Smt. G.P. Savithri, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 2473/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7849 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 24-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H KABILA JT
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 234B; 54; 263; 154

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH C, CHENNAI , !' . ' $ %, & %' BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2473/MDS/2016 & ) '*) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 G.P. SAVITHRI, NO.4, STROTTEN MUTHIAH MUDALI STREET, CHENNAI 600 079 [PAN: BDIPS 8011B ] (,-/ APPELLANT ) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD-6(3), CHENNAI. (./,-/ RESPONDENT) ,- 0 1 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI G.BASKAR, ADVOCATE ./,- 0 1 /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI H.KABILA, JT. CIT $ ' 0 2 /DATE OF HEARING : 28.11.2016 3* 0 2 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.01.2017 / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, AM : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-5, CHENNAI (C IT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 21.06.2016, DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINS T ORDER U/S. 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) DATED 24.02.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2007-08. 2 ITA NO.2473 /MDS/2016 (AY 2007-08) G.P. SA VITHIRI V. ITO 2. THE BACKGROUND FACTS OF THE CASE, TO THE EXTENT RELEVANT, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEES INCOME FOR THE CURRENT YEAR WAS ASSESSED (VIDE ORDER U/S. 143(3) DATED 31.12.2009) AT . 64,33,894/-, INCLUDING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN (LT CG) AT . 62,91,060/-, ARRIVED AT BY ADOPTING, IN VIEW OF S . 50C OF THE ACT, THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY SOLD DURING THE YEAR AT . 80,18,300/- , I.E., AS PER ITS VALUATION UNDER THE STAMP ACT, AS AGAINST THE ADMITTED AND STATED CONSIDERATION . 41 LACS. THE ASSESSEE MOVED AN APPLICATION U/S. 1 54 ON 15.02.2010, REQUIRING THE SUBSTITUTION OF THE VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION (OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY) AT . 64,50,980/- , I.E., IN PLACE OF . 80.18 LACS, AS THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER HAD SINCE, IN PURSUANCE TO A SAMADH AN SCHEME, COLLECTED STAMP DUTY WITH REFERENCE TO THE SAID AMOUNT. THE S AME WAS REJECTED AS THE SAMADHAN SCHEME ONLY PROVIDED RELIEF IN THE PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY, AND DID NOT CAUSE ANY REDUCTION IN THE STAMP VALUATION. IN ADDITION, INTEREST U/S. 234C, OMITTED TO BE CHARGED AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL A SSESSMENT, AS WELL AS INTEREST U/S. 234B SHORT CHARGED, WERE LEVIED, RAISING AN AD DITIONAL DEMAND OF .79,303/-. THE SAME FOUND CONFIRMATION IN APPEAL; T HE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, IN ADDITION, ALSO HOLDING THAT DECIDING WHETHER THE SAMADHAN SCHEME PROVIDES ONLY RELIEF IN THE PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY OR ACTUAL REDUCES THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WOULD REQUIRE EXPLANATIONS AND ANSWERS, SO THAT THE MATTER IS (IN ANY CASE) OUTSIDE THE AMBIT OF S. 154 (REFER PARA 5.2 R /W PARA 5.4 OF HIS ORDER). AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL, RAISIN G THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX ( APPEALS) IS WRONG, ILLEGAL AND OPPOSED TO FACTS. . 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED I N HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT WARR ANTING RECTIFICATION U/S.154. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE GUIDELINES VALUE ADOPTED BY THE AO AS CONSIDERATION FOR . TRANSFER HAD BEEN REDUCED IN THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE INDIAN STAMP A CT AND AS SUCH NEEDS TO BE RECTI F IED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 155 (15) OF THE IT ACT. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WENT WR ONG IN NOT FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS CITED BEFORE HIM . 5. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE AO HAD ENHANCED THE DEMAND WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PR OCEDURE 3 ITA NO.2473 /MDS/2016 (AY 2007-08) G.P. SA VITHIRI V. ITO CONTEMPLATED IN SEC.154 AND AS SUCH T HE ENTIRE ORDER IS VITIATED AND IS HENCE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED . 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. OUR FIRST OBSERVATION IN THE MATTER IS THAT THE AS SESSEES APPLICATION FALLS U/S. 154 BY VIRTUE OF S. 155(15), WHICH PROVIDES TH AT WHERE THE VALUE ADOPTED/ASSESSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH S. 50C(1) IS SU BSEQUENTLY REVISED IN ANY APPEAL OR REVISION OR REFERENCE REFERRED TO IN S. 5 0C(2)(B), THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) SHALL RECOMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAIN BY TAKING SUC H REVISED VALUE, AND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF S. 154 SHALL APPLY IN SUCH A CASE. WE STATE SO AS THE REVISION IN VALUE IS A SUBSEQUENT EVENT WHILE S. 154 IS CONFI NED TO A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD, WITH THERE BEING IN THE PRESENT CASE E VEN NO MENTION OF, AS WAS ACTUALLY THE CASE, PENDENCY OF ANY PROCEEDINGS REFE RRED TO ANY S. 50C(2)(B), IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE NEXT QUESTION THAT ARISES IS WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN A REVISION IN THE STAMP VALUE IN THE PRESENT CASE; BOTH THE REVENUE A UTHORITIES HOLDING IT TO BE A CASE OF SETTLEMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN DISPUTE BY A PA YING A LOWER AMOUNT, AND NOT A REVISION IN THE STAMP VALUE ITSELF. THE ASSESSEE, CONTESTING THIS FINDING, OUGHT TO HAVE ADDUCED THE SAMADHAN SCHEME, WITH REFERENCE TO WHICH SHE CLAIMS A REVISION IN THE STAMP DUTY TO A LOWER SUM, I.E., . 64.51 LACS. THE SAME IS CONSPICUOUS BY ITS ABSENCE; THE LD. AR, ON OUR ASKI NG, ADVERTED INSTEAD TO A CERTIFICATE BY THE SUB REGISTRAR, REPRODUCED HERE-I N-BELOW: CERTIFICATE DOCUMENT NO. : 938/2006 DATE OF REGISTRATION : 09.08.2006 DOCUMENT VALUE : RS. 41,00,000/- FIXED BY SUB REGISTRAR : RS. 80,18,300 STAMP DUTY PAYABLE : RS.6,41,464 PAID : RS. 3,29,000 DIFFERENCE : RS. 3,12,464 60% THEREON : RS. 23,475+ RS. 40 = RS. 23,515/- FOR THIS DOCUMENT BY ORDER NO. 95 DATED 22.04.2007, 60% OF THE DIFFERENTIAL STAMP DUTY RS. 1,84,478/- (*) AND 60% OF THE REGIST RATION CHARGES OF RS. 23,515/-, TOTAL OF RS. 2,10,993/- HAS BEEN COLLECTE D. 4 ITA NO.2473 /MDS/2016 (AY 2007-08) G.P. SA VITHIRI V. ITO SD/- SUB- REGISTRAR (*) [CORRECT AMOUNT IS RS. 1,87,478/-] IT IS CLEAR THAT THE STAMP VALUE HAS NOT BEEN DIST URBED. THE SCHEME, AS APPARENT, SEEKS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTED DEMAND ON PA RT PAYMENT THEREOF TO THE EXTENT OF 60 PER CENT, PLUS 60 PER CENT OF THE REGI STRATION CHARGES (I.E., ON THE DIFFERENCE IN THE STAMP DUTY). IN THE PRESENT CASE THE DIFFERENCE BEING . 3,12,464/-, COLLECTION WAS MADE AT . 1,87,478/-, PLUS ANOTHER . 23,515/- TOWARD REGISTRATION CHARGES, I.E., AT A TOTAL OF . 2,10,993/-, AND THE BALANCE DEMAND, INCLUDING REGISTRATION CHARGES, WAIVED OFF. THE LD. COUNSEL, ON BEING INQUIRED BY THE BENCH IF HE HAD ANY OTHER MATERIAL TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM OF REVISION IN STAMP VALUE (SV), AS SAY THE ORDER NO. 95/22.4.07 WHERE-UNDER THE SETTLEMENT OF THE DEMAND THUS STANDS MADE, WOULD DE CLINE, STATING THAT THAT IS ALL THE MATERIAL HE HAS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CASE, AND THA T THE TRIBUNAL HAD IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES UPHELD THE CLAIM IN DR MINNIE MATHAN V. ASST. CIT (IN ITA NO.111/MDS/2012 DATED 23.01.2013), PLACING A COPY O F THE SAID ORDER ON RECORD, DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 5 THEREOF, WHICH READ S AS UNDER: 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE RECOR DS AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ONLY ISSUE INV OLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER THE PROPERTY SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE VALUED AT ' 33,22,871/ - OR THE VALUE SUBSEQUENTLY FIXED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORI TY BY CONSIDERING THE SAMADHAN SCHEME OF TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT AT '25,93, 750/-, SHOULD BE ADOPTED. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREIN HE HAS CONSIDERED ALL THE FACTS. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE PROPERTY , WHICH WAS SOLD, WAS INITIALLY VALUED AT ' 33,22,871/- BY THE REGISTERIN G AUTHORITY AND SUBSEQUENTLY BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SAMAD HAN SCHEME THE VALUE WAS FIXED AT ' 25,93,750/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS CALCULATED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS PER THE SU BSEQUENT VALUATION. FROM THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD IT IS VERY CLEAR T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED A VERY DETAILED REPLY IN RESPONSE TO THE VARIOUS QUERIES RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AFTER APPLYING HIS CONSCIOUS MIND CALCULATED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAI N BY ADOPTING THE SUBSEQUENT GUIDELINE VALUE OF ' 25,93,750/- AS ADOP TED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY ITA NO. LL1/MDS/2012 CONSIDERING THE SAMA DHAN SCHEME OF THE TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT, THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPI NION THAT THE DECISION 5 ITA NO.2473 /MDS/2016 (AY 2007-08) G.P. SA VITHIRI V. ITO OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS A CONSCIOUS DECISION AF TER CONSIDERING ALL THE MATERIAL NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT. THE TRIBUNAL, IN THAT CASE, HAS ALLOWED THE ASSESS EES CLAIM ON THE BASIS OF A REVISION IN THE STAMP VALUE TO . 25,93,750/-, I.E., AS AGAINST . 33.23 LACS ADOPTED EARLIER. WE HAVE NO BASIS TO HOLD A REVISIO N IN VALUE, MUCH LESS STATE ITS VALUE, IN THE PRESENT CASE. AS APPARENT, ALL THAT T HE SAMADHAN SCHEME DOES IS TO SETTLE A DISPUTED DUTY (DEMAND) BY ALLOWING THE ASS ESSEE (TAX-PAYER) A ONE TIME OPPORTUNITY TO PAY A PART THEREOF, WAIVING OFF THE BALANCE, AS WELL AS THE INTEREST (AND/OR PENALTY) THEREON. THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR VAR YING OR REVISING THE STAMP VALUATION, WHICH IS PROPERTY/AREA SPECIFIC, THERE-U NDER. IN FACT, EVEN AS AGREED TO BY THE LD. AR DURING HEARING, THE SAME COULD NOT PO SSIBLY BE INASMUCH AS PROPERTIES BEARING THE SAME ASSESSABLE (STAMP) VALU E COULD CARRY DIFFERENT DISPUTED SUMS, WHICH WOULD BE SUBJECT TO SETTLEMENT UNDER THE SAMADHAN SCHEME DIFFERENTLY. WE MAY DEMONSTRATE THIS BY WAY OF AN EXAMPLE (FOR A PARTICULAR PROPERTY X (SAY): (AMOUNT IN .) S.NO. PARTICULARS / PERSON A B REMARKS A) STAMP VALUE AS ON THE RELEVANT DATE (SV) 1000 1000 (SAY) B) STAMP DUTY THEREON 80 80 8% C) STAMP DUTY PAID 40 60 (SAY) D) STAMP DUTY IN DISPUTE 40 20 (B-C) E) STAMP DUTY PAYABLE UNDER THE SAMADHAN SCHEME 24 12 60% OF (D) F) STAMP DUTY WAIVED OF IN SETTLEMENT OF THE DEMAND RAISED 16 8 (D)-(E) (40% OF (D)) CLEARLY, THERE HAS BEEN NO REVISION IN OR ANY RE-F IXATION OF STAMP VALUE UNDER THE SAMADHAN SCHEME, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY A G ATEWAY PROVIDED TO ESCHEW LITIGATION, WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY, AT HIS OPTION, CHOOSE. WHY, THE SAME PROPERTY WOULD, DEPENDING ON THE AMOUNT IN DISPUTE, GET SETTLED ON PAYMENT OF A DIFFERENT SUM. THE SAME DOES NOT ACCOUNT IMPLY A REVISION IN THE S TAMP VALUE . THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS WRONGLY INFERR ED REVISION, AND COMPUTED 6 ITA NO.2473 /MDS/2016 (AY 2007-08) G.P. SA VITHIRI V. ITO THE SAME BY WORKING IT BACKWARDS, SO THAT IT WOULD AMOUNT TO . 800 ( . 64 X 100/8) AND . 900 (7.2 INTO 100/8) FOR A & B RESPECTIVELY (IN OUR EX AMPLE) AND, THUS, AT DIFFERENT VALUES FOR DIFFERENT PERSONS, AN D WHICH CANNOT BE. THE SAME IS ONLY NOTIONAL AND IMPUTED VALUE WITHOUT ANY LEGAL A ND FACTUAL BASIS WHATSOEVER. ALL THAT CAN BE SAID IS THAT A & B HAVE PAID DUTIES QUA PROPERTY X AT AN AMOUNT WHICH WOULD, AT THE EXTANT RATE OF DUTY (8%), BE TH AT AS ARRIVED AT AN ASSESSABLE VALUE (SV) OF . 800 AND . 900 RESPECTIVELY. OR, ALTERNATIVELY, HAS FINALLY PAID STAMP DUTY ON THE OBTAINING ASSESSABLE VALUE AT 6.4 PER CENT AND 7.2 PER CENT RESPECTIVELY, I.E., AS AGAINST THE OBTAINING RATE O F 8%. AND, WHICH, I.E., THE LATTER, IS RATHER THE MOST CORRECT (PROXIMATE) STATEMENT IN -AS-MUCH AS IT CAPTURES THE FACT THAT FOR THE SAME SV DIFFERENT PERSONS MAY GET ASSESSED AT DIFFERENT RATES OF DUTY DEPENDING ON THE QUANTUM IN DISPUTE. WHY, A TH IRD PERSON MAY CHOOSE NOT TO OPT FOR THE SAMADHAN SCHEME BUT CONTEST THE DEMA ND RAISED ON HIM. IT IS ONLY IN SUCH A CASE, WHERE HE SUCCEEDS, THAT THE VALUE A S UPHELD IN APPEAL, REFERENCE ETC., CAN VALIDLY BE SAID TO BE THE REVISED SV, NEC ESSITATING ITS ADOPTION U/S. 154 R/W S. 155(15). NO WONDER THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURN ISHED THE COPY OF THE SAMADHAN SCHEME WHICH OSTENSIBLY FORMS THE BASIS OF , AND WITH REFERENCE TO WHICH HE COULD POSSIBLY PLEAD, HIS CASE. IN FACT, W E HAVE SHOWN THAT, GIVEN ITS OBJECTIVE, THE SAME DOES NOT PURPORT TO REVISE OR R EDUCE THE SV, BUT ONLY SEEKS TO SETTLE A LIS WITH REFERENCE TO THE DEMAND IN DISPUTE. THE SAME COULD VARY FOR A GIVEN PROPERTY, RESULTING IN DIFFERENT IMPUTED VALU ATIONS FOR THE SAME PROPERTY. COMING TO THE DECISION IN DR MINNIE MATHAN (SUPRA), THE SAME, AS AFORE- NOTED, IS DISTINGUISHABLE OF FACTS. WE HAVE ABUNDAN TLY CLARIFIED THAT THE TRIBUNAL FOUND A REVISION IN VALUE IN THAT CASE. WHERE SO, I T IS A SIMPLE MATTER OF ADOPTING THE SAME BY APPLYING S. 154 R/W S. 155(15). IN FACT , AS A READING OF PARA 5 THEREOF INFORMS, THE AO IN THAT CASE HAD ACCEPTED T HE ASSESSEES PLEA IN ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, SO THAT THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO SCOPE FOR REVISION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT . THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO STATES IN THE PRESENT CASE, I.E., ADDIT IONALLY, THAT THE MATTER IS 7 ITA NO.2473 /MDS/2016 (AY 2007-08) G.P. SA VITHIRI V. ITO DEBATABLY, NOT ADMITTING RECTIFICATION. THE SAID DE CISION WOULD, EITHER WAY, BE THUS OF NO ASSISTANCE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE S CASE IN FACT MERITS BEING OUSTED AT THE THRESHOLD IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAMAD HAN SCHEME, WITH THE CERTIFICATE (BY THE SUB REGISTRAR) ALSO BEING NOT A CCOMPANIED BY A CERTIFICATE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE SAME WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE L OWER AUTHORITIES, MANDATORY FOR IT TO BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE RECORD. WE H AVE, HOWEVER, PROCEEDED THEREWITH INASMUCH AS IT IS INFERABLE FROM THEIR FI NDINGS THAT SOME SUCH MATERIAL WAS ADDUCED BEFORE THEM. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING WE FIND NO INFIRMITY AND, ACCORDINGLY, NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORI TIES. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 4. THE ONLY OTHER ISSUE RAISED IN APPEAL IS OF THE AO ENHANCING INTEREST U/S. 234B (BY . 27,965/-) AND CHARGING INTEREST U/S. 234C (AT . 52,268/-), WITHOUT ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD . ISSUE OF NOTICES U/S. 154(3) IS MANDATORY. EQUALLY, INTEREST U/S. 234B AND S. 23 4C IS MANDATORY AND CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE ( CIT V. ANJUM GHASWALA [2001] 252 ITR 1 (SC)). THERE IS THUS WITHOUT DOUBT NO ISSUE AS TO THE JURI SDICTION OF THE AO TO LEVY INTEREST THERE-UNDER OR LEVY IT AT THE CORRECT AMOU NT. THE FAILURE TO DO SO (IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS) WOULD THUS NOT ADVERSELY IM PACT HIS COMPETENCE TO DO SO LATER. HE IS IN FACT DUTY BOUND TO DO SO, DETERM INING AMOUNT PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE (ALSO REFER KALYANKUMAR RAY V. CIT [1991] 191 ITR 634 (SC)). THE ONLY ISSUE THAT THUS SURVIVES IS OF THE SAME BEING LEVIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. AND OF THE ASSESSEE BEING PUT TO NOTICE OF THE SAME , I.E., IN VIEW OF S. 154(3). WE SAY SO BY READING THE SECTION VERY STRICTLY INAS MUCH AS THE AO COULD HAVE, WITHOUT DOUBT, LEVIED INTEREST U/SS. 234B AND 234C IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, I.E., WITHOUT ALLOWING OR BEING OBLIGED TO GRANT TH E ASSESSEE A SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY IN THE MATTER; THE SAME BEING, AS AFORE -STATED, COMPENSATORY AND CONSEQUENTIAL AND, THUS, MANDATORY. NO PARTICULAR F ORMAT FOR NOTICE STANDS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT QUA A NOTICE U/S. 154(3). IT IS ESSENTIALLY A MATTER OF 8 ITA NO.2473 /MDS/2016 (AY 2007-08) G.P. SA VITHIRI V. ITO PROCEDURE, TOWARD PROVIDING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTU NITY TO STATE HIS CASE IN THE MATTER. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS ALREAD Y BEEN PUT TO NOTICE QUA THE REASONS AND THE BASIS FOR THE ENHANCEMENT IN HER LI ABILITY INCLUDING THE DETAILS THEREOF, THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS IN FAC T ONLY IN VIEW OF AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE SAME THAT THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGES TH E SAME (REFER GD.3 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A)). YET, HOWEVER, NEITHER BEFORE THE CIT(A ) NOR BEFORE US HAS THE ASSESSEE EVEN AS MUCH AS RAISED A PLEA OF THE INTER EST BEING NOT CHARGEABLE OR THAT IT STANDS CHARGED AT A HIGHER AMOUNT/S, IN WHI CH CASE WE WOULD BE INFORMED OF THE REASON/S FOR GRIEVANCE, AND SEEK TO ADDRESS THE SAME. WE, ACCORDINGLY, CONSIDER IT PROPER UNDER THE CIRCU MSTANCES TO DISPOSE THE ASSESSEES GROUND/OBJECTION BY HOLDING THAT THE INTEREST SHALL BE CHARGED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. AND, FURTHER, THAT THE AO SHAL L, BEFORE PASSING THE APPEAL GIVING EFFECT ORDER, PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO STATE HER CASE, IF ANY, IN THE MATTER, IN WHICH CASE HE (AO) SHALL ISS UE DEFINITE FINDINGS OF FACT AND, IN ANY CASE, RECORD THE PROCEEDINGS IN HIS ORD ER. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 AT CHENNAI . SD/- SD/- ( . ' $ %) ( ) ( G. PAVAN KUMAR ) ( SANJAY ARORA ) & / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / CHENNAI, 5 / DATED, JANUARY 31 ST , 2017 . EDN 6 0 .&278 98*2 / COPY TO: 1. ,- / APPELLANT, 2. ./,- / RESPONDENT, 3. $ :2 ) / CIT(A), 4. $ :2 / CIT, 5. 8';< .&2& / DR & 6. <=) > / GF