Shri Sujan Singh, Narnaul V. ACIT, Rewari

ITA 2153/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 215320114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 14-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NIDHI SRIVASTAVA
• Keywords: Rule of consistency
• Section: 234B; 194C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.2153/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-08 SHRI SUJAN SINGH, ACIT, VILLAGE NASIBPUR, REWARI. NARNAUL. V. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO.AIGPS AIGPS AIGPS AIGPS- -- -8494 8494 8494 8494- -- -Q QQ Q APPELLANT BY : SHRI SALIL AGGARWAL & SHRI SHAILESH GUPTA. RESPONDENT BY : SMT. NIDHI SRIVASTAVA, SR. DR. ORDER PER TS KAPOOR, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) DATED 29.3.2011. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN SEVEN GRO UNDS OF APPEAL. HOWEVER, THE CRUX OF GROUNDS OF APPEALS RELAT ES TO THREE ISSUES CONSISTING OF ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING A N AMOUNT OF ` .30,41,670/- U/S 40A(IA) FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AND THE SECOND ISSUE IS ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION IN DISALLOWING SH ORTAGE OF DIESEL AND TURBO AMOUNTING TO ` .85,056/-. THE ASSESSEE VIDE GROUND NO.7 HAS TAKEN THE ISSUE OF LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B & 234C OF THE ACT. GROUND NO.1 TO 5 RESOLVE AROUND THE FIRST ISSUE AND GRO UND NO.6 RESOLVES AROUND THE SECOND ISSUE WHEREAS GROUND NO.7 RELA TES TO ISSUE OF INTEREST U/S 234B & 234C OF THE ACT. ITA NO2153/DEL/2011 2 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RU NNING PETROL PUMP UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF RATTAN FUELS, NARNAU L. HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF ` .7,68,260/- ON 30.9.2008. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE FREIGHT PAYMENT TO M/S SUJAN SINGH HUF ON WHICH HE WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TDS AND ON WHICH HE HAD NOT DEDUCTED SUCH TAX. THEREFORE, HE WAS SHOW CAUSED AS TO WHY THE AMOUNT OF ` .30,41,670/- PAID AS FREIGHT MAY NOT BE DISALLOWED. T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE WAS ACTING AS AN INTERMEDIARY ONLY A ND HAD RECEIVED THE AMOUNT OF FREIGHT FROM HPCL WHICH HAD DEDUCTED TDS AND HE AFTER RETAINING 2.5% OF THE TOTAL AMOUNTS HAD REIMBURSED TH E BALANCE ENTIRE AMOUNT TO THE LORRY OWNER M/S SUJAN SINGH HUF AND HE HAD NOT UNDERTAKEN ANY WORK CONTRACT WITH THE OWNER OF LORR Y AND THEREFORE WAS NOT LIABLE FOR ANY TAX DEDUCTION. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER, HOWEVER, DID NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF ASSESSEE AND MADE THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE SAID AMOUNT. HE FURTHER MADE A DI SALLOWANCE OF ` .85,056/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS SHORTAGE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF DIESEL AND TURBO. HE HELD THAT SHORTAGE O F OIL PRODUCT WAS ALLOWABLE ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF COMPANYS NORMS AND ANY SHORTAGE IN EXCESS OF COMPANYS NORMS WAS NOT ALLOWABLE. 3. DISSATISFIED WITH THE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- I) THAT ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT WITH HPCL WHE REBY HE UNDERTOOK TO TRANSPORT PETROLEUM PRODUCTS AND HIR ED TANKER LORRY FROM M/S SUJAN SINGH HUF WHO SIMPLY PLAC ED THE VEHICLE AT THE DISPOSAL OF ASSESSEE. ITA NO2153/DEL/2011 3 II) THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONE UNDER HIS CONTROL AND SUPERVISION EXECUTED THE WHOLE CONTRACT AND THE LORRY OWNER DID NOT CARRY ON ANY PART OF WORK UNDERTAKEN BY ASSESSEE. III) THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C IN RELATION TO, T HE SUB CONTRACTORS ARE APPLICABLE ONLY IF THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF WORK UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS PERFORMED BY SUB CONTRACTOR WHICH IS NOT THE CASE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL . IV) THAT SIMILAR PAYMENT IN EARLIER YEARS WERE ALSO MADE A ND WERE NOT QUESTIONED BY REVENUE AND THEREFORE FOLLOWI NG THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY, THE ADDITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE. V) THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(IA) ARE ATTRACTED ONLY IN THE CASE OF AMOUNTS PAYABLE AS HELD IN THE CASE OF HON'BLE ITAT IN TEJA CONSTRUCTION V. ACIT (2010) 39 SOT (HYD.) AND I N THE PRESENT CASE ONLY A SUM OF ` .26,544/- REMAINED PAYABLE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED UPON THE CASE LAW OF MYTHRI TRAN SPORT CORPORATION V. ACIT IN I.T.A. NO.182/VIZAG/2008 OF HON'BLE ITAT VISHAKHAPATNAM BENCH. 4. THE LD CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF A SSESSEE AND UPHELD THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER BY HOLDING AS UND ER:- 5.3. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT , IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE TANK OWNER IS A SUB CONTRACTOR OF TH E APPELLANT AS THE RISK AND RESPONSIBILITY OF TRANSPORTING THE GOOD S LIES WITH THE TANK OWNER. THIS IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT TH E APPELLANT HAD DEDUCTED AN AMOUNT OF ` .1,10,376/- FROM RAJENDER SINGH ON ACCOUNT OF SHORTAGE AND OTHER LOSSES SUFFERED DUE TO TH E ACCIDENT BY HIS TRUCK. THEREFORE, THE ARGUMENT OF TH E APPELLANT ITA NO2153/DEL/2011 4 THAT HE ALONE UNDER HIS CONTROL AND SUPERVISION EXECUT ED THE WHOLE CONTRACT AND THE TANK LORRY OWNER DID NOT CAR RY OUT ANY PART OF THE WORK UNDERTAKEN BY THE APPELLANT IS UNTE NABLE. THE LIABILITIES TO THE APPELLANT IN THE AGREEMENT WITH H PCL HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE TANK OWNERS, AS EVIDENT FROM THE AG REEMENT ENTERED WITH THEM. THIS BEING THE CASE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C ARE ATTRACTED. 5.4. THE CASE OF MYTHRI TRANSPORT CORPORATION V. ACI T (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE AR IS ENTIRELY ON DIFFERENT FACTS. IN THAT CASE THE ASSESSEE TRANSPORT CONTRACTOR BESIDES ENGAGING HIS OWN VEHICLES HIRED DIFFERENT VEHICLES FROM THE MARKET FOR TRANSPORTING BITUMEN FROM THE PRINCIPALS TO VARIOUS POINTS WITHOUT ENTERING INTO ANY AGREEMENT, THESE VEHICLES OWNERS SIMPLY PLACED THE VEHICLES AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE ALON E UNDER ITS SUPERVISION AND CONTROL EXECUTED WHOLE OF TH E CONTRACT. 5.5. AS REGARDS THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY HELD IN TH E CASE OF RADHA SWAMI SATSANG (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE AR, IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT STATED THAT THE OBSERVATIONS MADSE BY THEIR LORDSHIPS IS ONLY APPLICABL E TO THE APPELLANT, HAVIN ` G REGARD TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. FURTHER EACH ASSESSMENT IS AN INDEPENDENT PROCEEDING UNDER THE IT ACT AND RES JUDICATA AS GENERALLY UNDERSTOOD DOES NOT APPLY TO IT PROCEEDINGS. REGARDING THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(IA) ARE APPLICABLE ONLY FOR AMOUNTS PAYABLE AS PER THE JU DGMENT OF HON'BLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF TEJA CONSTRUCTION (SUPRA) , I WOULD LIKE TO RESPECTFULLY DIFFER WITH THE RATIO OF THE SAID JUD GMENT TAKING ITA NO2153/DEL/2011 5 INTO CONSIDERATION THE INTENTION AND SPIRIT OF THE L EGISLATURE IN INTRODUCING THE SAID SECTION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(IA) OF ` . 30,41,670/- IS UPHELD AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5. THE SECOND ADDITION OF ` .85056/- WAS ALSO UPHELD BY HOLDING AS UNDER. 6.THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED A SHORTAGE OF 1 0,795 LITERS IN THE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS ATTACHED WITH THE AUDIT REPORT . WITH REGARD TO THE EXCESS SHORTAGE CLAIMED IN RESPECT OF DIESEL WHEN COMPARED TO THE NORMS OF HPCL, THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT THE SHORTAGE WAS CLAIMED ON ACTUAL BASIS AND IT IS DUE TO CARELESSNESS AND DECEIT BY THE EMPLOYEES. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HELD THAT SHORTAGE OF OIL PRODUCTS IS ALLOWABLE ONLY T O THE EXTENT OF COMPANY NORMS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTA RY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE EXCESS CLAIM, IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED AND MADE AN ADDITION OF ` .85,056/- IN THIS REGARD. 6.1. THE ABOVE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONTE STED IN GROUND NO.1 OF APPEALS. BEFORE ME, THE LD AR SUBMITT ED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD TO FULLY DEPEND UPON THE EMPLOYEES AND THE SHORTAGE IS INCIDENTAL TO THE BUSINESS. 6.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY T HE AR. THE APPELLANT HAD NOT MADE OUT ANY CASE FOR CLAI UM OF HIGHER SHORTAGE WHEN COMPARED TO THE ALLOWABLE NORM S OF HPCL. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, THE ACTI ON OF THE ITA NO2153/DEL/2011 6 ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING THE EXCESS SHORTAGE IS UP HELD AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIB UNAL. 7. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT SECTION 40A (IA) WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AS THE CONTRACT WAS BETWEEN T HE ASSESSEE AND M/S HPCL AND ASSESSEE HAD UTILIZED THE SERVICES OF LOR RY ONLY WHICH WAS IN THE NAME OF SUJAN SINGH HUF. HE FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO WORKS CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND LORR Y OWNER AND IN THIS RESPECT OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAPE R BOOK PAGE 41 WHERE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SUJAN SING H HUF WAS PLACED AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THIS AGREEMENT, THE LD AR ARGUED THAT THERE WAS NO WORKS CONTRACT AND THE ASSESSEE ONLY MANAGE D THE LORRY OF THE LORRY OWNER AND CHARGED 2.5% AS HIS MANAGEMENT FEE AND IN THIS RESPECT OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO CLAUSE (VI) O F THE AGREEMENT. CONTINUING HIS ARGUMENTS HE SUBMITTED THAT FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 TO 2007-08 THE REVENUE HAD NOT MADE ANY ADD ITION IN RESPECT OF SIMILAR PAYMENTS AND OUT OF THESE YEARS THE ASSESSMENTS FOR TWO YEARS WERE COMPLETED U/S 143(3). RELYING UPON THE JUD GMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. JK CHARI TABLE TRUST 308 ITR 161 HE ARGUED THAT IF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES REMAIN SA ME THE REVENUE CANNOT CHANGE ITS STAND IN ANOTHER YEAR. HE FURTHER INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PAPER BOOK PAGE 38 WHERE A COPY OF AFFIDAVIT OF ASSESSEE DECLARING THAT HE DID NOT ENTER INTO ANY WORKS CONTRACT WITH ANY OTHER PARTY WAS PLACED. THE LD AR FURTHER SUBMIT TED THAT AMOUNT OUTSTANDING AS ON THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR WAS ONLY ` . 26.544/- AND THEREFORE RELYING UPON THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH C OURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF VECTOR SHIPPING SERVICE PVT. LTD. HE SUB MITTED THAT ENTIRE AMOUNT CANNOT BE DISALLOWED AND IF DISALLOWANCE HAS TO BE MADE THEN ITA NO2153/DEL/2011 7 ONLY THE AMOUNTS PAYABLE CAN BE DISALLOWED. RELIANCE IN THIS RESPECT WAS FURTHER PLACED ON THE CASE LAW OF CIT V. CRESENT E XPORTS INDIA 216 TAXMAN 258 (CAL.). 8. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE OF CONFLICTING J UDGMENTS THE JUDGMENT FAVOURABLE TO THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE APPLIED AN D IN THIS RESPECT RELIED UPON THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT JUDGME NT IN THE CASE OF VEGETABLE PRODUCTS 88 ITR 192 (SC). 9. THE LD DR ON THE OTHER HAND HEAVILY RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND LD CIT(A)S ORDER. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. SECTION 194C HAS THE DIRECT BEARING ON THE CONTROVERSY. THEREFORE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO TAKE NOTE OF THE RELEVANT CLAUSES. AC CORDING TO OUR UNDERSTANDING SECTION 194C IS ATTRACTED IF ALL THE FOL LOWING CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED:- A) THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE A CONTRACTOR. B) THE ASSESSEE IN HIS CAPACITY AS A CONTRACTOR SHOULD ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH A SUB CONTRACTOR FOR CARRYING OUT THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE WORK UNDERTAKEN BY THE CONTRACTOR. C) THE SUB CONTRACTOR SHOULD CARRY OUT THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE WORK UNDERTAKEN BY THE CONTRACTOR. D) THE PAYMENT SHOULD BE MADE FOR CARRYING OUT THE WHOL E OR ANY PART OF THE WORK. 11. THE ASSESSEE HERE IS A TRANSPORT CONTRACTOR AND HAD E NTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH HPCL WHEREBY ASSESSEE AGREED TO UNDER TAKE TRANSPORTATION OF OIL PRODUCTS TO VARIOUS POINTS AS PE R DIRECTION OF HPCL. ITA NO2153/DEL/2011 8 THE ASSESSEE FURTHER HIRED THE LORRY FROM SUJAN SINGH H UF. AS PER THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND LORRY OWNER, WE FIND THAT THE LORRY OWNER SIMPLY PLACED THE VEHICLE AT TH E DISPOSAL OF THE ASSESSEE WHO MANAGED THE VEHICLE FOR A CERTAIN FEES. TH IS BECOMES APPARENT FROM THE FACT THAT AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH LORRY OWNER DOES NOT MENTION ANY PART OF THE CO NTRACT WHICH WAS TO BE EXECUTED BY THE LORRY OWNER. 12. THE AGREEMENT NO WHERE MENTIONS THE TRANSFER OF R ISK ASSUMED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE CLAUSE (4) OF PART-E OF TERMS AND CO NDITIONS OF AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH HPCL. CLAU SE (4) OF THIS AGREEMENT READS AS UNDER:- ANY LOSS/CLAIM OR DAMAGE ARISING OUT OF THE PERFORMAN CE OF THE CONTRACT WOULD BE ADJUSTABLE AGAINST THE SECURITY DEP OSIT (SD). ANY LOSS/CLAIM/DAMAGE HIGHER THAN SECURITY DEPOSIT WILL BE RECOVERED FROM PAYMENTS DUE TO CONTRACTOR UNDER THIS CONTRACT OR DEPOSITS MADE BY OR PAYMENTS DUE TO THE CONTRACTOR UNDER ANY OTHER WITH THE OIL COMPANY. 13. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT CLAUSE IN THE AGREEMENT WITH HPCL WHICH BINDS THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE GOOD ANY LOSS TO HPCL IN CASE OF ANY LOSS ARISING OUT OF PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT. 14. THE AGREEMENT OF ASSESSEE WITH LORRY OWNER DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR ANY OF SUCH OBLIGATION TO BE MET BY LORRY OWNER. TH EREFORE THE RISK ASSUMED BY ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRE D TO LORRY OWNER AND IF THERE IS NO TRANSFER OF RISK, THE LORRY O WNER CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE EXECUTED ANY PART OF CONTRACT. AS PER THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 194C THE SUB CONTRACTOR IS A PERSON WHO CARRIES OUT TH E WHOLE OR ANY ITA NO2153/DEL/2011 9 PART OF THE WORK UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. IT SIGNIFIE S A POSITIVE INVOLVEMENT IN THE EXECUTION AS A WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE MAIN WORK BY SPENDING HIS TIME, MONEY, ENERGY ETC. AND FURTHER TAKING RISK IN CARRYING OUT THE SPECIAL ACTIVITIES. IN THE INSTANT CA SE, THERE IS NO MATERIAL TO SUGGEST THAT LORRY OWNER INVOLVED HIMSELF IN CARRYING OUT ANY PART OF THE CONTRACT UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE SPEN DING TIME, MONEY AND ENERGY ETC. BY TAKING THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WI TH MAIN CONTRACT WORK. IN THE ABSENCE OF ABOVE SAID CHARACTE RISTIC ATTACHED WITH SUB CONTRACT THE PAYMENT MADE TO LORRY OWNER STA NDS AT PAR WITH PAYMENTS MADE TOWARDS SALARY, RENT ETC. HENCE, THE RE ASON OF TAX AUTHORITIES TO HOLD THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE FOR HIRED VEHICLE WAS A SUB CONTRACT PAYMENT IS NOT CORRECT AND NOT BASED ON RELE VANT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. 15. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION T HAT OWNERS OF LORRY WERE SUB CONTRACTORS OF ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS THA T IN THE CASE OF ANOTHER LORRY OWNER SHRI RAJINDER SINGH, THE ASSESSE E HAD RECOVERED AN AMOUNT OF ` .1,10,736/- FROM HIM BECAUSE OF SHORTAGE OF OIL. 16. THOUGH THE WORDING IN BOTH AGREEMENTS WITH SHRI RAJINDER SINGH AND SUJAN SINGH HUF ARE IDENTICAL YET THE CLAUSES EMP OWERING THE ASSESSEE TO RECOVER ANY LOSS FROM LORRY OWNER ARE NOT CO MING OUT OF ANY CLAUSES OF THE AGREEMENT AND IN THE ABSENCE OF SUC H EXPRESS CLAUSES THE RIGHT TO RECOVERY OF SUCH LOSSES CANNOT BE EN FORCED. HOW AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES ANOTHER LORRY OWNER AGRE ED TO COMPENSATE THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT KNOWN. THEREFORE, THIS FACT ALONE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO HOLD THAT LORRY OWNER WAS RESPONSIBL E FOR CARRYING OUT A PART OF CONTRACT. ITA NO2153/DEL/2011 10 17. HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IT CANNOT BE S AID THAT PAYMENTS MADE FOR HIRED VEHICLES FELL UNDER THE CATEG ORY OF SUB CONTRACT AND IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH SUB CONTRACT THE A SSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. CONSEQUENTLY THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40A(IA) WOULD NOT APPLY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE GROUND NO.1 TO 5 ARE ALLOWED. 18. THE LD AR HAS NOT ARGUED ON GROUND NOI.6 & 6.1. THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 19. GROUND NO.7 RELATES TO CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 21 34B & 234C WHICH ARE CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQUIR E ANY ADJUDICATION. 20. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE A SSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 21. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (T.S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT.28.11.2013. HMS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI). ITA NO2153/DEL/2011 11 DATE OF HEARING 24.11.2013 DATE OF DICTATION 25.11.2013 DATE OF TYPING 26.11.2013 DATE OF ORDER SIGNED BY 28.11.2013 BOTH THE MEMBERS & PRONOUNCEMENT. DATE OF ORDER UPLOADED ON NET & SENT TO THE BENCH CONCERNED.