M/S ANAND VIHAR CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, JSR V. ITO WARD-1(40, JSR

CO 02/RAN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0475 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 31-01-2018
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO S . 335 /RAN/20 1 7 AND CO NO. 02/RAN/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 335 / RAN/20 1 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 201 4 - 201 5 ITO, WARD - 1(4), JAMSHEDPUR V S M/S ANAND VIHAR CONSTRUCTION PV T. LTD., 12A, RAJENDRA NAGAR, NEAR DURGA PUJA MAIDAN, SAKCHI, JAMSHEDPUR - 831001 PAN NO. : AAACC 7476 R (APPELLANT ) .. RESPONDENT AND CO NO. 02 /RAN/201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 201 4 - 201 5 M/S ANAND VIHAR CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., 12A, RAJENDRA NAGAR, NEAR DURG A PUJA MAIDAN, SAKCHI, JAMSHEDPUR - 831001 V S ITO, WARD - 1(4), JAMSHEDPUR PAN NO. : AAACC 7476 R (APPELLANT ) .. RESPONDENT REVENUE BY SHRI A.K.MOHANTY, JCIT(JR. DR) ASSESSEE BY SHRI DEVESH PODDAR , ADV. DATE OF HEARING : 2 7 . 11 .201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 . 11 .201 8 O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM : THE REVENUE HAS FILED TH IS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), JAMSHEDPUR , DATED 12.09.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 4 - 2015 . THE ASSESSEE HA S ALSO FILED CROSS OBJECTION. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING G ROUNDS OF APPEAL : - 2 ITA NO S . 335 /RAN/20 1 7 AND CO NO. 02/RAN/2018 (1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 15,76,180/ - IN WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT FIND A S TO WHETHER THE REMUNERATION PAID IS BOGUS. (2) THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,15,01,768/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) I.E LABOUR PAYMENT WITHOUT MAKING TDS ON THE GROUND THAT AO DID NOT FIND WHETHER THE PAYMENT BEEN MADE TO ANY CONTRACTORS OR TO SUPERVISOR MONITORING THE WORK AND MAKING LABOUR PAYMENT. (3) THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING ADDITIONS MADE UNDER THE HEAD MATERIAL PURCHASE AMOUNTING RS.6,89,541/ - WITHOUT ANY REASON AND VERIFICATION OF FACTS. (4 ) THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW & IN FACT HAS GIVEN RELIEF OF RS. 71,128/ - OUT OF ADDITION OF RS.6,10,411/ - ON THE BASIS THAT THE SAME IS NOT PROPER. (5 ) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ARCHI TECT & MAP APPROVAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY COGENT MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE EXPENSES ARE EITHER NOT ACCIDENTAL TO BUSINESS OR BOGUS EXPENSES AND DISALLOWANCE MADE ON ADHOC BASIS BY THE AO IS NOT PROPER. (6) ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY ARISE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A BUILDER/DEVELOPER AND FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.11.2014 FOR THE A.Y. 2014 - 2015 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 7,54,980/ - . SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCR UTINY AND NOTICE U/S.143(2) & 142(1) WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND CASE WAS DISCUSSED. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ASSESSING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,56,65,240/ - AND MADE VARIOUS ADDITIONS AND PASSED ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT, DATED 30.12.2016. 3 ITA NO S . 335 /RAN/20 1 7 AND CO NO. 02/RAN/2018 4 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND ARGUED THE GROUNDS AND REITERATED THE SUB MISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE FINDINGS OF AO, PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE REVENUE HAS FILED APPEAL BOTH APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6 . BEFORE US LD. DR ON THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL OF DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.15,76,180/ - BY THE CIT(A), SUBMITTED THAT THE REMUNERATION IS PAID IN EXCESS AND ALSO THE CIT(A) HAS OVERLOOKED THE FINDINGS OF AO AND GRANTED THE RELIEF. IN RESPECT OF SECOND GROUND THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AS THE PAYMENT WAS MADE TO CONTRACTORS OR TO THE SUPERVISORS WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TDS AND SIMILARLY LD. DR ARGUED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF OF MATER IAL PURCHASED WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND RELIEF GRANTED IN RESPECT OF RS.71,128/ - OUT OF THE ADDITION OF RS.6,10,411/ - . LD. DR FURTHER SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO AND PRAYED FOR ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 7 . ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. A R SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND LD AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE OBSERVATION OF CIT(A) AT PAGE 29 OF THE ORDER AND SIMILAR IN RESPECT OF DELETION OF ADDITION BY THE CIT(A) ON THE LABOUR PAYMENTS MADE TO SUPERVISOR AND THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE PROVISIONS 4 ITA NO S . 335 /RAN/20 1 7 AND CO NO. 02/RAN/2018 OF SECTION 40(A) (IA) OF THE ACT ARE NOT ATTRACTED AND ALSO SUPPORTED WITH OTHER VITAL OBSERVATIONS. 8 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ON THE FIRST ISSUE, THE CONTENTION OF LD. DR IS THAT THE REMUNERATION IS PAID IN EXCESS AND ALSO THE CIT(A) HAS OVERLOOKED THE FINDINGS OF AO . WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) WHILE DEALING WITH THE DISPUTED ISSUE HAS OBSERVED THAT EVEN IF INCOME HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN BY THE DIRECTORS IS CONSIDERED, THE ADDITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN RESORTED IN RESPECTIVE HANDS OF DI RECTORS AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE'S COMPANY AND DELETED THE ADDITION. THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD ARE AS UNDER : - 4.3. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED AO AS WELL AS THE REMAND REPORT AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE AO ASSERTED THAT NO REMUNERATION HAS BEEN PAID TO THE DIRECTORS AS DIRECTORS HAVE NOT SHOWN INCOME UNDER THE HEAD SALARY WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DIRECTORS HAVE SHOWN REMUNERATION AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE DIR ECTORS IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME HAVE CLAIMED CERTAIN EXPENSES OUT OF REMUNERATION WHICH WAS A FACTOR TO CONCLUDE THE AO AS SUCH. SO FAR SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS CONCERNED, THE SAME IS NOT APPLICABLE. HENCE THE ASSESSEE'S EXPLANATION ON THE LINE OF SECTION 40(A) (IA) IS NOT PROPER. THE AO DID NOT FIND AS TO WHETHER THE REMUNERATION PAID IS BOGUS. EVEN IF INCOME HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN BY THE DIRECTORS IS CONSIDERED, THE ADDITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN RESORTED IN RESPECTIVE HANDS OF DIRECTORS AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE 'S C OMPANY. FURTHER THE APPELLANT ALSO STATED THE REVISED SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE IT ACT AMENDED VIDE FINANCE ACT, 2014 WHICH IS APPLICABLE IN A.Y. 2015 - 16 ONWARDS. BASED ON ABOVE, THE ADDITION MADE OF RS. 15,76,180/ - ON ACCOUNT OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE IT ACT IS HEREBY DELETED. THE CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF SECOND GROUND OF ADDITION OF RS.2,15,01,768/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT MADE TO LABOUR WITHOUT DEDUCTING TDS, HAS DELETED THE ADDITION AND OBSERVED AS UNDER : - 5 ITA NO S . 335 /RAN/20 1 7 AND CO NO. 02/RAN/2018 5. GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO AD DITION OF RS. 2,15,01,768/ - . 5.1 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED AO, REMAND REPORT AS WELL AS THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND COUNTER COMMENTS ON THE REMAND REPORT MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE AO IN HIS ORDER HAS TRIED TO INFER THAT SHRI ARUN KUMAR, SHRI SURESH PRASAD AND SHRI UTAM KUMAR ARE NOT SUPERVISOR BUT CONTRACTOR OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THEY WORKED AS THEIR SUPERVISOR AND DEEMING THEM AS CONTRACTOR WOULD BE UNJUSTIFIED. THE APPELLANT PRODUCED BEFORE ME THE SALARY AT TENDANCE REGISTER FOR THE F.Y. 2013 - 14, BANK STATEMENT OF THE SUPERVISOR SHRI SURESH PRASAD GUPTA AND ARUN PRASAD CHAUDHARY AND LATEST FROM THE ABOVE TWO EMPLOYEES, WAGES SHEET FOR THE PERIOD 2013 - 14 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2014 - 15, COMPLETE WAGE SHEET, BANK STAT EMENT OF COMPANY, ADDRESS OF UTAM KUMAR, LEDGER OF LABOUR EXPENSES WITH EXPLANATION AND REASON FOR NONE FILING OF RETURN BY SURESH PRASAD GUPTA AND ARUN KUMAR. ON GOING THROUGH THE REMAND REPORT IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THERE WERE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE L EDGERS OF THE SUPERVISORS AND THE MONTHLY STATEMENT AS SUBMITTED DURING THE ASSESSMENT HEARING BUT THE APPELLANT STATED THAT MAY BE DUE TO PROGRAMMING/TECHNICAL ERROR, HOWEVER TOTAL OF THE DEBIT AND CREDIT ENTRIES OVER THE YEAR ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE L EDGER OF THE SUPERVISORS. BEFORE THE LD. AO SHRI ARUN HAS ACCEPTED THAT HE WAS WORKING AS SUPERVISOR FOR THE COMPANY. SHRI SURESH PRASAD WAS PRESENT FOR STATEMENT ON 30.08.2017 BUT IT WAS ALREADY VERY LATE BY THE TIME STATEMENT OF ARUN KUMAR WAS RECORDED. THE APPELLANT STATED THAT SHRI UTAM THAKUR HAD ALREADY LEFT THE COMPANY DUE TO SOME DIFFERENCES WITH THE COMPANY. THE LD. AO AT FURNISHED IN THE TABULAR FORM THE WAGE SHEET AND LEDGER OF THE THREE SUPERVISOR AND COMPARE THE SAME WITH THE WAGES PAYABLE LED GER AND WORKED OUT SOME DIFFERENCES FOR THIS THE APPELLANT STATED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING THIS ISSUE WAS RAISED AS IT WAS EVIDENT FROM POINT NO. 2 PAGE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LABOUR CHARGES IN ADVERTENTLY INCLUDED SUPPLY MADE BY THE NATRAJ CONSTRUCTION, PALAK CONSTRUCTION AND VISHWAKARMA ENGG. WORKS. THUS IT IS SEEN THAT ALL THE ABOVE THREE PERSONS WERE WORKING AS SUPERVISOR IN THE SAID COMPANY FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR. BASED ON ABOVE, I DO NOT FIND IN DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO AS THE PAYMENT HAS NOT BEEN MADE TO ANY CONTRACTORS BUT TO SUPERVISOR TO MONITOR THE WORK AND TO MAKE LABOUR PAYMENT. HENCE SECTION 194C DOES NOT ATTRACT IN THIS CASE AND THEREFORE CONSEQUENTIAL DISAL LOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) IS ALSO NOT ATTRACTED. 6 ITA NO S . 335 /RAN/20 1 7 AND CO NO. 02/RAN/2018 THEREFORE DISALLOWANCE MADE FOR RS. 2,15,01,768/ - IS NOT PROPER AND IS HEREBY DELETED. FURTHER THE CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF THIRD GROUND , HAS GRANTED RELIEF OF RS.71,128/ - OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 6,10,411/ - AND HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER : - 6. GROUND NO. 3 RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 6,89,541/ - AND ADDITION OF RS. 6,10,411/ - . 6.1. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED AO AS WELL AS THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS SUBMISSION HAS NOT SPECIFICALLY DEALT THIS ISSUE. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO HAS SUBMITTED WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN QUOTED HEREIN SUPRA. SO FAR DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 3,80,000/ - AND RS. 2,01,282/ - IS CONCERNED, THE AO HAS INFERRED IS CORRECT. SO FAR DISA LLOWANCE OF 10% OF EXPENSES OF RS. 7,11,280/ - AT RS. 71,128/ - IS CONCERNED IS NOT PROPER. HENCE OUT OF RS. 6,89,541/ - IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE WILL GET A RELIEF OF RS. 71,128/ - . HENCE ADDITION OF RS. 5,81,282/ - IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. 9 . DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. DR HAS ARGUED ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ONLY AND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND COULD NOT BRING ANY NEW COGENT EVIDENCE TO CONTROVERT THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED A REASONED ORDER, WHICH WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND DISMISS TH E GROUND S OF APPEAL OF REVENUE. 10 . THUS , THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 11 . THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING OBJECTIONS : - 1. FOR THAT LD. A.O. FAILED TO SPE CIFY THE REASONS FOR WHICH APPEAL HAS BEEN PREPARED BY REVENUE AGAINST THE RELIEF ALLOWED BY LD. CIT(A) BY SPEAKING AND DETAILED ORDER PASSED. THERE IS NO BASIS WHATSOEVER FOR LD. A.O. TO DISPUTE THE RELIEF ALLOWED AGAINST THE ADDITION MADE BY TREATING DIR ECTORS REMUNERATION PAID AS BOGUS PAYMENT, DISALLOWANCE OF LABOUR WAGES U/S 7 ITA NO S . 335 /RAN/20 1 7 AND CO NO. 02/RAN/2018 40A(IA), DISALLOWANCE OUT OF MATERIAL PURCHASED AND ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE OUT OF EXPENSES CLAIMED. 2. FOR THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFY IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF S. 5,98,282/ - CORRECT FIGURE 5,39,282/ - BEING PAYMENT TO MNAC FOR MAP APPROVAL WHICH IS FULLY VERIFIABLE. THERE IS MISTAKE FOR THE FIGURES REFERRED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER TO TH E EXTENT THAT THE FIGURE OF RS. 3,38,000/ - HAS BEEN REFERRED AS 3,80,000/ - FOR MAKING ADDITION. THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT(A) IS FIT TO BE DELETED. 3. FOR THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CHARGING INTEREST AT ASSESSED INCOME FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JHARKHAND HIGH COURT WHICH IS BINDING ON THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FOR THE STATE OF JHARKHAND. INTEREST CAN ONLY BE CHARGED ON THE RETURN INCOME NOT ON THE ASSESSED INCOME 12. IN THE FIRST GROUND OF CROSS OBJECTION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND EXPRESSED THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS A SPEAKING AND DETAILED ORDER. 13. IN THE SECOND GROUND LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE IN THE IN THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WHICH THE CIT(A) HAS OVERLOOKED THE SAME AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION. WE FIND THAT THE AO WHILE MAKING DISALLOWANCE UNDER THE HEAD ARCHITECT DRAWING & M AP APPROVAL HAS FOUND THAT THE SAME ARE CONTRADICTORY TO EACH OTHER THEREFORE, THE AO DISALLOWED 10% OF THE SAME. THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO ARE AS UNDER : - ON PERUSAL OF DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE UNDER THE HEAD ARCHITECT DRAWING & MAP APPROVAL & LEDGER COPY OF EXPENDITURE & LEDGER SHOWS THAT BOTH ARE DIFFERENT. DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE SHOWS NAME WISE PAYMENT & OTHER SHOWS DATE OF PAYMENT. LEDGER SHOWS THAT ON 18.11.2013, ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT OF RS.3,80,000/ - , WHEREAS PERUSAL OF MNAC PASSING CHARGES SHOWS THAT ON 30.06.2013 ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT OF RS.3,80,000/ - THROUGH IDBI BANK. THUS SAME AMOUNT OF PAYMENT WAS INCLUDED IN BOTH THE LEDGER I.E. ARCHITECT DRAWING 8S MAP APPROVAL & UNDER THE HEAD MNAC PASSING CHARGES. THUS IT IS PROVED THAT ONE OF THEM IS BOGUS. ACCORDINGLY RS.3,80,000/ - DEBITED UNDER THE HEAD ARCHITECT 8 ITA NO S . 335 /RAN/20 1 7 AND CO NO. 02/RAN/2018 DRAWING & MAP APPROVAL, IS DISALLOWED IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. FURTHER DETAILS OF PAYMENT UNDER THIS HEAD SHOWS RS.2,01,282/ - WAS PAID TO SHRITHEE DESIGNER 8S NO TDS WAS DEDUCTED OVER IT. NO REPLY FOR THE ABOVE WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE SAME IS DISALLOWED BECAUSE AS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(AI) OF THE I.T.ACT,1961 SAME IS DISALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. FURTHER AS THE DETAILS & LEDGER FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER T HE HEAD ARCHITECT DRAWING & MAP APPROVAL ARE CONTRADICTORY TO EACH OTHER, 10% OF RS.7,11,280/ - (12,50,562 - 2011282 - 3,38,000) IS DISALLOWED & TO TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS TOTAL OF EXPENDITURE DISALLOWED UNDER THIS HEAD COMES TO RS.6,10,410/ - (RS .2,01,282/ - +RS.3,38,000/ - +R S .71,128/ - ). WHEREAS ON PERUSAL OF THE CIT(A) ORDER, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) WHILE DEALING WITH THE DISPUTED ISSUE HAS OBSERVED THAT SO FAR DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,80,000/ - AND RS.2,01,282/ - IS CONCERNED, THE AO HAS INFERRED IS CORRECT. WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT RS.3,80,000/ - HAS BEEN DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD ARCHITECT DRAWING & MAP APPROVAL, AND DISALLOWED SAME, HOWEVER, ON CALCULATION OF 10% DISALLOWANCE OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.6,10,410/ - , THE AO HAS WRONGLY MENTIONED AS RS. 3,38,000/ - INSTEAD OF RS.3,80,000/ - . THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO OVERLOOKED THE SAME. THEREFORE, WE RESTORE THIS DISPUTED ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE A CTUAL EXPENSES . THIS GROUND OF CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 14. GROUND NO.3 - IN THIS GROUND THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF CIT(A) FOR CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S.234B OF THE ACT. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS SUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DECISION OF 9 ITA NO S . 335 /RAN/20 1 7 AND CO NO. 02/RAN/2018 JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CASE OF AJAY PRAKASH VERMA IN ITA NO.38 OF 2010 REPORTED IN 2013(1) TMI 140, WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT INTEREST U/S.234B CAN BE LEVIED ONLY ON THE R ETURNED INCOME AND NOT ON THE ASSESSED INCOME. 15. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) WAS CORRECT IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF AO AND SUPPORTED HIS ORDERS. 16. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. PRIMA FACIE THE DISPUTED ISSUE , BEING CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S.234 A & 234 B AS ENVISAGED BY LD. AR, IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HOBBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AJAY PRAKASH VERMA IN ITA NO.38 OF 2010 REPORTED IN 2013(1) TMI 140 . THE HONBLE COURT IN PARA23&24 HELD AS UNDER : - '23. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS BEEN ORDERED BY THE AO THAT INTEREST BE CHARGED AS PER RULE. INTEREST CAN BE LEVIED UNDER SECTION 234A AND 234B OF THE ACT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF FULL BENCH OF RANCHI BENCH OF PATNA HIGH COURT DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF SMT. TEJ KUMARI VRS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX REPORTED IN [2001 ] THE INTEREST CANNOT BE LEVIED OVER THE ASSESSED INCOME AND IT CAN BE LEVIED ONLY ON THE INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN. THE REVENUE PREFERRED SLP BEFORE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AGAINST THE SAID JUDGMENT OF THE FULL BENCH OF PATNA HIGH COURT, WHICH WAS DISMISSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ON MERITS VIDE ORDER DATED 01.08.2000 BY SAYING THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL. 24. LEARNE D COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE COULD NOT DISPUTE THIS LEGAL POSITION. THEREFORE, SO FAR AS QUESTION OF LAW INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL THAT WHETHER THE INTEREST COULD HAVE BEEN LEVIED AGAINST THE ASSESSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTIONS 234A AND 234B IS CON CERNED, IN VIEW OF THE FULL BENCH JUDGMENT OF RANCHI BENCH OF PATNA HIGH COURT DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF SMT. 10 ITA NO S . 335 /RAN/20 1 7 AND CO NO. 02/RAN/2018 TEJ. KUMARI, THE REVENUE CAN LEVY THE INTEREST ONLY ON THE TOTAL INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURNS AND NOT ON THE INCOME ASSESSED AND DETERMINED BY TH E AO TO THAT EXTENT. THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE ACCORDINGLY MODIFIED AND INTEREST SHALL BE CHARGEABLE IN THE LIGHT OF THE FULL BENCH JUDGMENT, REFERRED ABOVE.' 17. LD. AR ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI GIRDHARI LAL SHARMA VS. ITO, WARD - 1(4), JAMSHEDPUR IN ITA NO. 31/RAN/2013 BY AN ORDER DATED 07.05.2012 IN PARA NO. 6 RELYING UPON THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JHARKHAND HIGH COURT HELD : - 'WE ACCORDINGLY FOLLOWING THE AB OVE DECISION, DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE - COMPUTE THE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 2348 ON THE BASIS OF THE TOTAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN FILED.' 18. WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND THE D ECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL DIRECT THE AO TO RECOMPUTED THE INTEREST U/S.234B ON THE BASIS OF TOTAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN FILED. THIS GROUND OF CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 19. THUS, THE CROSS OBJECTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 20. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 / 11 /201 8 SD/ - SD/ - (N.S.SAINI) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER RANCHI , DAT ED 28 / 11 /2018 PRAKASH KUMAR MISHRA , SR. PS 11 ITA NO S . 335 /RAN/20 1 7 AND CO NO. 02/RAN/2018 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// SR.PS, ITAT, RANCHI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 4. CIT , CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, RANCHI 6. GUARD FILE.