Rocket Engineering Corporation Private Limited,, v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,,

ITA 1948/PUN/2013 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2015 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 194824514 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AADCR3595D
Bench Pune
Appeal Number ITA 1948/PUN/2013
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 24 day(s)
Appellant Rocket Engineering Corporation Private Limited,,
Respondent Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,,
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-04-2015
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 30-04-2015
Date Of Final Hearing 28-04-2015
Next Hearing Date 28-04-2015
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 05-11-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA. NO.1948/PN/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) ROCKET ENGINEERING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED D-19 MIDC SHIROLI KOLHAPUR 416 122 .. APPELLANT PAN NO. AADCR3595D VS. ADDL.CIT RANGE-1 KOLHAPUR .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K. KULKARNI DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI B.C. MALAKAR DATE OF HEARING : 28-04-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-04-2015 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26-08-2013 OF THE CIT(A) KOLHAPUR RELATING T O ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 TO 3 BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER : WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER : 1) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 34 10 881/- MADE BY THE A.O. INVOKING SS. 36(1)(III) AND 40A(2)(B) OF TH E ACT WITHOUT PASSING A 'SPEAKING ORDER' BY PROPERLY DEALING WITH TH E ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT AND SOLELY RELYING ON THE A.O.'S VERSION FOR A. Y. 2009- 10. SINCE THE INVOKED PROVISIONS OF S. 36(1)(III) & 4 0A(2)(B) ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE ADDITION CONF IRMED BY CIT(A) BE DELETED. 2) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION M ADE BY THE A.O. INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF S. 36(1)(III) R.W.S. 40A(2) (B) OF THE ACT SAYING THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY ITSELF OFFERED THE SAME FOR TAXATION. THE 'OFFERING TO TAX' WAS UNDER CERTAIN MI SCONCEPTION OF LAW. THE ADDITION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND THE SAME BE DE LETED. 2 3) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE AMOUNT WAS OFFERED TO TAX IN A. Y. 2009-10 WITHOUT APPRECIA TING THE STATUTORY PRESUMPTION THAT THE ADVANCES/LOANS COVERED B Y S. 40A(2)(B) WERE GIVEN OUT OF OWN FUNDS WHICH ARE INTE REST FREE. THE INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN ITSELF EXCEEDS THE AMOU NT OF LOANS PAID TO PERSONS COVERED BY S. 40A(2)(B). IN VIEW OF THE STA TUTORY PRESUMPTION ADVANCES/LOANS WERE PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN G IVEN OUT OF THE CURRENT INCOME OF THE YEAR ON WHICH TAX IS AL READY PAID WHICH GOES TO BUILD UP THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS. THE ADDITION OF RS.34 10 881/- IS UNWARRANTED AND IT BE DELETED. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET SUB MITTED THAT THE ISSUE STANDS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. WE FIND THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESS EES OWN CASE VIDE ITA NO.849/PN/2013 ORDER DATED 11-08=20 14 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BO TH THE SIDES PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAV E ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. WE FI ND THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.33 37 059/- BEING EXCESS INTEREST PAID TO THE DIRECTORS MEMBERS AND RELAT ED PARTIES BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE I. T. ACT. WHILE DOING SO HE HAD ALSO CONSIDERED THE OFFER OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ADDITION OF RS.33 37 059/- FOR TAXATION . THE ASSESSEE AFTER GIV ING IN WRITING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING THE REASONS FOR PAYMEN T OF EXCESS INTEREST @21% TO THE SPECIFIED PERSONS HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT TO BUY PEACE OF MIND HE WANTS TO OFFER THE INTEREST P AID OVER AND ABOVE THE BANK RATE FOR TAXATION. THEREFORE HAVIN G OFFERED THE SAME TO TAX IN WRITING AND BY GIVING THE INDIVIDUAL DETA ILS FOR CALCULATING THE DISALLOWANCE THE ASSESSEE IS NOW AGITATING ON THE GR OUND THAT THERE WAS MISCONCEPTION OF LAW. 6.1 IN OUR OPINION IT IS NOT A LEGAL ISSUE AND IS PURE LY A FACTUAL ISSUE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CLEARLY BROUGHT ON RECO RD THE RATE OF INTEREST PAID TO OUTSIDE CREDITORS AT 9% TO THE BANKS AT 14.75% AND 21% PAID TO THE RELATED PARTIES. SINCE THERE WAS HUG E DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RATE OF INTEREST PAID TO THE BANK AND TH E RATE OF INTEREST PAID TO THE RELATED PARTIES THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD A SKED THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY THE REASONABLENESS OF SUCH HUGE INTEREST PAID TO THE DIRECTORS. THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN THE REASONS AND THE REAFTER TO BUY PEACE OF MIND HAD OFFERED THE EXCESS INTEREST PAI D TO TAX. THEREFORE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY LEGAL MISCONCE PTION WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD FOREGONE BY WAY OF CONCESSION. IT IS PURELY A FACTUAL MATTER. THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE DISALLOW ANCE OF ADDITION OF RS.33 37 079/-. 3 6.2 SO FAR AS THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE CONCERNED NONE OF THE CASE RELATES TO A SITU ATION WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAVING OFFERED FOR TAXATION OF THE EXCESS AM OUNT OF INTEREST HAS GOT RELIEF. NO DOUBT THE BANKS ASK LOT OF FORMALITIES FOR SANCTIONING OF LOAN WHICH ARE NOT REQUIRED FOR LOANS OBTAINED FROM PRIVATE PARTIES. HOWEVER IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO OBTAINED LOAN FROM PRIVATE PARTIES AND HAS PAID INTE REST @9%. THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS CALCULATED THE INTEREST TO BE PAID TO THE DIRECTORS AND RELATED PARTIES @15.60% AND OFFERED THE BALANCE AMOUNT FOR TAXATION. THEREFORE UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE THE VARIOUS CASE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT APPLICABLE. 6.3 WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS HA S MENTIONED THAT IT HAS SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE FUNDS AV AILABLE WHICH ARE FAR IN EXCESS OF THE LOANS ADVANCED TO PERSONS COVER ED U/S.40A(2)(B). IN THE INSTANT CASE THERE IS NO QUESTIO N OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST FREE A DVANCES GIVEN TO RELATED PARTIES. IT IS A REVERSE CASE WHEREIN THE ASSE SSEE HAS OBTAINED THE LOAN FROM RELATED PARTIES BY PAYING EXO RBITANT RATE OF INTEREST FOR WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE E XCESS INTEREST PAID TO THE RELATED PARTIES BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE I.T. ACT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS AGREED FOR THE ADDITION OF RS.33 37 059/- TO TAX BEING EXCE SS INTEREST PAID TO THE RELATED PARTIES COVERED U/S.40A(2)(B) THEREFORE THE CIT(A) IN OUR OPINION WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDI TION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 4. FACTS BEING SIMILAR THEREFORE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL THE ABOVE GROUNDS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 5. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.4 BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER : 4) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) 1962. THERE IS NO FINDING TO THE EFFECT THAT ANY EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR EARNING THE EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME. THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY HAD SUFFICIENT NON-INTEREST BEARING FUNDS TO M AKE THE INVESTMENT ON WHICH THE TAX EXEMPT INCOME HAS BEEN EA RNED. IN VIEW OF THIS NO DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR U/S 14A OF THE ACT R.W.R. 8D OF I. T. RULES 1962. THE ADDITION BE DELETED. 6. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY HAS SHOWN DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.2 25 517/- ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES IN INDIAN COMPANIES AND CLAIMED THE SAME AS EXEMPT U/S.10(34) OF THE I.T. ACT. NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN DEBITED FOR EARNING THIS INCOME BEFORE CLAIMING THE EXEMPTIO N. ON BEING QUESTIONED BY THE AO IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR EARNING THIS INCOME. FO LLOWING 4 THE ORDER FOR THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR THE AO DIS ALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.93 288/- U/S.14A R.W. RULE 8D OF THE I.T .ACT. 7. IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO. W HILE DOING SO HE OBSERVED THAT NO INCOME IS EARNED WITHOUT MAKING ANY EXPENDITURE. ACCORDING TO HIM EXPENSES HAVE TO BE INCURRED FOR OBSERVING THE FORMALITIES WHILE APPLYING FOR SHARES MAN HOURS DEVOTED BY THE STAFF DEPUTED TO KEEP ACCOUNT OF INVEST MENT BANK CHARGES ETC. IF ASSESSEES CASE IS THAT SUCH EXPENSES ARE LESS TH AN THE AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE HE HAS TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF ALL THESE EXPENSES. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DO SO HE HELD THAT THE AO WAS RIGHT IN DISALLOWING 0.5% OF AVERAGE INVESTM ENT AS EXPENDITURE ATTRIBUTABLE TO EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME. 8. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES. WE FIND AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE TR IBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10. THE TRIBUN AL VIDE ITA NO.849/PN/2013 ORDER DATED 11-08-2014 HAS DISMISSE D THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WE FIND ON BEING QUESTIONED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY PROPORTIONATE DISALLOWAN CE SHOULD NOT BE MADE FOR CLAIMING THE DIVIDEND INCOME AS EXEMPT U /S.10(34) THE ASSESSEE IN ITS REPLY VIDE SUBMISSION DATED 17-08-2011 HAS R EPLIED AS UNDER : ' THE COMPANY HAS EARNED A DIVIDEND OF RS.1 60 976/- FROM INDIAN COMPANIES WHICH IS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT U/S 10(34) OF THE I. T. ACT. HOWEVER THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED REGARDING THE SAME IS NEGLIGIBLE AND CANNOT BE CORRECTLY ASCERTAINED'. 10.1 WE FURTHER FIND SIMILAR DISALLOWANCES WERE MADE I N THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED FOR A.YRS. 2006-07 AND 2008-09 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND NOTHING WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE AS TO THE OUTCOME OF SUCH DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. THE 5 RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT PARA 4. 2 AND 4.3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER READ AS UNDER : 4.2 SINCE THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AS ABOVE W AS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN PURSUANCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 4A OF THE ACT RWR 8D OF THE I T. RULES 1962 AND FURTHER THAT DI SALLOWANCE WAS MADE IN THIS REGARD IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED FOR A. Y. 2006- 07 AND 2008-09 BY THE A.OS. ON 05/12/2008 AND 23/12/ 2010 RESPECTIVELY VIDE ANNEXURE TO THE NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT DT. 30/08/2011 THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS UNDER:- 'PLEASE REFER TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED FOR A. Y 200 6-07 AND 2008-09 BY THE AOS ON 05/12/2008 AND 23/12/2010. PL EASE STATE AS TO WHY IDENTICAL VIEW SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN FOR DISALLO WANCE OF INTEREST ON PAYMENTS S TOWARDS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND ALSO DISALLOWANCE OF PROPORTIONATE EXPENSES FOR EXEMPTED I NCOME (I.E. DIVIDEND)'. 4.3 IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY VIDE SUBMISSION DT. 12/09/2011 IN SR. NO. 11 THE ASSESSEE COM PANY REPLIED AS UNDER: '11. REGARDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON SHARE A PPLICATION MONEY I WOULD LIKE TO STATE BEFORE YOUR HONOUR THAT THE SHARE APPLICATION . MONEY PAID FOR IPO'S OF VARIOUS COMPANI ES REMAIN WITH THOSE COMPANIES FOR A VERY SHORT PERIOD AND DIVIDEND IF ANY RECEIVED ON THE SHARES ALLOTTED FROM SUCH COMPANIES IS CREDITED I N THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. I THEREFORE REQUEST YOUR HONOUR NOT TO DISALLOW OF INTEREST ON SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. I ALSO BRING TO Y OUR HONORS KIND NOTICE THAT NO HEAVY EXPENSES HAVE BEEN DEBITED TOWA RDS EXEMPTED INCOME (I.E. DIVIDEND) AND THEREFORE I REQUEST YOU R HONOUR NOT TO DISALLOW ANY EXPENSES IN THIS REGARD. 10.2 SINCE THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAD ADMITTED THAT IT HAS INCURRED CERTAIN EXPENSES ALTHOUGH THE SAME IS NEGLIGIBLE WHICH CANNOT BE CORRECTLY ASCERTAINED AND SINCE CERTAIN ADDITIONS WERE MADE DURING A.Y. 2006-07 AND 2008-09 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.14 A AND NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD AS TO THE OUTCOME OF THE SAME INCLUDING THE QUANTUM THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND AN Y INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S.14A R.W. RULE 8D FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE CASE DECI SION RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS OF NO HELP TO I T IN ABSENCE OF GIVING FULL DETAILS AND TO EXPLAIN AS TO HOW THE SAID RATIO IS APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THIS GROUND BY THE A SSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IN THE PRE CEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIA L BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WE FIN D NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS UPHELD AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 6 11. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.5 BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER : 5) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE AD-HOC DISA LLOWANCE OF RS.1 32 400/- MADE BY THE A. 0. THE AD-HOC DISALLOWAN CE BE DELETED. 12. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.13 23 995/- UNDER THE HEADS POSTAGE AN D TELEPHONE FURNITURE REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE AND CARTAGE. WHILE VERIFYING THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS THE AO NOTICED THAT SOME OF THE EXPENSES WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY PROPER VOUCHERS AND ARE SUPPORTED BY SELF MADE VOUCHERS WHICH WERE NOT FULLY VER IFIABLE AS TO THE BUSINESS NEXUS OF THE ASSESSEE. NO TELEPHONE CALL REGISTER WAS MAINTAINED TO ENSURE THAT THE ENTIRE EXPE NSES UNDER THIS HEAD WERE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE AO THEREFORE DISALLOWED 10% OF THE EXPENSES ON ESTIMATE BASIS BEING PERSONAL IN NATURE AND ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDITION OF RS.1 32 400/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN APP EAL THE LD.CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO. 13. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 14. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND AN IDENTICAL ISSUE H AD COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN T HE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE I TA NO.849/PN/2013 ORDER DATED 11-08-2014 HAS RESTRICTED SUCH DISALLOWANCE TO 5% BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT CERTAIN B ILLS AND VOUCHERS WERE SUPPORTED BY ONLY SELF-MADE VOUCHERS AND WERE NOT AMENABLE FOR VERIFICATION FOR WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A DHOC DISALLOWANCES. WE FIND SIMILAR DISALLOWANCES WERE MADE IN THE PRECEDING YEAR AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OBJECTED TO THE SAME. HOWEVER NONE OF THE PARTIES HAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTIC E REGARDING THE 7 AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF T HE FACTS OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE DISALL OWANCE AT 10% ON ADHOC BASIS APPEARS TO BE ON THE HIGHER SIDE. WE TH EREFORE DIRECT TO RESTRICT SUCH DISALLOWANCE TO 5% OF THE EXPENSES. W E HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE I S ACCORDINGLY PARTLY ALLOWED. 15. FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONINGS WE DIRECT THE AO TO RES TRICT SUCH DISALLOWANCE TO 5% OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED AS AGAINST 10% MADE BY HIM AND UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). THIS GROUND BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY PARTLY ALLOWED. 16. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.6 BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER : 6) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A 234B AND 234C IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE LEVY OF INTEREST BE QUASHED. 17. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT LEVY OF INTEREST U/S.234A 234B AND 234C IS MANDATORY AND CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE. THEREFORE THIS GR OUND BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 18. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.7 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE IS DISMISSED. 19. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PART LY ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30-04-2015. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SATISH PUNE DATED: 30 TH APRIL 2015 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. CIT(A) KOLHAPUR 4. CIT KOLHAPUR 5. THE D.R B BENCH 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT PUNE BENCHES PUNE