Moongipa Investment LTd, V. ITO Ward 5 (4),

ITA 2605/DEL/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 52539 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2007
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVI RAMCHANDRAN
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHWANI TANEJA; TARUN S
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment
• Section: 68; 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH D : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2605/DEL./2007 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04) M/. MOONGIPA INVESTMENT LIMITED, VS. ITO, WARD 5 (4), C/O RRA TAXINDIA, (ADVISORS & ADVOCATES), NEW DELH I. C 8, EAST OF KAILASH, NEW DELHI 110 065. (PAN : AAACM5584A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : S/SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA & TARUN, ADVOC ATES REVENUE BY : SHRI RAVI RAM CHANDRAN, DR ORDER PER B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS)-VIII, NEW DELHI DATED 02.03.2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003- 04. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE RE AD AS UNDER :- 1. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIR MING THE ACTION OF LD. A.O. IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.3,10,000/- U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIR MING THE ACTION OF LD. A.O. IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS.33,55,000/- O N ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOU NT. 3. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIR MING THE ACTION OF LD. A.O. IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.81,401/- AS LOSS IN TRADING AND HAS DENIED TO BE SET OFF IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS AGAINST SP ECULATIVE PROFIT. ITA NO.2605/DEL./2007 2 4. IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER AND IN ANY CASE, ADDIT IONS OF RS.3,10,000/-, RS.33,55,000/- AND RS.81,410/- ARE B AD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. THAT HAVING REGARD TO FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF A.O. IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234B AND 234D. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, MODI FY, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 2. AT THE OUTSET OF THE PLEADINGS, THE LEARNED AR S TATED THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING GROUND NO.3. HE ALSO STATED THAT THE GROU ND NOS.4 & 6 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE, HENCE NO NEED FOR ADJUDICATION. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE DISMISS GROUND NOS.3, 4 & 6. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A MEMBER OF NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE AND DOING THE BUSINESS OF SHARE BROKER. 3. IN THE GROUND NO.1, THE ISSUE RAISED IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.3,10,000/- U/S 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 4. LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE RELEVANT FI NANCIAL YEAR, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD RECEIVED FRESH LOANS FROM ITS DIRECTORS, I.E., SHRI SHIV KUMAR - RS.8,25,000/-, SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR - RS.7,80, 000/- & SHRI MADHUR AGGARWAL RS.8,70,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE LIEVED THE MAJORITY OF LOAN BUT MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.3,10,000/- BY HOLDI NG THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVED THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THESE LENDERS. THIS RS.3,10,000/- WAS CONSISTING LOAN OF RS.80,000/- FROM SUDHIR AGARWAL, RS.1,24,000/- FROM SHIV KUMAR AND RS.1,10,000/- FROM MADHUR AGARWAL. LEARN ED AR SUBMITTED THAT ITA NO.2605/DEL./2007 3 THE IDENTITY OF ALL THREE DEPOSITORS IS PROVED BEYO ND DOUBT. MAJOR PART OF THE LOAN RECEIVED FROM THESE PERSONS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AS GENUINE. THESE THREE PERSONS WERE ALSO DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY. THEY W ERE HAVING CAPACITY TO LOAN THE AMOUNT. THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THESE PER SONS WAS WELL ESTABLISHED. THE TRANSACTIONS WERE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND G ENUINE. THESE TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY THESE PERSONS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED THE EXISTENCE OF THE C REDITORS AND CREDITWORTHINESS THEREOF, THEN NO ADDITION IS CALLE D FOR. ASSESSEE HAD FULLY DISCHARGED THE ONUS IN RESPECT OF CREDITS OF THESE LOANS ENTERED INTO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ONUS HAS BEEN DISC HARGED BY ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF SOU RCE IN HANDS OF THE CREDITORS. FROM WHERE THESE CREDITORS ACQUIRED THE MONEY WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN THEIR ACCOUNT CANNOT BE EXPLAINED BY ASSESSEE. IT IS ALS O NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE ACCOUNT OF CREDITORS WERE FROM THE MONEY BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. HE ALSO PLEADED THAT IF THE CREDITORS ARE NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE IN THEIR ACCOUNTS THEN T HESE CREDITORS MAY BE SUBJECTED TO THE PROCEEDINGS FOR INCLUSION OF THE A MOUNTS IN THEIR INCOME FROM THE UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. IF THEY FOUND BENAMI THEN THE REAL OWNER CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH THIN G, NO ADDITION CAN BE SUSTAINED. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF CIT VS. METACHEM INDUSTRIES REPORTED IN 245 ITR 160 WHEREIN THERE WERE CASH CREDITS ITA NO.2605/DEL./2007 4 IN PARTNERS ACCOUNTS IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM; THE ENTRIES WERE TREATED AS EXPLAINED; NO ADDITION TO INCOME WAS SUS TAINED UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT ASK THE CREDITOR WHETHER THE AMOUNT LENT WAS PROPERLY TAXED OR NOT. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF ARAVALI TRADING CO. VS. ITO, (2008) 8 DTR 199 WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT O NCE THE EXISTENCE OF THE CREDITORS IS PROVED, THE ASSESSEES ONUS STANDS DIS CHARGED. THE DISBELIEVING OF THE DEPOSITORS ABOUT THE SOURCE OF MONEY CANNOT BE MADE BASIS FOR MAKING ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. H E ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEMI CHAND VS, CIT, 264 ITR 254. IN THAT CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE ESTABLISHED T HE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS AND THE ONUS WAS TREATED AS DISCHARGED UNDER SECTIO N 106 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT AND THE AMOUNTS COULD NOT BE INCLUDED AS HIS INCOME UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT EVEN WHEN THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SHO W CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SUB-CREDITORS. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE HOLD THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS RECEIVED FRESH LOANS DURING THE YEAR FROM THREE OF ITS DIREC TORS, I.E., SHRI SHIV KUMAR - RS.8,25,000/-, SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR - RS.7,80,000/- & SHRI MADHUR AGGARWAL RS.8,70,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE M AJORITY OF THE LOANS AS ITA NO.2605/DEL./2007 5 GENUINE BUT MADE THE ADDITION OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.8 0,000/- RECEIVED FROM SHRI SUDHIR AGGARWAL, RS.1,20,000/- FROM SHRI SHIV KUMAR AND RS.1,10,000/- FROM SHRI MADHUR AGGARWAL. THESE WERE THE AMOUNTS WHICH WERE DEPOSITED IN CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE CREDITORS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AN EXPLANATION TO EXPLAIN THE CREDITS IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE CREDITORS WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT ASSESSING OFFICER DIS-BELIEVED IT AND THE CIT (A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. WE HA VE CONSIDERED THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON AND ON THE BASIS OF RATIO DECIDED IN THESE CASE LAWS, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE IS COVERED BY THESE CASE L AWS. THE IDENTITY OF THESE DEPOSITS WAS NOT IN DOUBT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER H IMSELF HAS ADMITTED MAJORITY OF THE DEPOSITS AS GENUINE. HE ONLY DIS-B ELIEVED PART OF THE DEPOSITS WHICH HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THE BANKING CHANNEL BUT THERE WAS CASH DEPOSIT OF SIMILAR AMOUNT IN THE ACC OUNTS OF THE CREDITOR ON OR AROUND THE DATE ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE AMOUNT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED THE IDENTITY AND ALSO CREDITWOR THINESS OF THESE LENDERS, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ASKED TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF THE SOURCE OF THE CREDITORS. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD WHICH COULD SHOW THAT THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE CREDITORS WERE FROM THE MONEY BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. SIMILARLY, THE EXPLANATION ABOUT THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN THE CREDITORS ACCOUNT, IF NOT FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE, T HEN ALSO THE ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT MAY BE SU BJECTIVE TO THE PROCEEDINGS ITA NO.2605/DEL./2007 6 FOR INCLUSION OF THE AMOUNT AS INCOME OF THE DEPOSI TORS FROM THE UNDISCLOSED SOURCES OR IF THEY ARE FOUND BENAMI THEN THE REAL O WNER CAN BE BROUGHT TO THE TAX. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDE RS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THIS ISSUE. THUS, GROUND NO.1 IS ALLOWED. 7. IN THE GROUND NO.2, THE ISSUE IS REGARDING THE S USTENANCE OF ADDITION OF RS.33,55,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN THE A CCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE WAS A CASH DEPOSITS IN THE TWO BANK ACCOUNTS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE WITH CANARA BANK ACCOUNT NO.16642 AND INDIAN OVERSEAS BA NK ACCOUNT NO.1090. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AN EXPLANATION THAT THE AMOU NT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS ARE RECEIVED FROM THE DEBTORS/CLIENT AND A LSO CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE COMPANY WHICH HAVE BEEN ACC OUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THESE AM OUNTS WERE DULY REFLECTED IN THE CASH BOOK MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE CIT (A) WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM T HE PAGE 5 OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT (A). IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTE D THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 17.03.2006. IT WAS WELL- EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE MON EY WAS RECEIVED FROM THE DEBTORS/CLIENT AND FROM THE SELF WITHDRAWALS FROM T HE BANK OF THE COMPANY AND HAD BEEN DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ENTRY-WISE DETAILS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A UTHORITIES BELOW WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAGE NO.129 & 130 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHERE EXPLANATION REGARDING ITA NO.2605/DEL./2007 7 EACH AND EVERY ENTRY HAS BEEN GIVEN. THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DULY AUDITED AND AS PER FORM 3CD, THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINT AINING THE BOOKS LIKE LEDGER, CASH BOOK AND WHICH WERE PRODUCED BEFORE TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW FOR TEST CHECK. HE ALSO PLEADED THAT THERE WAS CASH WI THDRAWALS FROM THE BANK OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS NO ALLEGATION THAT THE MO NEY WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK WAS UTILIZED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE. THE REASO N FOR FREQUENT WITHDRAWAL AND DEPOSITS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS TO MAINTAIN N.S.E. MARGINS AND TO ENSURE THE CLEARANCE OF CHEQUES ISSUED. TO MEET SU CH AN EVENTUALITY, ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING CASH IN HAND. IN VIEW OF THIS, NO ADD ITION CAN BE MADE OR SUSTAINED. THE SMALL TIME GAP BETWEEN THE WITHDRAW ALS AND CORRESPONDING TO CASH DEPOSITS CANNOT BE MADE A BASIS FOR ADDITION. FOR THIS, HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI C BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT V S. BALDEV RAJ CHARLA & OTHERS REPORTED IN (2009) 121 TTJ 366. HE ALSO REL IED ON THE DECISION OF ITAT DELHI A BENCH IN THE CASE OF ANUPAMA CHAUDHA RY VS. ITO IN ITA NO.4155 (DEL.)/2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 DAT ED 27.12.2010. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE RELEVANT CASE LAWS RELIED UPON ON THIS ISSUE. WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESS EE WAS MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AN EXPLANATI ON THAT THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WERE OUT OF THE CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK AND CASH IN ITA NO.2605/DEL./2007 8 HAND AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO FROM THE ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM THE CLIENTS ENTERED INTO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ITA T DELHI A BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. BALDEV RAJ CHARLA & OTHERS, CITED SUPRA, HELD AS UNDER :- 27. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THIS EXPLANATIO N OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND CORRECT THAT AGAINST THESE FIVE DEPOSITS ON DT. 14TH JUNE, 1996, RS.31,000; 21ST JULY, 1997, RS.1,2 7,000; 18TH SEPT., 1997 RS.22,000; 4TH OCT., 1997, RS.26,000 AN D ON 7 TH NOV., 1997, RS.52,000/- THERE WERE SUFFICIENT CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM AWI AND FROM SBI, MAYAPURI, BUT THIS ADDITION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE BASIS THAT THERE IS TIME GAP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE'S WITHDRAWALS FROM HIS OWN PAR TNERSHIP M/S AWI OR FROM HIS OWN BANK., THERE IS FINDING REC ORDED BY THE LEARNED AO OR BY LEARNED CIT(A) THAT APART FROM DEPOSITING THESE CASH INTO BANK AS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS ANY OTHER USER BY THE ASSESSEE OF THESE AMOUNTS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT, SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE WAS A TIME GAP, THE EXPL ANATION OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE REJECTED AND HENCE THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT. WE, THEREFORE, D ELETE THE SAME. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ASSESSEE HAS TO MAINTAIN MARGINS WITH N.S.E. AT SHO RT NOTICE AND FOR THAT READY CASH IN HAND HAS TO BE MAINTAINED. SINCE THE DEPOSITS ARE FROM THE CASH BALANCE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF A CCOUNT, THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. THE AD DITION CANNOT BE MADE OR SUSTAINED ON THE BASIS THAT THERE WAS TIME GAP BETW EEN WITHDRAWAL AND DEPOSITS. WHEN CASH BALANCE IS AVAILABLE IN CASH B OOK MAINTAINED NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE. IN VIEW OF THIS FACTUAL POSITION, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALLOW THE GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. ITA NO.2605/DEL./2007 9 10. GROUND NO.5 IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234D OF INCOME-TAX ACT. CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234B IS MANDATORY IN VIEW OF DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANJUM M.H. GHASWALA 252 ITR 1 (SC). THUS, INTEREST SHALL BE CHARGEABLE U/S 234B OF INCOME-TAX ACT AND WE DISMISS THIS PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. 11 IN THIS CASE, THE INTEREST CHARGED UNDER SECTION 234D OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT WAS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. WE DECIDE THE ISSUE AS UNDER :- LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE S CASE PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, HENCE NO INTEREST COULD NO T BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 234D IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BEN CH OF ITAT (DELHI) IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. EKTA PROMOTERS P.LTD. (2008) 305 IT R (AT) 1 (DELHI)(SB). IN THIS CASE, THE QUESTION INVOLVED WAS REGARDING T HE CHARGEABILITY OF INTEREST U/S 234D IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. TH E TRIBUNAL OBSERVED THAT SECTION 234D INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT, 2003 W.E.F. 1 .6.2003, BEING SUBSTANTIVE IN NATURE HAS NO RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT, HENCE APPLICABLE FROM A.Y. 2004-05 AND INTEREST U/S 234D COULD NOT BE CHARGED FOR EARLIER A.YS EVEN THOUGH REGULAR ASSESSMENTS FOR SUCH EARLIER YEARS A RE FRAMED AFTER 1 ST JUNE, 2003 OR REFUND IS GRANTED FOR THOSE YEARS AFTER THE SAID DATE. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT S.234D WHICH WAS BROUGHT ON STATUTE W.E.F . 1.6.2003 CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE A.YS 2003-04 OR EARLIER YEARS, BUT I T WILL HAVE APPLICATION ONLY ITA NO.2605/DEL./2007 10 W.E.F. THE A.Y. 2004-2005. HE PLEADED TO DELETE T HE INTEREST CHARGED U/S 234D OF INCOME-TAX ACT. THE LEARNED DR FAIRLY CONC EDED ON THE ISSUE. IN THE INSTANT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR INVOLVED IS 2003-04 UNDER CONSIDERATION BEFORE US, THEREFORE, T AX AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234D FROM T HE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF S PECIAL BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF EKTA PROMOTERS (SUPRA). WE ORDER ACCOR DINGLY. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 5 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2011. SD/- SD/- (C.L. SETHI) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 5 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2011 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-XXX, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.