ACIT, CHENNAI V. Ishtiaq Ahmed, CHENNAI

ITA 1680/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8252 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 30-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A B KOLI
• Assessee Lawyers: N DEVANATHAN
• Keywords: Gift; Period of limitation; Deemed dividend
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 234B

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !'# ! , % !& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NOS.1676, 1677, 1678 & 1679/MDS/2013 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2007-08, 2009 TO 2011-12 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE IV(2), CHENNAI - 600 034. V. SHRI MUSTAQ AHMED, NO.4/52, 4 TH SOUTH STREET, KAPALEESWAR NAGAR, NEELANGARAI, CHENNAI - 600 041. PAN : ADEPA 1181 B (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.1680/MDS/2013 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE IV(2), CHENNAI - 600 034. V. SHRI ISHTIAQ AHMED, NO.4/52, 4 TH SOUTH STREET, KAPALEESWAR NAGAR, NEELANGARAI, CHENNAI - 600 041. PAN : AAGPI 2739 C (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) +, / 0 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.B. KOLI, JCIT -.+, / 0 / RESPONDENTS BY : SH. N. DEVANATHAN, ADVOCATE 1 / 2% / DATE OF HEARING : 27.11.2015 3') / 2% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.01.2016 2 I.T.A. NOS.1676 TO 1680/MDS/13 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE, IN RESPECT OF TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSEES, ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE RESPE CTIVE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 14.0 6.2013. SINCE COMMON ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IN ALL THESE APPEALS, WE HEARD THESE APPEALS TOGETHER AND DISPOSING OF TH E SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. FIRST LETS TAKE REVENUES APPEALS IN THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE SHRI MUSTAQ AHMED. 3. SHRI A.B. KOLI, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE FIRST ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERA TION IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SEC TION 2(22)(E) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). ACC ORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE IS A SHAREHOLDER AND DIRECTOR IN M/S ADAMPUR DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD., CHENNAI, HAVING 99. 98% SHARES. FROM THE BALANCE SHEETS, IT IS SEEN THAT M/S MUSTAF A GOLD MART, A PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE, WAS SHOWN AS C REDITOR IN THE YEAR ENDING 31.03.2009 TO THE EXTENT OF ` 1,28,32,146/-. DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED APPRO XIMATELY 2.92 3 I.T.A. NOS.1676 TO 1680/MDS/13 CRORES FROM ADAMPUR DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD. AFTER P ERUSING THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ADAMPUR DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD ., THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE TOTAL EXPORT SALES WAS OF ` 4,83,83,050/-. THIS SALE CONSTITUTED EXPORT OF FOOD PRODUCTS TO THE EXT ENT OF ` 4.03 CRORES AND EXPORT OF PERISHABLE GOODS TO THE EXTENT OF ` 62.33 CRORES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER FOUND THAT F UNDS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM M/S ADAMPUR DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD. TO M/S MUSTAFA GOLD MART ON VARIOUS DATES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER FOUND THAT TRANSACTION BETWEEN M/S MUSTAFA GOLD MART, THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE AND M/S ADAMPUR DISTRIBUTOR S PVT. LTD. WAS NOT A BUSINESS TRANSACTION AND IT WAS A LOAN AN D ADVANCE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE FUNDS ADVANCED TO THE ASSESSEE AS DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. IN FACT, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, A SUM OF ` 3,55,851/- WAS TREATED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) O F THE ACT. SIMILARLY, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, A SUM O F ` 68,46,548/- WAS TREATED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011- 12, A SUM OF ` 34,06,371/- WAS TREATED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY BUSINESS TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE AND M/S ADAMPUR DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD., THE SUM ADVANCE D BY M/S 4 I.T.A. NOS.1676 TO 1680/MDS/13 ADAMPUR DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD. HAS TO BE CONSTRUED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND, THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIF IED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SH. N. DEVANATHAN, THE LD.COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT M/S ADAMPUR DISTRIBUTORS P VT. LTD. WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF JEWELLERY UPTO 2007-08. LATER ON, THE BUSINESS OF M/S ADAMPUR DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD. WAS DIVERSIFIED. IN ORDER TO REVIVE THE JEWELLERY BUSINESS, M/S ADAMPUR DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD. ADVANCED MONEY TO M/S MUSTAFA GOLD MART F OR PURCHASING GOLD JEWELLERY. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. CO UNSEL, THIS IS A TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OF GOLD JEWELLERY FROM M/S MUSTAFA GOLD MART FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE CIT(APPEALS) , AFTER CONSIDERING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, FOUND T HAT THE ADVANCE PAID BY M/S ADAMPUR DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD. IS ONLY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE TRANSACTION, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE EQUATED TO A LOAN OR ADVANCE. TO ESTABLISH THAT THE TRANSACTION IS ONLY A BUSINESS TRANSACTION AND THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPLIED GOLD TO M /S ADAMPUR DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD., THE CIT(APPEALS) VERIFIED T HE COPIES OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF M/S MUSTAFA GOLD MART IN THE BOOKS OF M/ S ADAMPUR DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD. FOR THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2000 -01 TO 2006-07 AND 5 I.T.A. NOS.1676 TO 1680/MDS/13 FOUND THAT THE MONEY WAS ADVANCED ONLY FOR THE PURP OSE OF BUSINESS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESS EE HAD TRANSACTION WITH M/S ADAMPUR DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD. IN GOLD AND SEA FOOD PRODUCTS RIGHT FROM THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2000-01 . WHEN THE TRANSACTION IS A BUSINESS TRANSACTION, THE ADVANCE MADE BY M/S ADAMPUR DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD. CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS LOAN OR ADVANCE. THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY D ELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 TO 2011-12. IN FACT, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, A SUM OF ` 3,55,851/- WAS ADDED UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. SIMILARLY, A SUM OF ` 68,46,548/- AND ` 34,06,371/- WERE ADDED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 -11 AND 2011-12 RESPECTIVELY. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS HOLDING 99.98% SHARES IN M/S ADAMPUR DISTRIBUTORS P VT. LTD. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED MONE Y FROM M/S ADAMPUR DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD. THE ISSUE ARISES FO R CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE ADVANCE MADE BY M/S ADAMPUR DISTRIBUTOR S PVT. LTD. IS 6 I.T.A. NOS.1676 TO 1680/MDS/13 FOR BUSINESS TRANSACTION OR IT IS A LOAN OR ADVANCE . THE LEDGER EXTRACT OF M/S ADAMPUR DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD. CLEAR LY ESTABLISHES THAT M/S ADAMPUR DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD. PURCHASED GOLD F ROM M/S MUSTAFA GOLD MART, A PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF THE ASS ESSEE. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT UPTO 2007-08, M/S ADAMPUR DISTR IBUTORS PVT. LTD. ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF JEWELLERY AND LATER ON, THE BUSINESS WAS DIVERSIFIED. TO REVIVE THE GOLD JEWELLERY BUSINESS , M/S ADAMPUR DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD. ADVANCED MONEY TO M/S MUSTAF A GOLD MART FOR PURCHASING GOLD JEWELLERY. IN FACT, M/S MUSTAFA GO LD MART DELIVERED GOLD JEWELLERY TO M/S ADAMPUR DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD . IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE TRANSACTION B ETWEEN M/S ADAMPUR DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD. AND M/S MUSTAFA GOLD MART, IS A BUSINESS TRANSACTION. HENCE, THE ADVANCE PAID BY M /S ADAMPUR DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD. TO M/S MUSTAFA GOLD MART CAN NOT BE CONSTRUED EITHER AS LOAN OR ADVANCE. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNA L IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 (22)(E) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE APPLIED TO A BUSINESS TRANSACTION. THERE FORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH T HE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) IS CONFIRMED. 7 I.T.A. NOS.1676 TO 1680/MDS/13 6. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO DISA LLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 40A(2)( B) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE COMMISSION PAID TO SHRI ISHTIAQ AHME D. 7. SHRI A.B. KOLI, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE, SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2011-12. THE ASSESSING OFFICER D ISALLOWED A SUM OF ` 62,77,648/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND ANO THER SUM OF ` 63,28,400/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. THE L D. D.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO COMMISSION WAS PAID IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS. THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE ABOVE SAID SHRI ISHTIAQ AHMED. SHRI ISHTIAQ AHMED WAS EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 06.02.2013 AND HE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE BASIS FOR DETERMINATION OF THE QUANTUM OF COMMI SSION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., IN THE EARLIER YEARS, TH E ABOVE SAID SHRI ISHTIAQ AHMED WAS PAID ONLY SALARY. THE ASSESSEE E XPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT PAYMENT OF COMMIS SION TO SHRI ISHTIAQ AHMED WAS MADE IN ORDER TO CREATE AWARENES S AMONG THE PEOPLE ABOUT THE FAIR DEALS OF MUSTAFA GOLD MART. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE COMM ISSION PAID TO SHRI ISHTIAQ AHMED WAS EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONABLE. 8 I.T.A. NOS.1676 TO 1680/MDS/13 8. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND SHRI ISHTIAQ AHME D IS NONE OTHER THAN BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE EARLIER ASSES SMENT YEARS, THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID ONLY SALARY TO SHRI ISHTIAQ AHMED THE COMMISSION WAS PAID FOR THE FIRST TIME. THE ASSESS EE HAS PAID COMMISSION ONLY TO SHRI ISHTIAQ AHMED AND NOT TO AN Y OTHER EMPLOYEES. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE BENE FIT DERIVED ON THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE PAYMENT OF COMMI SSION BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. 9. ON THE CONTRARY, SH. N. DEVANATHAN, THE LD.COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSION WAS PAID TO SHRI ISHTIAQ AHMED FOR THE SERVICE RENDERED BY HIM. THE RECIPIE NT SHRI ISHTIAQ AHMED DISCLOSED THE RECEIPT OF COMMISSION AND PAID TAXES. IN FACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE INCOME DECLARED BY SHRI ISHTIAQ AHMED. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT TAK E A CONTRARY DECISION BY DISALLOWING THE PAYMENT IN THE ASSESSEE S HAND. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE PAYMENT OF COMMIS SION IS NOT DISPUTED. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER IT IS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, AFTER PAYMENT OF COMM ISSION, THE 9 I.T.A. NOS.1676 TO 1680/MDS/13 PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE HAS INCREASED CONSIDERABLY A ND SHRI ISHTIAQ AHMED CREATED AWARENESS ABOUT THE GENUINE PRODUCT O F MUSTAFA GOLD MART. IN OTHER WORDS, THE FAIR DEALINGS OF MU STAFA GOLD MART WERE PROPAGATED AMONG THE CUSTOMERS AND THEREFORE T HE GENERAL PUBLIC HAD AWARENESS ABOUT THE PRODUCT OF THE ASSES SEE. FURTHERMORE, WHEN THE RECIPIENT HAS PAID THE TAX, T HERE IS NO REASON TO DISALLOW THE CLAIM IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, SHRI ISHTIAQ AHMED IS NONE OTHER THAN BROTHER OF THE ASS ESSEE. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, SH RI ISHTIAQ AHMED WAS PAID ONLY SALARY. DURING THE YEARS UNDER CONSI DERATION, NAMELY, ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2011-12, THE A SSESSEE PAID COMMISSION TO SHRI ISHTIAQ AHMED. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOUBTED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE PAYMENT. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE P AYMENT ITSELF IS NOT DOUBTED. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER IT IS EXCESSIV E OR UNREASONABLE. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE PAID SAL ARY IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT PAY COMMISSION DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDE R 10 I.T.A. NOS.1676 TO 1680/MDS/13 CONSIDERATION. IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO DECIDE WH ETHER COMMISSION IS TO BE PAID TO ANY PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL OR NOT. IN THE INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOR PROMOTING THE BUSINESS, IF THE ASS ESSEE COMES TO A CONCLUSION THAT PAYMENT OF COMMISSION IS REQUIRED , THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT STEP INTO THE SHOES OF THE ASSESSEE AND SAY THAT THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION IS NOT REQUIRED. IN THIS CASE, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION IS NOT REQUIRED. THE ONLY CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE PAYMENT IS UNREASONABLE AND EXCESSIVE. AS RIGH TLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE RECIPIENT S HRI ISHTIAQ AHMED HAS DISCLOSED THE RECEIPT OF COMMISSION AND PAID TA XES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE INCOME DECLARED BY T HE ABOVE SAID SHRI ISHTIAQ AHMED AS COMMISSION. IN THOSE CIRCUMS TANCES, AS RIGHTLY FOUND BY THE CIT(APPEALS), THE DISALLOWANCE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IS CONFI RMED. 11. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, THE REVENUE HA S RAISED ONE MORE GROUND WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF ` 5,61,53,855/- UNDER SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT. 11 I.T.A. NOS.1676 TO 1680/MDS/13 12. SHRI A.B. KOLI, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTA TIVE, SUBMITTED THAT AS ON 31.03.2011, THE ASSESSEE HAS S HOWN A SUM OF ` 5,61,53,855/- AS SUNDRY CREDIT. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER FOUND THAT THE ABOVE CREDIT WAS OUTSTANDING FROM THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2005- 06. THERE WAS NO MOVEMENT IN THE SUNDRY CREDIT FOR THE LAST SEVEN YEARS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY CONFIRMATION LETTER. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ALL THE CREDITS ARE TOWARDS THE PURCHA SE OF GOLD FROM RESPECTIVE PERSONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE ADDRESS OF THE CREDITORS. SINCE THE CREDIT WAS OUTSTANDING FO R MORE THAN 7 YEARS, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSING OFF ICER FOUND THAT THE LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE CEASED TO EXIST. THE REFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CREDIT OF ` 5,61,53,855/- HAS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 13. ON THE CONTRARY, SH. N. DEVANATHAN, THE LD.COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE SUNDRY CREDIT EXISTS F ROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. IN FACT THE CREDIT WAS ACCEPTED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND NO ADDITION WAS MADE. SINCE THE A SSESSING OFFICER ADMITTED THAT THE SUNDRY CREDIT EXISTED FRO M ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 12 I.T.A. NOS.1676 TO 1680/MDS/13 UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, IF AT ALL ANY ADDITION CAN BE MADE, IT HAS TO BE MADE FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2005- 06 IN WHICH THE SUNDRY CREDIT APPEARED IN THE BOOKS FOR THE FIRST TIME. THE LD.COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS PRODUCED CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM SOME OF THE CRED ITORS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM ALL THE CREDITORS SINCE THEY ARE IN ABROAD. ACCORDING TO T HE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS AND ADMITTEDLY, THE LIABILITY TO REPAY THE AMOUNT REMAINS. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY ON THE GR OUND THAT THE SEVEN YEARS PERIOD HAS EXPIRED. THE ASSESSEE ACCEP TED THE LIABILITY IN THE BOOKS AND THEREFORE, THE LIABILITY DOES NOT CEASE TO EXIST. ALL THESE TRADE CREDITS EXISTED IN THE BOOK S. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE IS LIABL E TO PAY THE MONEY. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY WAIVER OF THE CREDIT BY THE RESPECTIVE SUNDRY CREDITORS, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE RE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY CESSATION OF LIABILITY. 14. THE LD.COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE CREDITORS WERE FURNISHED IN THE COURSE OF AS SESSMENT. EVEN ASSUMING FOR ARGUMENT SAKE THAT THE SUNDRY CREDITOR S CANNOT 13 I.T.A. NOS.1676 TO 1680/MDS/13 ENFORCE THE PAYMENT LEGALLY, STILL THE LIABILITY WI LL NOT CEASE TO EXIST. UNDER THE LIMITATION ACT, WHAT IS BARRED IS FILING OF SUIT AND NOT RECOVERY OF THE MONEY. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 15. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE SUNDRY CREDIT OF ` 5,61,53,855/- EXISTED FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 -06. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE CREDIT W AS ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FIRST TIME IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION. THEREFORE, THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDIT HAS TO BE EXAMINED DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND DEFINITELY NOT IN T HE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. EVEN ASSUMING FOR THE ARGUMENT SAK E THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE CR EDITS, THEN THE ADDITION HAS TO BE MADE ONLY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2005-06 AND NOT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 16. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MA DE DEDUCTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE SUNDRY CREDIT EXISTED FOR MO RE THAN 7 YEARS, THEREFORE, THE LIABILITY CEASED TO EXIST. THIS TRI BUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE CREDIT E XISTED FOR MORE 14 I.T.A. NOS.1676 TO 1680/MDS/13 THAN 7 YEARS, THE LIABILITY CANNOT CEASE AUTOMATICA LLY. TIME FOR LEGAL SUIT TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT MAY BE BARRED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF LIMITATION ACT, HOWEVER, THE RIGHT OF THE CREDITOR TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT STILL EXISTS BY OTHER MODES. IN OTHER WORDS , WHAT IS BARRED IS FILING CIVIL SUIT TO RECOVER THE MONEY BUT THE OTHE R MEANS ARE NOT BARRED AT ALL. MOREOVER, THE LIABILITY IS SHOWN IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE ACCEPT ED LIABILITY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WHEN THE ASSE SSEE ACCEPTED THE LIABILITY, THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION GETS EXTEND ED. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY CESSATIO N OF LIABILITY. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE CREDITORS WAIV ED THE AMOUNT DUE TO THEM. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CIT(APPEA LS) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND AN Y REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. A CCORDING, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IS CONFIRMED. 17. NOW COMING TO THE APPEAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI IS HTIAQ AHMED IN I.T.A. NO.1680/MDS/2013, THE FIRST GROUND OF APP EAL IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED JEWELLER Y TO THE EXTENT OF ` 21.49 LAKHS. 15 I.T.A. NOS.1676 TO 1680/MDS/13 18. SHRI A.B. KOLI, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTA TIVE, SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATIO N, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOUND A LOCKER IN ANDHRA BANK, NEELANGA NI BRANCH, CHENNAI, AND GOLD JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF 803.40 0 GRMS WAS ALSO FOUND. AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE REVEN UE AUTHORITIES FOUND GOLD JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF 342 GRMS. WH EN THE ASSESSEE WAS EXAMINED ON 22.12.2010, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT HE HAD NO PURCHASE BILL FOR THE JEWELLERY FOUND AT THE RES IDENCE AND IN THE LOCKER. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXPLAINED THAT IN THE AB SENCE OF ANY PURCHASE BILL AND OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO EXP LAIN THE SOURCE, HE WILL PAY THE TAX ON THE VALUE OF UNEXPLA INED JEWELLERY. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION TO T HE EXTENT OF ` 21,49,916/-. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT STHREEDHAN RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF MARRIAG E AND GIFT FROM BROTHER-IN-LAW ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVI DENCE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO STHREEDHAN G IFT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION, TH EREFORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 16 I.T.A. NOS.1676 TO 1680/MDS/13 19. ON THE CONTRARY, SH. N. DEVANATHAN, THE LD.COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT NO DOUBT, THE REVENUE AUTH ORITIES FOUND JEWELLERY IN THE LOCKER AND AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, AT THE TIME OF MARRIA GE, ASSESSEES WIFE WAS GIVEN GOLD JEWELLERY BY HER PARENTS. IT I S CUSTOMARY THAT AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE GOLD JEWELLERY SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE GIRLS BY THE PARENTS. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEES WIFE HAD OWN ED GOLD JEWELLERY EVEN BEFORE HER MARRIAGE. THIS WAS ALSO AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSEES RETURNS. AFTER THE MARRIAGE, THE ASSESS EES BROTHER-IN- LAW PRESENTED GOLD ORNAMENTS TO THE ASSESSEES WIFE ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS SUCH AS MARRIAGE, BIRTHDAY, ETC. THEREFO RE, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 20. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOUND 803.400 GRMS OF JEWELLERY IN THE BANK LOCKER AND ANOTHER 342 GRMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSE SSEE. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THESE ARE JEWELL ERY OF HIS WIFE GIVEN BY HER PARENTS AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE. IT I S A CUSTOMARY 17 I.T.A. NOS.1676 TO 1680/MDS/13 PRACTICE IN THIS PART OF THE COUNTRY TO PRESENT GOL D JEWELLERY TO THE GIRL CHILD BY THE RESPECTIVE PARENTS DURING HER MARRIAGE . THE QUANTITY OF GOLD JEWELLERY DEPENDS UPON THE STATUS OF THE ASSES SEE IN THE SOCIETY. THE ASSESSEE, BEING A BUSINESSMAN, COMMAN DS RESPECT IN THE LOCALITY WHERE HE RESIDES. THEREFORE, NATUR ALLY THE PARENTS OF THE GIRL WOULD GIVE GOLD JEWELLERY AS STHREEDHAN PR OPERTY. THIS IS A CUSTOMARY PRACTICE WHICH PREVAILS IN THE COUNTRY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISBELIEVES THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS FOUND. IT IS NOT KNOWN WHAT KIND OF DOCUMENT CAN BE PRODUCED WHEN THE GIRL S PARENTS GIFTED GOLD ORNAMENTS TO HER DAUGHTER. IF IT IS IM MOVABLE PROPERTY LIKE LAND, THEN REGISTRATION OF DOCUMENT IS COMPULS ORY. IN THE CASE OF PROPERTY LIKE GOLD JEWELLERY, IT IS ONLY THE STA TEMENT OF THE INDIVIDUAL THAT HAS TO BE RELIED UPON. OTHER THAN THIS, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD N OT BE ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PARENTS OF THE ASSESSEES WIFE PRESENTED THE GOLD JEWELLERY TO HER DAUGHTER AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE. THE CUSTOMARY PRACTICE THAT PREVAILS IN THIS PART OF THE COUNTRY CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISBELIEVE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. B Y TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE CUSTOMARY PRACTICE PREVAILS IN TH E COUNTRY AND THE 18 I.T.A. NOS.1676 TO 1680/MDS/13 SOCIETY OF THE ASSESSEE WHERE HE RESIDES, THIS TRIB UNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEES WIFE WOULD H AVE RECEIVED GOLD JEWELLERY AS STHREEDHAN PROPERTY DURING HER MA RRIAGE AND ALSO WOULD HAVE RECEIVED GIFTS ON THE OCCASIONS LIKE MAR RIAGE, BIRTHDAY, ETC. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE C IT(APPEALS) IS CONFIRMED. 21. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO DIS ALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF ` 22,04,085/-. 22. SHRI A.B. KOLI, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTA TIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED BUSINESS I NCOME TO THE EXTENT OF ` 41,24,315/- IN THE FORM OF COMMISSION RECEIPT. ADMITTEDLY, THE COMMISSION WAS RECEIVED FROM M/S MU STAFA GOLD MART. AGAINST THAT, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS EXPENSES O F ` 22,04,085/- THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY DETAILS TO ESTAB LISH THAT THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFOR E THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE EMPLOYED MORE THAN TEN PE RSONS FOR CANVASSING ON HIRED VEHICLE FITTED WITH LOUD SPEAKE RS TO SPREAD THE MESSAGE TO THE PUBLIC TO PURCHASE GOLD FROM M/S MUS TAFA GOLD MART 19 I.T.A. NOS.1676 TO 1680/MDS/13 IN VARIOUS PART OF THE CITY THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS TOTALLY UNTRUE SINCE THERE WAS NO INCREASE IN THE TURNOVER OF MUST AFA GOLD MART DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ONLY SELF-MADE VOUCHERS IN THE NAME OF VARIOUS INDIVIDUA LS. DURING EXAMINATION ON 06.02.3013, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED T HAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GIVE THE ADDRESS OF THE PERSONS SAID TO BE EMPLOYED BY HIM. INSPITE OF SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY DETAILS REGARDING EXPENDITURE . THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE. 23. ON THE CONTRARY, SH. N. DEVANATHAN, THE LD.COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID SALA RY, CONVEYANCE AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES IN THE COURSE OF DOING T HE COMMISSION BUSINESS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESS EE EMPLOYED ABOUT TEN PERSONS TO MAKE ADVERTISEMENT IN VARIOUS PART OF THE CITY THROUGH LOUD SPEAKERS. THE ASSESSEE EMPLOYED CASUA L LABOURERS. THE ASSESSEE COULD OBTAIN THE SELF-MADE VOUCHERS FR OM SUCH KIND OF PERSONS. THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT DISALLOWANCE OF 20% OF THE EXPENDITURE WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTI CE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROPER VOUCHERS, ACCORDING TO THE LD . COUNSEL, THE 20 I.T.A. NOS.1676 TO 1680/MDS/13 CIT(APPEALS) RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 20% OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED. THEREFORE, THE REVENUE CANNOT HAVE ANY G RIEVANCE AT ALL. 24. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT HE WAS EMPLOYED AS COMMISSION AGENT TO PUBLICIZE THE PRODUCT OF M/S MUSTAFA GOLD MART. THE ASSESSEE CLA IMS THAT HE PROMOTED THE BUSINESS BY MAKING ADVERTISEMENT IN VA RIOUS PART OF THE CITY BY USING LOUD SPEAKERS ON THE VEHICLE. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD. D.R., NO PROPER VOUCHERS WERE MAINTA INED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER VOUCHERS, THE C IT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 20% CLAIMED BY THE A SSESSEE. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT( APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY RESTRICTED THE CLAIM TO 20% BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE MATERIAL FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THEREFORE, THI S TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IS CONFI RMED. 25. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL ARISES FOR CONSIDERAT ION IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE MADE IN RESPECT OF EXEMPTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 10 OF THE ACT. 21 I.T.A. NOS.1676 TO 1680/MDS/13 26. SH. A.B. KOLI, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS A SUM OF ` 1,68,000/- AS EXEMPTED UNDER SECTION 10 OF THE ACT. IN THE ABSEN CE OF ANY DETAILS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE CIT(APPEALS) WITHOUT ANY REASON ALLOWE D THE SAME. 27. ON THE CONTRARY, SH. N. DEVANATHAN, THE LD.COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED A SUM OF ` 1,68,000/- AS EXEMPTED ON THE BASIS OF FORM 16A. T HE DETAILS OF THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED WERE AVAILABLE IN FORM 16A IT SELF. IN FACT, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED CONVEYANCE ALLOWANCE OF ` 9,600/- AND UNIFORM ALLOWANCE OF ` 42,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE OF ` 1,16,700/- AS EXEMPTED. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD TO TRAVEL FOR ADVERTISEMENT AND SUCH PURPOSES, THE EXPENDITURE CL AIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED BY THE CIT(APPEALS). 28. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE UNIFORM ALLOWANCE AND CONVEYANCE ALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 42,000/- AND ` 9,600/- RESPECTIVELY HAVE TO BE ALLOWED SINCE IT IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OR THE EMPLOYMENT CARRIED OUT BY THE AS SESSEE. IN 22 I.T.A. NOS.1676 TO 1680/MDS/13 RESPECT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES, THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE WAS THAT HE HAD TO TRAVEL FOR ADVERTISEMENT AT MANY PLACES I N THE CITY OF CHENNAI. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINIO N THAT WHILE CLAIMING EXPENDITURE FOR THE COMMISSION, THE ASSESS EE HAS CLAIMED SALARY AND OTHER EXPENSES FOR MAKING ADVERTISEMENT. THEREFORE, IT MAY NOT BE CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TO TRAVEL FOR ADVERTISEMENT PURPOSE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE TRAVELL ING EXPENSES FOR MAKING ADVERTISEMENT WAS INCLUDED IN THE EXPENDITUR E CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR COMMISSION RECEIPT. THEREFORE, AN OTHER CLAIM OF ` 1,16,700/- IS NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDE R OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IS SET ASIDE IN RESPECT OF TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 1,16,700/- AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO MAKE ADDITION OF ` 1,16,700/- TOWARDS TRAVELLING EXPENSES. 29. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL, WHICH IS COMMON IN A LL THE APPEALS, I.E. OF SHRI MUSTAQ AHMED AND SHRI ISHTIAQ AHMED, IS WITH REGARD TO CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B O F THE ACT. 30. SH. A.B. KOLI, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE, SUBMITTED THAT INTEREST HAS TO BE CHARGED FROM THE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT IN THE REGUL AR COURSE. THE CIT(APPEALS) TREATING THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE 23 I.T.A. NOS.1676 TO 1680/MDS/13 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPUTE THE INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF RE TURN FILED CONSEQUENT TO THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., REGULAR ASSESSMENT MEANS THE ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, TH EREFORE, THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE A CT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVY OF INTEREST UNDE R SECTION 234B OF THE ACT. 31. ON THE CONTRARY, SH. N. DEVANATHAN, THE LD.COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT AFTER FILING OF RETURN CON SEQUENT TO THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, THE RE TURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE TREATED AS IF THE RETURN WAS FIL ED UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. HENCE, THE RETURN HAS TO BE FIL ED UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT AND DATE OF FILING OF RETURN UNDE R SECTION 153A HAS TO BE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING INTEREST. IN FACT, A SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN KAL YANI JAYAKUMAR IN I.T.A. NOS.526 TO 590/MDS/2010 DATED 04.02.2011. THE CIT(APPEALS) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY TO FOLLOW THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, NO INTERFERENCE IS CAL LED FOR. 24 I.T.A. NOS.1676 TO 1680/MDS/13 32. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE QUESTION ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B OF THE ACT. IN OTHER WORDS, WHETHER INTEREST HAS TO BE LE VIED FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF ORIGINAL RETURN UNDER SECTION 143(1) O R CONSEQUENT TO THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KALYANAI JAYAKUMAR (SUPRA) WHILE CONSIDERIN G THIS ISSUE FOUND THAT FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSE, THE RETURN FI LED CONSEQUENT TO THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 153A HAS TO BE TAKE N FOR COMPUTING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B OF THE ACT. IN FACT, T HE CIT(APPEALS) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPUTE THE INTER EST ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN KALYANI JAYAK UMAR (SUPRA). THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORD ER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IS CONFIRMED. 33. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEALS IN I.T.A. NOS. 1676 TO 1679/MDS/2013 ARE DISMISSED. HOWEVER, APPEAL IN I. T.A. NO.1680/MDS/2013 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 25 I.T.A. NOS.1676 TO 1680/MDS/13 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 7 TH JANUARY, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !'# ! ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 7 TH JANUARY, 2016. KRI. / -267 87)2 /COPY TO: 1. +, /APPELLANT 2. -.+, /RESPONDENTS 3. 1 92 () /CIT(A), CENTRAL-1, CHENNAI. 4. 1 92 /CIT, CENTRAL-1, CHENNAI 5. 7: -2 /DR 6. ;( < /GF.