENOUGH TO ALLOW THE CLAIM IN RESPECT OF THE FIRST T WO BILLS. EVEN THOUGH THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS TAKEN THE GROU ND OF NON-RENDERING OF SERVICES WHILE DISALLOWING THE CLAIM IN RESPECT OF BILL NOS.3 & 4 BUT HE HAS NOT DOUBTED THE RENDERING OF SERVICES IN RESPEC T OF FIRST TWO BILLS EVEN THOUGH ENTIRE SERVICES RENDERED WERE OF THE SAME NA TURE AND WAS PART OF THE SAME AGREEMENT AND WAS IN CONTINUATION THROUGHO UT THE YEAR. FURTHER THE BILLS WERE RAISED BEFORE THE CLOSURE OF THE ACC OUNTS AND HAD FORMED PART OF THE AUDIT REPORT SUBMITTED ALONG WITH REVIS ED RETURN. THEREFORE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DISALLOWED. 6. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT ONC E THE AO HAS DOUBTED THE FACTUM OF RENDERING OF SERVICES THE ASS ESSEE HAS TO GIVE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM. FURTHER LIABILITY CRYSTALISED ONLY IN THE NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR THEREFORE CLAIM CANNOT BE ALL OWED THIS YEAR. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE DISALLOWANCE IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE REASONS ARE THAT THE CLAIM OF CONSULTANCY CHARGES P ERTAINED TO THE SAME AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND BABTIE G ROUP. THE BILLS ITA NO.1765/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 5 RAISED PERTAINED TO DIFFERENT PERIODS IN THE ACCOUN TING YEAR. IF THE AO WAS SATISFIED ABOUT THE FACTUM OF RENDERING OF SERVICES IN RESPECT OF THE FIRST TWO BILLS AND NO DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF THOSE TWO BILLS ON THE GROUND OF NON-RENDERING OF SERVICE S THEN THERE IS NO REASON TO HOLD THAT SERVICES WERE NOT RENDERED IN R ESPECT OF OTHER TWO BILLS. IT COULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT MATTER IF THE A O WOULD HAVE CHOSEN TO DISALLOW THE CLAIM IN RESPECT OF THE FOUR BILLS ON THE GROUND OF NON- RENDERING OF SERVICES BUT THE AO CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE TWO DIFFERENT VIEWS ON THE SAME MATTER MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSE E HAS RECEIVED THE BILLS IN FOUR PARTS RATHER THAN IN ONE PART. THE FA CT OF RENDERING SERVICES HAS TO BE ACCEPTABLE OR NOT ACCEPTABLE BUT NON-ACCE PTANCE CANNOT BE PERMITTED IN PART. THUS HAVING ACCEPTED THE CLAIM O F RENDERING OF SERVICES IN RESPECT OF FIRST TWO BILLS THE AOS ACTION IN D ISALLOWING THE CLAIM IN RESPECT OF OTHER TWO BILLS ON THE GROUND OF NON-REN DERING OF SERVICES CANNOT BE UPHELD. 8. FURTHER THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE AO FOR DISALLOW ING THE CLAIM THAT BILLS WERE RAISED IN F.Y.2004-05 AND THEREFORE LI ABILITY CRYSTALLIZED IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR WILL ALSO NOT BE ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE ONCE BOOKS ARE OPEN AND THERE IS TIME AVAILABLE FOR FILING OF THE RETUR N OR REVISED RETURN AND ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE CLAIM AND IS DULY INCORPORATE D IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND IN THE AUDIT REPORT THEN ON THE BASIS OF MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNT THE CLAIM HAS TO BE ACCEPTED. IN FACT THE C LAIM ACCRUED ON THE ASSESSEE IN FY 2003-04 ITSELF. EVEN WHERE BILLS ARE RECEIVED IN SUBSEQUENT PERIOD AND BOOKS ARE OPEN THEN IT IS WIT HIN THE RIGHT OF THE ASSESSEE TO INCORPORATE THE CLAIM AND COMPUTE THE C ORRECT INCOME. THE CONCEPT OF LEVYING TAX ON THE CORRECT INCOME OF THE RELEVANT ASST. YEAR HAS BEEN EMPHASIZED BY VARIOUS AUTHORITIES. HON. BO MBAY HIGH COURT IN ITA NO.1765/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 6 THE CASE OF CIT VS. UNITED MOTORS (INDIA) LTD. 181 ITR 347 HAD OBSERVED AS UNDER :- THE LIABILITY WAS RIGHTLY RECOGNIZED AS HAVING ACC RUED AND IT WAS PROVIDED FOR. THE PROVISION ITSELF WOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWABLE AS A DED UCTION.INSTEAD THE QUANTIFIED LIABILITY IN THE AGGREGATE SUM OF RS.76 680/- THOUGH IT WAS DISCHARGED SUBSEQUENT TO THE CLOSE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR WITH W HICH WE ARE CONCERNED MUST BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. THE PAYMENT IN THAT AGGREGA TE SUM WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS WORKMEN FOR THE SERVICES THAT WERE RENDERED BY THEM DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. SUCH EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND MUST BE DEDUCTED. HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CALCUTTA CO. LTD. (1959) 37 ITR 1 HELD THAT FOR COMPUTING CORRECT PROFITS AND G AINS OF THE YEAR THE EXPENDITURE NECESSARY FOR EARNING THE RECEIPT SHOUL D BE DEDUCTED THEREFROM IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE WAS ACTUALLY INCURRED OR THE LIABILITY THEREON HAD ACCRUED BUT WAS DISCHA RGED AT SOME FUTURE DATE. SIMILARLY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KED ARNATH JUTE MFG. CO. (1971) 82 ITR363 HELD THAT THE MOMENT A DEALER MADE EITHER PURCHASES OR SALES WHICH WERE SUBJECT TO SALES TAX THE OBLIGATI ON TO PAY THE TAX AROSE ALTHOUGH THE LIABILITY COULD NOT BE ENFORCED TILL Q UANTIFICATION WAS EFFECTED BY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 9. ORDINARILY THE PRINCIPLES OF COMMERCIAL ACCOUNTI NG SHOULD BE APPLIED AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH AN Y OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE LIABILITY FOR PAYMENT HAD ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE IN FY 2003-04 BUT WAS DISCHARGED SUBSEQUENTLY ON AC COUNT OF BILLS HAVING BEEN RAISED SUBSEQUENTLY. THE LIABILITY HAS TO BE DEDUCTED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT WAS INCURRED. A SUM IS ALLOWABLE A S REVENUE EXPENDITURE IF IT HAS BEEN ACTUALLY INCURRED AND RELATES TO GOO DS PURCHASED OR SOLD OR FOR SERVICES RENDERED DURING THE ACCOUNTING PERIOD EVEN IF THE SAME HAS ITA NO.1765/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 7 BEEN ACTUALLY PAID OR NOT. SO LONG THERE IS NO DISP UTE LIABILITY HAVING BEEN INCURRED DURING THE ACCOUNTING PERIOD HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 10. THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE BUSINESS ARE TO BE DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRINCIPLES OF ACCOUNTANCY. WHERE TH E ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED THE BOOKS ON THE BASIS OF MERCANTILE SYS TEM OF ACCOUNTING AND RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURE HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR ON ACCRUAL BASIS THEN FOLLOWING THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD AS-1 THE EXPENDI TURE INCURRED THOUGH NOT ACTUALLY PAID HAS TO BE ALLOWED. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BHAI SUNDER DASS & SONS CO. LTD. VS. CIT (2003) 259 ITR 33 (DEL) HELD THAT IF T HE LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO PAY COMMISSION TO THE LADY ACCRUED AS P ER AGREEMENT DATED MAY 5 1970 AND THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING ITS AC COUNTS ON MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING BASIS IT WAS ENTITLED TO DEDU CT SUCH LIABILITY WHICH HAS ACCRUED DURING THE PERIOD FOR WHICH PROFITS AND GAINS WERE BEING COMPUTED. SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUPER SCIENTIFIC CLOCK CO.(1999) 238 ITR 731. HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH IN CIT VS. SOUTHER ESTATES (P ) LTD. (1982) 136 ITR 846 (CAL) HELD THAT IF THERE IS AN ACCRUED LIAB ILITY AND ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE WHICH WOULD BE INCURRED IN DISCHARGING THE SAME THEN THE SAME CAN BE DEDUCTED FROM THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS. 11. WE MAY ALSO OBSERVE IN THIS CONNECTION THAT IF THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE DOES NOT COME INTO KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASS ESSEE DURING THE ACCOUNTING YEAR OR BEFORE FILING RETURN THEN IT WIL L BE WITHIN HIS RIGHT TO ITA NO.1765/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 8 CLAIM SUCH EXPENDITURE IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASST. YEAR WHEN BILLS ARE RAISED ON HIM AND THEREBY BRINGING THE CLAIM TO HIS NOTICE . IN OTHER WORDS IF THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE REMAINS IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF TH E ASSESSEE AND IS MADE BEFORE CLOSURE OF THE ACCOUNTS OR BEFORE FILIN G OF THE RETURN THEN IRRESPECTIVE OF FACT WHETHER BILLS WERE RAISED ON H IM IN THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING YEAR OR SUBSEQUENT THERETO IN THE NEXT F INANCIAL YEAR THE ASSESSEE CAN ADJUST HIS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT TO COMPUTE THE INCOME CORRECTLY BY DEBITING SUCH CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE IN THE BOOKS. BUT WHERE SUCH CLAIM ESCAPES HIS ATTENTION AND IS BROUGHT TO HIS KNOWLEDGE BY THE OTHER PARTY BY RAISING THE BILLS SUBSEQUENTLY THEN ASSESSEE CAN CLAIM THE SAME IN THE YEAR IN WHICH BILLS WERE RAISED ON HIM. IT IS SO HELD BY HONBLE CHATTISGARH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. BEEKAY ENGINEERING CORPORATION (2010) 323 ITR 252 ( CHATTISHGARH). IT SHOWS THAT ASSESSEE HAS A RIGHT AVAILABLE (NOT AN O PTION) TO CLAIM THE EXPENDITURE IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR IF IT IS SO BROU GHT INTO HIS KNOWLEDGE BY OTHER PARTY BY RAISING THE BILL IN SUCH SUBSEQUE NT YEAR. ORDINARILY THE CLAIM HAS TO BE CORRECTLY ADJUSTED THE PROFITS IN T HE YEAR TO WHICH THE RECEIPTS PERTAIN AND EXPENDITURE ACCRUES ON THE ASS ESSEE. 12. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 13. THE NEXT ISSUE IN ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ABOUT CL AIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHE. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHE OF THE ACT AT RS.15 96 993/-. SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE REVISED ITS RETURN REVI SED THE DEPRECIATION CALCULATION AND AS A CONSEQUENCE REVISED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 HHE TO 16 58 315/- AND CLAIMED ADDITIONA L DEDUCTION AT RS.61 322/-. THE AO DISALLOWED THE ADDITIONAL CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT IT ITA NO.1765/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 9 IS ONLY A SIMPLE CALCULATION AND IS NOT SUPPORTED B Y AUDITORS REPORT. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD FILED THE REPORT IN FORM NO.10CCAF AS PER REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 80HHE. THE REVISED AUDIT ORS REPORT WAS NOT FILED ALONG WITH REVISED RETURN BUT WAS FILED BEFOR E THE CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER DID NOT ALLOW THE CLAIM. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW ONCE THE AUDIT REPOR T IS FILED UNDER FORM NO.10CCAF BEFORE LD. CIT(A) FOR ADDITIONAL CLAIM FO R DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 HHE THEN REQUIREMENT OF LAW SHOULD BE CO NSIDERED AS SATISFIED AS IT IS ONLY A TECHNICAL BREACH. EVEN IF THE MATTE R IS RESTORED TO THE AO ON THIS GROUND THE CLAIM HAVE TO BE AGAIN ALLOWED AS THE REPORT WOULD BE AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS. WE ACCORDINGLY DO NOT CONSIDER IT NECESSARY TO SET ASIDE THE ISSUE AS SUG GESTED BY THE LD. DR AS IN OUR VIEW IT WILL ONLY BE ACADEMIC AND A RITUALIS TIC EXERCISE. WE ACCORDINGLY ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. AS A R ESULT THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS ALSO ALLOWED. 15. THE NEXT ISSUE IS REGARDING CHARGING OF INTERES T UNDER SECTION 234B AND UNDER SECTION 234D. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW IT I S CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE THEREFORE DO NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC ADJUD ICATION EVEN OTHERWISE NO SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE. THIS GROUND IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. ITA NO.1765/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 10 16. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLO WED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 21.1.11. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (D.C. AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER AHMEDABAD DATED : 21.1.11. MAHATA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)- 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD 1.DATE OF DICTATION 12/1/2011 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING 18/1/ 2011 MEMBER.OTHER MEMBER. 3.DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S. 4.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT.. 5.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR .P.S./P.S 6.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 7.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8.THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSTT. REG ISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 9.DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER..