Emtici Engineering Ltd., Anand V. The ACIT.,Anand Circle, Anand

ITA 2010/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5923 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 12-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 07-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Rectification of order
• Section: 143(3); 154

Judgement Text

, - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD - BENCH A BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2010/AHD/2012 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2008-2009 AND ./ ITA NO.354/AHD/2013 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-2010 EMTICI ENGINEERING LTD. ANAND SOJITRA ROAD V.V. NAGAR 388 120 (GUJ). VS. ACIT, ANAND CIR. ANAND. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K. PATEL, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI K. MADHUSUDAN, SR.DR ! / DATE OF HEARING : 12/04/2017 '#$ ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 01 /05/2017 %& / O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: PRESENT TWO APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(A) DATED 11.6.2012 AND 27.11.2012 PASSED FOR THE ASSTT.YEARS 2008-9 AND 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY . 2. THE ISSUES DISPUTED IN THESE APPEALS ARE IDENTIC AL THEREFORE, WE HEARD THEM TOGETHER AND DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO DISP OSE OF THEM BY THIS COMMON ORDER. ITA NO.2010/AHD/2012 & OTHER 2 3. FIRST GROUND IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF CHINA TOUR EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS .23,09,500/- IN A.Y.2008-09 AND RS.23,09,500/- FOR SWITZERLAND TOUR EXPENSES IN ASSTT.YEAR 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY. THE FACTS ON THIS ISSUE ARE COMMON ON ALL VITAL POINTS, THEREFORE, FOR THE FACILITY WE TAKE UP FACTS FROM THE ASSTT.YEAR 2008-09. 4. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DERIVES INCOME FROM BUSINES S OF DEALERS AND COMMISSION AGENT OF ENGINEERING PRODUCTS AND SE RVICING ACTIVITIES. IT HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ELECTRONICALLY ON 29.8.2008 AND 29.9.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.14,56,66,218 /- AND RS.17,63,31,404/- IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2008-09 AND 200 9-10 RESPECTIVELY. IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2008-09, THE ASSESSEE HAS REVISED ITS RETURN ON 16.9.2009 WHEREBY IT HAS DISCLOSED INCOME AT RS.14, 38,76,632/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE YEARS WERE SELECT ED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSU ED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. ON SCRUTINY OF ACCOUNTS IT REV EALED TO THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A PROVISION OF RS.23,09,500/- IN ASSTT.YEAR 2008-09 AND RS.23,93,080/- IN ASSTT.YEAR 2009-10. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE IT HAS PROVIDED A SCHEME VIDE WHICH IF ITS SUB-COMMISSION AGENT ACHIEVE A PARTICULAR TARGET THEN SUB-AGENT WI LL BE ENTITLED FOR A FOREIGN TOUR PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE PUR POSE OF PROVIDING SUCH TOUR, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PROVISION, BECAUSE THESE SUB-AGENTS HAVE ACHIEVED THEIR TARGET. THE LD.AO DISALLOWED T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS A PROVISION ONLY , AND NOT AN ASCERTAINED LIABILITY. 5. APPEAL TO THE LD.CIT(A) DID NOT BRING ANY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTS ET SUBMITTED THAT AN IDENTICAL PROVISION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN ASSTT.YEAR 2007-08. THIS PROVISION WAS DISALLOWED BY THE LD.REVENUE AUT HORITIES, BUT THE ITA NO.2010/AHD/2012 & OTHER 3 ASSESSEE TOOK THIS MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL IN ITA NO.1472/AHD/2011. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE. HE PLACED ON RECORD COPY OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER. THE LD.DR WAS UNABLE TO CONTROVE RT THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GO NE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. WE FIND THAT IN ASSTT.YEAR 2007- 08, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A PROVISION OF RS.24,88,000/- RELATING TO EGYP T TOUR. THIS WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO AND THE DISALLOWANCE WAS CONFI RMED BY THE LD.CIT(A). THE TRIBUNAL HAS DELETED THE DISALLOWAN CE. THE DISCUSSION MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL READS AS UNDER: ITA NO. 1473/AHD/2011 (ASSESSEES APPEAL) 9. CONCISED GROUND NOS.1 & 2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPE AL READ AS UNDER: 1. THAT, ON FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) H AS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EGYPT TOUR EXPENSES OF RS.24,88,000/- 2. ALTERNATIVELY, AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE GR OUND OF APPEAL, THE ENTIRE EXPENSE OF EGYPT TOUR BE DIRECTE D TO THE ALLOWED IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 10. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT IS SUBMITT ED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD ARRANGED A SALES PROMOTION SCHEME FOR ITS CLIENTS, SUB-COMMISSION AGENTS AND ENGINEERS ETC. AS PER SUC H SCHEME, THE PERSONS WHO ACHIEVED THE TARGET WERE ENTITLED T O EGYPT TOUR. THAT ON THE BASIS OF PERFORMANCE, DURING THE ACCOUN TING YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION TOU R WAS ARRANGED NEXT YEAR. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISA LLOWED THE PROVISION MADE TOWARDS THE TOUR EXPENSES ON THE ONL Y GROUND THAT THE LIABILITY HAS NOT BEEN ACCRUED BECAUSE THE TOUR WAS ACTUALLY ARRANGED IN THE NEXT YEAR. HE STATED THAT THE TOUR WAS ON THE BASIS OF PERFORMANCE OF THE ASSESSEES CLIENTS, SUB COMMISSION AGENTS, ENGINEERS ETC. DURING THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, THE LIABILITY OF THE ASSE SSEE TO TAKE THEM ITA NO.2010/AHD/2012 & OTHER 4 ON TOUR HAS ACCRUED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION. HE ALSO STATED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NEITHER DOUBTED T HE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENSES NOR THAT THE EXPENSES HAD BEEN INCU RRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE SOLE REASON FOR DISALLOWAN CE WAS THAT IT WAS NEITHER ACCRUED NOR INCURRED DURING YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE GENUINENESS OF EXPENDITURE AND THE FACT THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS I NCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS WAS NOT DISPUTED THEN NECESSARY DIRECTION BE GIVEN TO ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE EXPENSES EI THER FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION OR IN THE NEXT YEAR. LD. D R, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AN D HE STATED THAT NEITHER THE LIABILITY HAD ACCRUED DURING THE Y EAR NOR THE EXPENDITURE WAS ACTUALLY INCURRED. THE ASSESSEE CLA IMED EXPENSES SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF THE PROVISION MADE SIMPLY ON ESTIMATE. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER O F THE CIT(A) ON THIS POINT SHOULD BE SUSTAINED. 11. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF B OTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS RECORDED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORDER READ AS UNDER: 3.2 IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 8.12.2009 HAS FURNISHED THE JUSTIFICATION MAINLY IN THE FORM OF COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF SALES PROMOTION BRANCH WISE. ON PERUSAL OF SALES PROMOTION OF V.V. NAGAR, IT WAS FOUND THAT IT HAS GONE TO RS. 26,90,730/- COMPARED TO LAS T YEAR'S FIGURE OF RS. 1,86,961. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS ARRANGED ONE TOUR TO EGYPT FOR ITS VAL UED CLIENTS, SUB COMMISSION AGENTS, AND ENGINEERS AND D UE TO WHICH THE SALE PROMOTION EXPENSES OF ALL THE BRANCH ES TAKEN TOGETHER HAS INCREASED FROM 3.08 LAC TO 28.23 LACS. 3.3 THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED THE PHOTOCOPY O F JOURNAL VOUCHERS. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID VOUCHER IT IS FOUND THAT THE JOURNAL VOUCHER WAS CREATED ON 21.4.2007 I .E. AFTER THE END OF THE YEAR. EFFECTIVE DATE WAS SHOWN TO BE 31.3.2007. THE SALE PROMOTION ACCOUNTS WAS DEBITED BY RS. 24,88,000/- AND OUTSTANDING LIABILITIES WAS CREDITE D BY THE SAME AMOUNT. THE NARRATION FOR THE SAID JOURNAL ENT RY MENTIONS 'PROVISION FOR AGENT TOUR EGYPT'. 3.4 THE PAYMENT VOUCHER OF EGYPT TOUR SHOWS THAT PA YMENT OF RS. 41,37,815/- WAS MADE ON 30.6.2007 TO ORBIT CORPORATE TOURS AND TRAVELS PVT. LTD. FOR EGYPT TOU R (6 DAYS AND 7 NIGHTS) . THE INVOICE OF ORBIT CORPORATE DATE D 22.5.2007 REVEALS THAT IT WAS FOR AIR FARE TAXES, V ISA CHARGES, ARRANGEMENT CHARGES, CLAIM CHARGES FOR 68 ITA NO.2010/AHD/2012 & OTHER 5 PERSONS. THUS THE INVOICE, THE PAYMENT, THE ACTUAL TRIP AND EVERYTHING TOOK PLACE IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. 3.5 ON PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, IT IS FOUND THE AMOUNT OF RS. 24,88,000/- REPRESENTS MERELY A PROVISION AS ON 31.3.2007. THE TOUR WAS ARRANGED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THE SAID PROVISION WAS MADE ON AD-HOC BASIS AND THE LIABILITY HAS NOT ACCRUED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION. THE PROVISION MADE HAD NO BASIS AND IT WAS TO DEPEN D LARGELY ON CERTAIN FUTURE EVENTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED ANY BASIS FOR THE AMOUNT PROVIDED IN ITS BOOKS .THERE IS NO PAST TREND WHICH CAN FORM THE BASIS OF SUCH PROVISION. THE AMOUNT TO BE SPENT CANNOT BE ASCERTA INED UNLESS THE WILLINGNESS AND AVAILABILITY OF THE PERS ONS ARE KNOWN, UNLESS THE TRIP DURATION IS KNOWN, UNLESS TH E TRIP ORGANISER GIVES THE ESTIMATE. SO, THE AMOUNT ESTIMA TED AND PROVIDED WAS NOTHING BUT MERELY A CONTINGENT LIABIL ITY AND THE SAME CANNOT BE ALLOWED. PENALTY PROCEEDING UNDE R SECTION 271(L)(C) IS INITIATED SEPARATELY AS THE AS SESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME BY C LAIMING A LIABILITY WHICH HAS NOT ACCRUED AND CRYSTALLIZED DU RING THE YEAR. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS NOT DOUBTED THAT TOUR WAS TO BE ARRANGED BY ASSESSEE AS A PART OF SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES. HE DISALLOWED THE EXPENSE S MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR THE PROVISIO N AND THE TOUR WAS ACTUALLY CONDUCTED IN THE NEXT YEAR AND ALL THE EXPENDITURES WERE ACTUALLY INCURRED IN NEXT YEAR. IN OUR OPINION , WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS PROMISED TO ARRANGE THE TOUR FOR ITS C LIENTS, SUB COMMISSION AGENTS AND ENGINEERS ON THE BASIS OF THE IR PERFORMANCE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, TH EN PERSONS WHO ACHIEVED THE TARGET GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE ACQUIRED THE RIGHT TO GO ON TOUR AS PER THE SCHEME OF ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, ONCE THE ASSESSEES CLIENTS, COMMISSION AGENTS AND ENGINEERS FULFILL THE TARGET GIVEN TO THEM, THE ASSESSEE INCU RS THE LIABILITY TO TAKE THEM ON TOUR TO EGYPT AS PER THE SCHEME. THERE FORE, THE PROVISION FOR EGYPT TOUR IS TO BE ALLOWED IN THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION. NOW THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER THE PROVISION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS REASONABLE OR NOT. FROM THE DETAILS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA 3.3 AND 3 .4 OF THE ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE A SSESSEE MADE THE PROVISION OF RS.24,88,000/- WHILE THE ACTUAL PA YMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE NEXT YEAR WAS RS.41,37,880/- . IN THE ABOVE SITUATION, THE PROVISION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE UNREASONABLE OR EXCESSIVE. IN VIEW OF AB OVE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION FOR TH E PROVISION OF ITA NO.2010/AHD/2012 & OTHER 6 EGYPT TOUR EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.24,88,000/-. AC CORDINGLY, GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED AND CONSEQUENTIALLY GROUND NO.2 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL HA S BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. SAME IS REJECTED. 7. THERE IS NO DISPARITY ON FACTS. IN THE ASSTT.YE AR 2008-09, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A PROVISION OF RS.23,09,5000/-, B UT IN ACTUAL IT HAD INCURRED A SUM OF RS.47,77,500/- THAT IS FAR MORE T HAN THE PROVISION. THIS PROVISION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS BASED ON THE PAST EXPERIENCE AND IN THE LAST THREE YEARS, IT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO WRITE BACK THE PROVISION, ON ACCOUNT OF ITS NON-USER. CONSIDERING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSTT.YEAR 2007-098, WE ALLOW BOTH GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN BO TH THE YEARS AND DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE. 8. NEXT ISSUE AGITATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSTT .YEAR 2008-09 IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED DEDUCTION OF RS.24,88,000/- IN RESPECT OF EGYPT TOUR. IT IS PERTINENT TO OBSERVE THAT THIS WAS A PROVISION MADE IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2007-08. IT WAS D ISALLOWED BY THE AO AND THE DISALLOWANCE WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A) . ON APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THIS DISALLOWANCE. THIS AMOUN T WAS ALLOWED IN ASSTT.YEAR 2007-08 ITSELF. NO QUESTION OF ITS ALLO WANCE AGAIN IN ASSTT.YEAR 2008-09 AROSE. KEEPING IN VIEW THIS ASP ECT, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS THIS GROUND OF APPEA L. HENCE, IT IS REJECTED. 9. NEXT ISSUE AGITATED IN ASSTT.YEAR 2008-09 IS THA T THE LD.AO DID NOT GRANT CREDIT OF TDS AMOUNTING TO RS.20,34,335/-. W HEN THIS ASPECT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LD.CIT(A), THE LD.CIT( A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THIS DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE IN AN INTIMATION MADE TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT. IT IS NOT SUBJECT MATTER OF ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE LD.CIT(A) DID NOT ENTERTAIN THIS ISSUE. ITA NO.2010/AHD/2012 & OTHER 7 10. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS, WE ARE OF TH E VIEW THAT THIS ASPECT ULTIMATELY GOES TO AFFECT TAXABILITY OF ASSE SSEE. IF THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR TDS CREDIT, THEN IT OUGHT TO HAVE B EEN GIVEN. WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO. THE AO SHA LL VERIFY THE TDS DETAILS AND THEREAFTER DECIDE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS CRED IT OR NOT, AND IF IT HAS CREDIT, THEN SAME BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. NO OTHER ISSUE WAS PRESSED IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2008-09. ACCORDINGLY, TH E APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y.2008-09 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 11. IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2009-10, THE NEXT ISSUE AGITA TED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED A SUM OF RS.23,09,500/- ON PAYMENT BASIS. 12. THE FACTS REGARDING THIS ISSUE ARE THAT IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2008-09, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A PROVISION OF RS.23,09,500/- PERTAINING TO THE CHINA TOUR. THIS PROVISION WAS DISALLOWED BY THE A O IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2008-09. IT HAS CLAIMED THIS AMOUNT ON ACTUAL PAYM ENT BASIS IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2009-10. THE LD.CIT(A) THEORETICALLY AL LOWED, BUT WITH A RIDER THAT IN CASE PROVISION IS ALLOWED TO THE ASSE SSEE IN ASSTT.YEAR 2008-09, THEN THE DEDUCTION GRANTED IN ASSTT.YEAR 2 009-10 ON ACTUAL INCURRENCE OF THE EXPENDITURE WOULD BE WITHDRAWN. SINCE WE HAVE ALLOWED THE PROVISION IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2008-09 IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPHS, THEREFORE, IF ANY DEDUCTION IS BEING GR ANTED TO THE ASSESSEE OF RS.23,09,500/- IN A.Y.2009-10, THE SAME WILL BE WITHDRAWN BY THE AO. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, THIS GROUND IS REJ ECTED. 13. NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE L D.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT DELETING THE ADDITION OF SHORT CONTRACT RECE IPT AMOUNT OF RS.1,64,490/-. 14. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUT SET SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RELEGATED THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY FILED AN APPLICATION UNDER SEC TION 154 OF THE ACT ITA NO.2010/AHD/2012 & OTHER 8 AND THAT APPLICATION IS PENDING. SINCE IT IS AN IS SUE OF RECONCILIATION AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY MOVED AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 154, NO FINDING IS REQUIRED TO BE RECORDED ON THIS ISSUE. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE RECTIFICATION ORDER, THEN IT WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO CHALLENGE THAT ORDER IN APPEAL. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD.CIT(A) , WE DO NOT FIND ANY FORCE IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IT IS A FACTUAL ISSUE WHICH REQUIRES VERIFICATION AT THE EN D OF THE AO, AND THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY RELEGATED THE ISSUE TO THE AO FOR VERIFICATION AND ADJUDICATION. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GRO UND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS REJECTED. 15. IN THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234D OF THE ACT AND GRANTING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 244 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. WE FIND THAT THESE ISSUES ARE CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ALREADY OBSERVED THAT THESE ARE CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE. HENCE, ASS ESSEE COULD HAVE NO GRIEVANCE TO THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A). THIS GR OUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 16. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 1 ST MAY, 2017 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (AMARJIT SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 01/05/2017