M/s. Vardhman ECC JV, New Delhi v. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 365/DEL/2010 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 11-11-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 36520114 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAEFV9181D
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 365/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Vardhman ECC JV, New Delhi
Respondent ACIT, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 11-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted H
Tribunal Order Date 11-11-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 05-09-2011
Next Hearing Date 05-09-2011
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 27-01-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH H DELHI ] BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH JM AND SHRI K. D. RA NJAN AM I. T. APPEAL NO. 365 (DEL) OF 2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06. M/S. VARDHMAN E C C J V ASSTT. COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME-TAX 814 SHAKUNTLA BUILDING VS. W A R D : 2 59 NEHRU PLACE N E W D E L H I. N E W D E L H I. PAN / GIR NO. AAEFV 9181D. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R. S. SINGHVI C. A.; DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI A. K. MONGA SR. D. R.; O R D E R. PER K. D. RANJAN AM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 05-06 ARISES OUT OF ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS)-XXVIII NEW DELHI. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS FOLLOWS :- 1 (I). THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE THE CIT (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING EX-PARTE ORDER UNDE R SECTION 144 AND SUSTAINING ESTIMATION OF INCOME @ 8 PER CENT OF GROSS RECEIPT; (II). THAT NO PROPER OR REASONABLE OPPORT UNITY WAS PROVIDED BY THE CIT (APPEALS) AND ASSESSING OFFICER AND ESTIMATION OF INCOME WAS ON MECHANICAL BASIS; 2 I. T. APPEAL NO. 365 (DEL) OF 2010 (III). THAT THE RETURN WAS FILED ON THE B ASIS OF AUDITED ACCOUNTS AND THIS FACT WAS NOT IN DISPUTE AND AS SUCH THE CLAIM OF LO SS WAS DULY SUPPORTED ON THE BASIS OF AUDITED ACCOUNTS AND THERE IS NO CASE OF R EJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR ESTIMATION OF INCOME; (IV). THAT IN VIEW OF THE SUBSTANTIAL LOS SES AND DISPUTE BETWEEN PARTIES THE FIRM HAD BECOME NON FINANCIAL AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT THE BOOKS WERE DESTROYED IN FIRE IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO PRODUCE T HE SAME. HOWEVER IN VIEW OF FACT THAT RETURN WAS FILED ON THE BASIS OF AUDITED ACCOUNTS THE CORRECTNESS OF SAME IS NOT DISPUTE; (V). THAT IN ANY CASE ESTIMATION OF INCO ME AT 8 PER CENT OF THE GROSS RECEIPT IS HIGHLY ARBITRARY AND EXCESSIVE; 2. THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERR ED IN CHARGING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234-B WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND PROPE R OPPORTUNITY; 3. THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVE LEAVE TO AD D AMEND ALTER OR FORGO ANY OR ALL OF THE GROUNDS AS MAY BE NECESSARY AND IN THE INTER EST OF JUSTICE; THAT THE CHARGE OF INTEREST BEING ON GE NERAL BASIS & WITHOUT ANY SPECIFIC FINDING SAME IS NOT SUSTAINABLE UNDER THE LAW; 4. THAT THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHOR ITIES ARE NOT JUSTIFIED ON FACTS AND SAME ARE BAD IN LAW. 3. THE FIRST ISSUE FOR OUR CONSIDERATION RELATES TO SUSTAINING THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME AT THE RATE OF 8 PER CENT OF GROSS RECEIPTS. DURING THE R ELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN CIVIL CONTRACT WORK AND HAD RECEIVED GRO SS RECEIPTS OF RS.3 10 27 235/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTIONS 142( 1) AND 143(2) OF THE ACT WHICH REMAINED UN-COMPLIED WITH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ISSUE D NOTICE FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B). THE SAID NOTICE WAS ALSO NOT CO MPLIED WITH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAIN ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE SEEKING TO IMPOSE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B). IN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE SHRI ANIL KUMAR RATHOD G.M. (FINANCE) ATTEN DED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND FILED SOME DETAILS. THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 5/12/2007 BUT ON THE SAID DATE NOBODY ATTENDED. SHRI RATHOD ATTENDED THE OFFICE ON 6/12/2007. HOWEVER SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT COOPERATING IN FILING THE INFORMATION THE AO APPLIED NET PROFIT R ATE OF 8 PER CENT ON GROSS RECEIPTS AND ESTIMATED THE INCOME AT RS.24 82 178/-. 3 I. T. APPEAL NO. 365 (DEL) OF 2010 BEFORE THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT CORRECT RECEIPTS FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WERE AT RS.2 67 82 882/- ON WHICH TDS OF RS.5 59 762/- WAS DEDUCTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED FIGURE OF GROSS RECEIPTS AT RS.3 10 27 232/- ON THE BASIS OF CERTIFICATE ON RECORD WITHOUT TAKING NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THERE WAS CLER ICAL MISTAKE IN THE CERTIFICATE AND THE SAME WAS MODIFIED AS PER CERTIFICATE DATED 15/12/2007. HOWE VER THE AO DID NOT TAKE THIS FACT INTO CONSIDERATION. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD SUFFERED LOSS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BECAUSE OF WHICH BUSINESS WAS ALSO SU SPENDED. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON THE BASIS OF AUDITED ACCOUNTS. EVEN THOU GH BOOKS COULD NOT BE PRODUCED FOR THE REASON THAT THERE WAS DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTNERS AND THERE WAS TOTAL DISCONTINUATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WHICH HAVE TOTALLY BEEN IGNORED AND DIS REGARDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. CIT(A) OBTAINED THE COMMENTS OF THE AO ON WRITTEN S UBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE THERETO IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE AO THAT TH E ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNITY. THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER DID NOT COOPERATE. THE ASSESSEE WAS AVOIDING PRODUCING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND RELEVANT INFORMATION. IT WAS ALSO MEN TIONED BY THE AO THAT EVEN DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODU CE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION WHICH WAS NECESSARY FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. THE LD. CIT (A) OBTAINED THE COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE ON REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE AO. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS TO FURNISH BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL PRODUCED CASH BOOK AND LEDGER BUT NO VOUCHERS WERE PRODUCED. TO A QUERY IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ON 24/04/2005 FIRE BROKE OUT AT B-29 LAJPAT N AGAR-II NEW DELHI WHERE THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS LOCATED. THE FURNITURE COMPUTER OFF ICE FILES AND OFFICE RECORDS RELATING TO CONSTRUCTION INCOME TAX AND SALES TAX RELATED FILE S AND OTHER RECORDS WERE BURNT AND HENCE THE SAME COULD NOT BE PRODUCED. TO PROVE THIS CONTENTI ON THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE COPY OF DDR LODGED WITH THE POLICE STATION LAJPAT NAGAR. THE LD. CIT (A) CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THE REMAND REPORT AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. CIT (A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT A FIRE BROKE OUT ON 24/04/2005 AND CERTAIN RECORDS WERE DESTROYED. THIS PLEA WAS NEVER TAKEN EARLIER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND WAS NOT TAKEN EVEN WHEN THE AO GAVE THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY DURING REMAND PROCEED INGS. IF THE RECORDS WERE INDEED DESTROYED IN THE FIRE ON 24/4/05 THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE SAID SO IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR EVEN EARLIER DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT FIRE HAD OCCURRED ON 24 TH APRIL 2005 WHEREAS THE RETURN WAS FILED ON 30 TH OCTOBER 2005 AND SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS WERE 4 I. T. APPEAL NO. 365 (DEL) OF 2010 CONDUCTED MUCH LATER. AS PER COPY OF AUDIT REPORT FILED THE FORM NO. 3-CD IS DATED 27/10/2005. THE FILING OF FORM NO. 3-CD IS AFTER THE DATE OF FI RE BUT THE AUDIT REPORT DID NOT CONTAIN ANY QUALIFICATION REGARDING ANY VOUCHERS ETC. NOT BEING AVAILABLE. THE LD. CIT (A) THEREFORE HELD THAT IT WAS AN AFTER-THOUGHT AND ONLY AN EXCUSE FOR NOT PRODUCING THE RECORDS. THE LD. CIT (A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT BURDEN OF PROOF FOR JUSTIFYIN G THE INCOME SHOWN BY THE RECORDS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE. MERELY SAYING THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN AUDITED WAS NOT SUFFICIENT. THE ASSESSEE WAS EXPECTED TO PRODUCE ENTIRE RECORDS INC LUDING VOUCHERS SO THAT EXPENSES CLAIMED COULD BE EXAMINED. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED T O DISCHARGE BURDEN AN ADVERSE INFERENCE WAS TO BE DRAWN. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE FACTS UPHELD THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME AT THE RATE OF 8 PER CENT. 4. BEFORE US THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE VOUCHERS WERE DESTROYED IN THE FIRE. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFERED HUGE LOSSES AND UL TIMATELY THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN DISCONTINUED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT BALANCE SH EET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WAS FILED BEFORE THE AO. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE AUDITED. WHEN THE VOUCHERS WERE BURNT IN THE FIRE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE PRODUCED THE SAME. THE REFORE ESTIMATION OF INCOME AT THE RATE OF 8 PER CENT IS HIGHLY UNJUSTIFIED. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ADDL. CIT V S. JAY ENGINEERING WORKS LTD. [1978] 113 ITR 389 (DEL.) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT ONCE ACCOUN TS ARE AUDITED AND AUDIT REPORT IS A PART OF THE RECORD BEFORE THE AO HE SHOULD ACCEPT THE AUDIT RE PORT AS AN EVIDENCE. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT ESTIMATION OF I NCOME BY THE AO AT THE RATE OF 8 PER CENT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF ITAT JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHANKER EXPORTERS VS. ADDL. CIT [201 1] 44 SOT 64 (JP.) (URO). ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. SR. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS). 5.1 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS A JOINT VENTURE BETWEEN M/S. VARDH MAN PRECISION PROFILES & RUBES PVT. LTD. AND EC CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROF IT AND LOSS ACCOUNT HAS SHOWN CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS.2 67 81 530/- WHICH WERE TAKEN BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.3 10 27 235.18. 5 I. T. APPEAL NO. 365 (DEL) OF 2010 BEFORE THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) IT WAS ARGUED THAT DUE TO MISTAKE IN PREPARATION OF FORM NO. 16-A THE CONTRACT WORK WAS TAKEN AT RS.3 10 27 235 AS AG AINST ACTUAL RECEIPTS OF RS.2 67 82 882/-. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICE R TO COMPUTE INCOME AT THE RATE OF 8 PER CENT OF THE ACTUAL GROSS RECEIPTS. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS PRODUCED CASH BOOK AND LEDGER BUT DID NOT PRODUCE VOUCHERS. A PLEA HAS BEEN TAKEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) AND ALSO BEFORE US THAT A FIRE BROKE OUT ON 24 TH APRIL 2005 AT THE OFFICE IN LAJPAT NAGAR WHEREIN THE VOUCHERS WERE DESTROYED. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS HELD THAT THE LOSS OF VOUCHERS DUE TO FIRE WAS NOT TAKEN UP EITHER IN ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR IN THE EARLIER HEARING BEFORE HIM. HE HAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D FILED RETURN ON 30 TH OCTOBER 2005. FORM NO. 3-CD IS DATED 27/10/2005. THE AUDIT REPORT DOE S NOT CONTAIN ANY QUALIFICATION REGARDING NON-AVAILABILITY OF VOUCHERS DUE TO FIRE. HE HAS THEREFORE TREATED THE PLEA OF LOSS OF BILLS AND VOUCHERS DUE TO FIRE AS AN AFTER- THOUGHT. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE TAX AUDIT REPORT. M/S. RAMESH GUPTA & ASSOCIATES CHARTERED ACCOUNTAN TS HAVE COMPLETED THEIR AUDIT ON 27 TH OCTOBER 2005. THE BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LO SS ACCOUNT HAVE ALSO BEEN AUDITED ON THE SAME DATE. THEREFORE AS ON 27 TH OCTOBER 2005 THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND VOUCHERS W ERE AVAILABLE WITH THE AUDITORS WHO AFTER EXAMINING TH EM HAVE PREPARED BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND THE REPORT IN FORM NO. 3-CD. IN N OWHERE IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT THE AUDITORS HAVE GIVEN ANY INDICATION THAT BILLS AND VOUCHERS W ERE NOT AVAILABLE. IN FACT THE AUDIT REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED ON THE BASIS OF ALL THE MATERIAL I.E. CASH BOOK LEDGER STOCK REGISTERS PURCHASE VOUCHERS MUSTER ROLL ETC. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW CO ME WITH THE PLEA THAT THERE WAS FIRE IN THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 24 TH APRIL 2005. FOR A MOMENT IF THIS PLEA OF ASSESSE E IS ACCEPTED THEN IT WOULD MEAN THE TAX AUDITORS HAVE MADE TAX AUDI T REPORT WITHOUT VERIFYING THE VOUCHERS. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE TAX AUDITORS M/S. RAMESH GUPTA & ASSOCIATES VIDE CERTIFICATE DATED 20 TH MARCH 2010 [PLACED AT PAGE NO. 84 OF THE PAPER BOO K] HAVE CERTIFIED THAT THEY WERE AUDITORS OF M/S. VARDHMAN ECC JV 35-BASEMENT LINK ROAD LAJPA T NAGAR FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND HAVE ALSO BEEN SUPERVISING THE ACCOUNTS AND DOI NG CONCURRENT AUDIT. THEY HAVE CONFIRMED THAT THE BALANCE SHEET AND TAX AUDIT REPORT WAS PRE PARED AFTER EXAMINATION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND RELEVANT VOUCHERS PRODUCED BEFORE THEM FOR THEI R VERIFICATION. THEY HAVE ALSO CERTIFIED THAT THE FIRM WAS FUNCTIONAL ONLY FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 05-06 AND SUBSEQUENTLY ON ACCOUNT OF LOSSES AND DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTNERS THE BUSINESS WAS DISCONTINUED AND THE FIRM WAS NON- FUNCTIONAL. FROM THE CERTIFICATE OF THE AUDITORS IT IS EVIDENT THAT AS ON 27 TH OCTOBER 2005 BILLS 6 I. T. APPEAL NO. 365 (DEL) OF 2010 AND VOUCHERS ALONG WITH BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE IN E XISTENCE. THEREFORE THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS FIRE ON 24 TH APRIL 2005 IS NOTHING BUT AN AFTER-THOUGHT. THE AUDITORS HAVE ALSO CONFIRMED THAT THEY WERE ALSO DOING CONCURRENT AUDI T. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS A FIRE IN THE OFFICE IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS CORRECT. 5.2 WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE PROFIT AND LOSS A CCOUNT AND DETAILS THERETO. WE FIND THAT THE CONSTRUCTION WORK HAS BEEN FINISHED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF 8 MONTHS. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS.2 67 81 530/- AGAINST WHICH RAW MATERIAL CONSUMED HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS.2 85 80 249/- AND LABOUR EXPENSES OF RS.11 26 44 9/-. THE RAW MATERIAL CONSUMED IS MORE THAN THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS FOR PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIAL. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DETA ILS OF RAW MATERIAL CONSUMED AT RS.2 85 80 249/-.THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PURCHASE OF CEMENT AT RS.34 53 418/- STEEL AT RS.97 85 515/- STRUCTURES RS.40 35 855/- RAW MATE RIAL CONSUMED HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS.70 82 019/- AND RS.28 43 495/- THE DETAILS OF R AW MATERIAL CONSUMED HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN. THEREFORE ON THE BASIS OF BROAD DETAILS OF THE BUI LDING MATERIAL PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE THE DETAILS OF RAW MATERIAL CONSUMED IN THE CONSTRUCTIO N AT RS.2 85 80 248/- COULD NOT BE VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE PURCHASES OF CEMENT HAV E BEEN SHOWN FROM DIFFERENT PERSONS IN ROUND FIGURES WITHOUT INDICATING THE NUMBER OF BAGS OR BI LL NUMBERS. SIMILAR IS THE POSITION ABOUT PURCHASE OF STRUCTURES AND STEEL. THEREFORE ON TH E BASIS OF TAX AUDIT REPORT THE AO COULD NOT HAVE VERIFIED THE EXPENDITURE ACTUALLY INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ENTIRE CONTRACT WORK WAS OVER WITHIN THE PERIOD OF 8 MONTH S AND THE BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE WAS CLOSED DOWN. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST WHETHE R THE CONSTRUCTION WORK WAS OVER WITHIN THIS PERIOD OR NOT. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ASSE SSING OFFICER COULD NOT HAVE VERIFIED THE EXPENSES CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF RAW MATERIAL LABOUR CHARGES AND OTHER EXPENSES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS FOR VERIFICATION IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY APPLIED NET PROFIT RATE OF 8 PER CENT ON GROSS RECEIPTS. THE LD. CIT (A) IS THEREFORE JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ESTIMATING THE NET PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 8 PE R CENT. THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF AD DL. CIT VS. JAY ENGINEERS WORKS LTD. (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CA SE AS WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE BOOKS OF 7 I. T. APPEAL NO. 365 (DEL) OF 2010 ACCOUNTS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AUDITED IN THE ABSENCE OF BILLS AND VOUCHERS AND TO THAT EXTENT THE AUDITORS HAVE GIVEN CERTIFICATE. 6. THE NEXT ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION RELATES TO CHAR GING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234-B OF THE ACT. SINCE CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234- B IS MANDATORY IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ANJUM M.H. GHA SWALA 252 ITR 1 (SC). RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IT IS HELD THAT THE AO HAS RIGHTLY CHARGED INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234-B OF THE ACT. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON : 11 TH NOVEMBER 2011. SD/- SD/- [ DIVA SINGH ] [ K. D. RANJAN ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 11 TH NOVEMBER 2011 . * MEHTA * COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : - 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT 4. CIT (APPEALS) 5. DR ITAT NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT.