MANIBEN P. CHHEDA, MUMBAI V. ITO 14(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3724/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2977 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-04-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 10-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SINCE PARTIES ARE SAME; MATTER OF CO NTROVERSY IS ALSO
• Keywords: Business income; Business expenditure; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 234B; 27

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUM BAI . . , , !' #$, % , & BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM / I.T.A. NO.1706/MUM/2010 & I.T.A. NO. 3724/MUM/13 ( %' ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 & 2006-07) SMT. MANIBEN P. CHHEDA 296, OLD POST OFFICE LANE, MANGALDAS MARKET, MUMBAI - 400002 ' / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 14(3)(3) AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AACPC5479P ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / DATE OF HEARING: 01.04.2016 !' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29.06.2016 #$ / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE ABOVE MENTIONED TWO APPE ALS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.01.2010 AND 24.02.2010 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 25, MUMBAI [HE REINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO THE A.Y.2 005-06 & 2006-07. SINCE THE PARTIES ARE THE SAME AND THE MATTER OF CO NTROVERSY IS ALSO ASSESSEE BY: SHRI PRADIP N. KAPASI DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI N.P.SINGH ITA NO.1706&3724/M/10 A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 2 SAME, THEREFORE IN THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES THESE APP EALS ARE BEING TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR ADJUDICATION AND FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO.1706/MUM/2010 (2005-06):- 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL:- 1. TREATMENT OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. (A) THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED AO OF TREATING INCOME FROM H OUSE PROPERTY EARNED IN RESPECT OF THREE DIFFERENT PROP ERTIES AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE SAID PROPERTIES BUT THE TEN ANT OF THE SAID PROPERTY AND THE INCOME HAS DERIVED FROM SUB-L ETTING THE SAME TO DIFFERENT PARTIES. (B) YOUR APPELLANTS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT THE ASSES SEE BEING DEEMED OWNER OF THE SAID PROPERTIES IN TERMS OF S.2 7(IIIB) R.W.S269UA(F) AS THE SAID PROPERTIES WERE TAKEN ON LEASE FOR MORE THAN 12 YEARS AND AS SUCH, THE RENTAL INCOME F ROM THE SAID PROPERTIES SHOULD BE TAXED AS INCOME FROM HOU SE PROPERTY. (C) YOUR APPELLANTS PRAY THAT THE INCOME FROM THE SAID PROPERTIES OF RS.5,04,000/- BE CHARGED UNDER THE HE AD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND 30% DEDUCTION U/S.24 (A) BE GRANTED. 2. DISALLOWANCE OF EXPNESES OF RS.10,088/- AGAINST THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS.94,233/-. (A) THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE TREATMENT OF THE LEARNED AO OF DISALLOWING BUSINESS EXPENSES OF RS.10,088/- BY HOLDING THAT THE APPELLA NT IS NOT ENGAGED IN THE MONEY LENDING BUSINESS AS NO ADDITIO NAL LOANS WERE ADVANCED DURING THE YEAR BUT SHE CONTINU ED TO EARN INTEREST INCOME ON MONEY ADVANCED IN THE EARLI ER YEARS AND THAT SUCH ADVANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE OUT OF HER OWN CAPITAL. ITA NO.1706&3724/M/10 A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 3 (B) YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT SHE IS ENGAGED IN THE F INANCE & MONEY LENDING BUSINESS CARRIED ON FROM HER RESIDENC E AND THE EXPENSES ARE INCURRED FOR EARNING SUCH INCOME F OR SUCH BUSINESS. (C) YOUR APPELLANTS PRAY THAT INTEREST INCOME BE ASSESS ED AS BUSINESS INCOME AND EXPENDITURE OF RS.10,088/- BE A LLOWED WHILE COMPUTING BUSINESS INCOME. 3. SERIOUS VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE (A) THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRM ING THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED IN GROSS VIOLATION OF THE PROV ISIONS OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN AS MUCH AS HE DID NOT GIVEN ANY SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE THAT THE APPELLANT IS THE DEEM ED OWNER OF PROPERTIES AND HENCE, THE INCOME BE TAXABLE UNDE R INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY ELIGIBLE FOR STATUTORY DEDUCTIO N OF 30% AND ALSO FOR PROVING THAT SHE CONTINUES TO CONDUCT MONEY LENDING BUSINESS FOR WHICH BUSINESS EXPENDITURE ARE INCURRED. (B) YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT BEFORE TAKING DIFFE RENT VIEW OF THE MATTER AS SUBMITTED AND ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTM ENT IN EARLIER YEARS, THE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY SHOULD HA VE BEEN GIVEN TO HER. (C) YOUR APPELLANTS PRAY THAT AN ORDER OF ASSESSMEN T PASSED IN VIOLATIONS OF NATURAL JUSTICE BE QUASHED. 4. LEVY OF INTEREST U/S.234A, 234B AND 234C (A) THE CIT(A) ONCE AGAIN ERRED IN LAW IN CONFIRMIN G THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S.234A, 234B AND 234C B INCORRECT CALCUL ATIONS AND FURTHER ERRED IN LEVYING INTEREST WITHOUT GIVIN G ANY OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AND WITHOUT PASSING ANY SPEA KING ORDER. (B) YOUR APPELLANTS DENY ANY LIABILITY TO PAYMENT O F INTEREST AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE INTEREST CHARGED SUFFERED FRO M ERRORS IN CALCULATIONS AND FURTHER SUBMIT THAT THE INTERES T WAS CHARGED IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE NATUR AL JUSTICE IN AS MUCH AS NO OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING WAS GIVEN AND THAT NO ORDER WAS PASSED FOR LEVY OF INTEREST SUGGESTING LEVY OF INTEREST WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND TO THE FACTS O F THE CASE. ITA NO.1706&3724/M/10 A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 4 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS. 4,31,195/- ON 31.10.2005. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( IN SHORT THE ACT). THE CASE WAS SE LECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND NOTICE U/S.143(2) OF THE ACT DATED 2 6.10.2006 WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICE U/S.142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS AN INDIVIDUAL AND SHOWED HIS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY, BUSINESS AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. BUSINESS I NCOME HAS BEEN CLAIMED IN THE NATURE OF MONEY LENDING AND FINANCIN G BUSINESS. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO EARNED INTEREST ON CAPITAL WITH P ARTNERSHIP FIRM, M/S. SONA TEXTILES TO THE TUNE OF RS.4,029/-. DURI NG THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY TO THE TUNE OF RS.5,04,000/- FROM THE THREE DIFFERENT PROP ERTIES. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS THE TENANT OF THE SAID PREMIS ES WHICH HAS BEEN LET OUT TO DIFFERENT PARTIES. SINCE THE ASSESSEE W AS NOT OWNER IN VIEW OF THE SECTION 22 OF THE ACT, THEREFORE THE INCOME WAS NOT COUNTED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND WAS TAXED INCOME FRO M OTHER SOURCES AND NO DEDUCTION U/S.24(A) OF THE ACT WAS ALLOWED. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO RECEIVED THE INTEREST TO THE TUNE OF RS.94 ,233 ON ACCOUNT OF MONEY LENDING ACTIVITIES BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ADVANCE MONEY BUT HAS EA RNED INTEREST INCOME ON MONEY ADVANCED IN EARLIER YEARS, THEREFO RE, THE SAME WAS TREATED FROM MONEY LENDING BUSINESS AND WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM ITA NO.1706&3724/M/10 A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 5 OTHER SOURCES. THE ABOVE SAID FINDING OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING NOT SATISFIED BUT THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAID ORDER, THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. ISSUE NO.1 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEAR NED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECOR D. THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ARGUED THAT ON T HE ABOVE SAID ISSUES THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE ORDER DATED 03.01.2014 IN HIS FAVOUR RELEVANT A.Y.2007-08 AND THE DEPARTMENT DID NOT FIL E THE APPEAL, THEREFORE THE ORDER DATED 03.01.2014 HAS BECOME FIN AL, THEREFORE IN VIEW OF THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES THE APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE ACCEPTED IN TERMS FOR ORDER DATED 03.01.2014 IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y.2007-08. ON THE OTHER HAND THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN Q UESTION. BEFORE DISCUSSING THE MATTER OF CONTROVERSY WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO ADVERT THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) ON TH IS ISSUE ON RECORD:- 8. I HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSION AND VARIOUS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS PLACED BEFORE ME. THE A.O. HAS T RATED THE INCOME F ROM HOUSE PROPERTY DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT AS INCOME FROM O THER SOURCES ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE ITA NO.1706&3724/M/10 A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 6 CONCERNED PROPERTIES. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 27(IIIB) R.W.S269UA(F) , THE APPELLANT IS A DEEMED OWNER OF THE AFORESAID PROPER TIES AND HENCE, RENT INCOME RECEIVED THERE FROM, IS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 8.1 AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 22 OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 THE ANNUAL VALUE OF PROPERTY CONSISTING OF ANY BUILDINGS OR LANDS APPURTENANT THERETO OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS THE OWNER SHALL BE CHARGEABLE TO INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOM E FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. HENCE, FOR ANY RENT INCOME TO BE TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, THE AS SESSEE NEEDS TO BE THE OWNER OF THE SAID PROPERTY. SECTIO N 27 OF THE ACT, DEFINES THE TERM OWNER OF HOUSE PROPERTY AND CLAUSE (IIIB) OF SECTION 27 OF THE ACT STATES THAT A PERSO N WHO ACQUIRES ANY RIGHTS IN OR WITH RESPECT TO ANY BUILDING OR PA RT THEREOF, BY VIRTUE OF ANY SUCH TRANSACTION AS IS REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (F) OF SECTION 269UA, SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE OWNER OF T HAT BUILDING OR PART THEREOF. 8.2 IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE APPELLANT HAS ENTERED INTO LEASE AGREEMENTS IN RESPECT OF THE CONCERNED PROPERTIES F OR A PERIOD OF NOT LESS THAN 12 YEARS. THE APPELLANT HAS FURNI SHED COPIES OF LEASE AGREEMENTS AND RENT RECEIPTS IN SUPPORT OF IT S CLAIM. ON PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD, I OBSERV ED THAT THE ITA NO.1706&3724/M/10 A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 7 ASSESSEE THOUGH NOT AN OWNER OF THE PROPERTY BUT IS A DEEMED OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 27(IIIB) R.W.S269UA(F) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 AS THE ASSESSEE IS HOLDING THE AFORESAID PROPERTIES ON LEASE FOR A PER IOD OF MORE THAN 12 YEARS. 8.3 I ALSO FIND THAT THE JUDGMENT GIVEN BY MUMBAI I TAT IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. D.B.S. FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMI TED STRONGLY SUPPORTS THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT. IN THIS CASE HONBLE ITAT HAS HELD THAT UNDER S.27(IIB), FOR THE PURPOSES OF SS.22 TO 26 OWNER OF HOUSE PROPERTY IS DEFINED. THE AFORESAID PROVISION STIPULATES THAT A PERSON WHO AC QUIRES ANY RIGHTS BY VIRTUE OF ANY TRANSACTION REFERRED TO IN CL.(F) OF S.269UA, SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE OWNER AND ACCORD INGLY THE RELEVANT INCOME HAS TO BE TAXED AS INCOME FROM HOUS E PROPERTY. IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE RIGHTS HAVE BEEN ACQUIR ED UNDER A LEASE OR A SUB-LEASE, S.27(IIIB) SHALL APPLY. SEC. 27(IIIB) REFERS TO CL.(F) OF S.269UA WHICH APPLIES TO TRANSFER OF P ROPERTY BY WAY OF SALE OR EXCHANGE OR LEASE FOR A TERM OF NOT LESS THAN 12 YEARS. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED S UB-LEASE IN RESPECT OF DELHI PROPERTY AND LEASE IN RESPECT OF B ANGALORE PROPERTY FOR A PERIOD OF NOT LESS THAN 12 YEARS. A CCORDINGLY, THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF IT ACT REFERRED TO ABOVE WILL BE APPLICABLE. THE AGREEMENTS EXECUTED BETWEEN THE ASS ESSEE AND ITA NO.1706&3724/M/10 A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 8 THE SUB-LESSEES HAVE BEEN DULY ACTED UPON AND THE A SSESSEE IS RECEIVING RENTAL INCOME BY VIRTUE OF THESE AGREEMEN TS. SECTION 27(IIIB) WOULD APPLY IN THE PRESENT CASE. 8.4 THEREFORE, IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE JUDGEMENT AND VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION IS FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE AND RENT INCOME RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF T HE SAID PROPERTIES IS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HO USE PROPERTY. THEREFORE, DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. OF RS.1,02,465/- IN RESPECT OF STANDARD DEDUCTION @ 30 % OF ANNUAL VALUE IS, THUS, DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APP EAL IS, THUS ALLOWED. 4.1 THE DEPARTMENT HAS DEALT THE MATTER OF CONTROVE RSY IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y.2007-08. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE CIT(A) IN THE ASSESSEES O WN CASE, THE ASSESSEES INCOME FROM THE HOUSE PROPERTY WAS FOUND TO BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD OF INCOME FORM HOUSE PROPERTY. THES E FINDINGS WERE NOT CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE MEANING THEREBY THE R EVENUE HAS ACCEPTED THIS CONTENTION. NO DOUBT IN THE SAID CIR CUMSTANCES THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE TREATED AS U NDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE WO ULD ALSO TO BE ENTITLED FOR THE CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFIT AS PER LAW. ISSUE NO.2 & 3:- ITA NO.1706&3724/M/10 A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 9 5. THE ISSUE NO.2 & 3 ARE NOT PRESSED BY THE ASSESS EE, THEREFORE, THESE ISSUES ARE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE A GAINST THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.3724/MUM/2010 (2006-07):- 6. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS S TATED ABOVE, HOWEVER, THE FIGURES ARE DIFFERENT. THE MATTER OF CONTROVERSY IS ALSO THE SAME. 7. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL:- 1. TREATMENT OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. (A) THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED AO OF TREATING INCOME FROM H OUSE PROPERTY EARNED IN RESPECT OF THREE DIFFERENT PROP ERTIES AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE SAID PROPERTIES BU T THE TENANT OF THE SAID PROPERTY AND THE INCOME HAS DERI VED FROM SUB-LETTING THE SAME TO DIFFERENT PARTIES AND CONSE QUENTLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DENIAL OF STANDARD DEDUCTIO N U/S.24(A) OF RS.1,21,800/- BEING 30% OF CORRESPONDI NG AGGREGATE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE SAID PROPERTIES. (B) YOUR APPELLANTS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT THE ASSES SEE BEING DEEMED OWNER OF THE SAID PROPERTIES IN TERMS OF S.2 7(IIIB) R.W.S269UA(F) AS THE SAID PROPERTIES WERE TAKEN ON LEASE FOR MORE THAN 12 YEARS AND AS SUCH, THE RENTAL INCOME F ROM THE SAID PROPERTIES SHOULD BE TAXED AS INCOME FROM HOU SE PROPERTY. (C) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, YOUR APPELLANT SUBM ITS THAT THE PROPERTY AT KOYAJI CHAWL, BHOIWADA IS FULLY OWN ED BY HER WHOSE PROOFS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED AND HENCE NET RENT THEREOF OF RS.44,000 SHOULD BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND STANDARD DEDUCTION U/S.24(A) BE ALLOWED. ITA NO.1706&3724/M/10 A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 10 (D) YOUR APPELLANTS PRAY THAT THE INCOME FROM THE SAID PROPERTIES OF RS.4,06,000/- BE CHARGED UNDER THE HE AD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND 30% DEDUCTION U/S.24 (A) BE GRANTED. 2. SERIOUS VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE (A) THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRM ING THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED IN GROSS VIOLATION OF THE PROV ISIONS OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN AS MUCH AS ALL THE EVIDENCES AND PROOFS AND EXPLANATIONS OFFERED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARI NG WERE IGNORED AND PROCEEDED TO ASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME IN TOTAL DISREGARD OF SUCH EVIDENCES AND EXPLANATIONS AND IN MAKING ADDITIONS AND DISALLOWANCES ON THE BASIS OF SURMISE S AND CONJECTURES WITHOUT BRINGING ANY MATERIAL OF WHATSO EVER NATURE (B) YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAD VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF NATURAL JUSTICE BY N OT APPRECIATING AND INSTEAD IGNORING THE EVIDENCES PRO DUCED BEFORE HIM AND THE APPELLANT FURTHER SUBMITS THAT A LL THE PROOFS OF PROPERTY BEING OWNED FOR MORE THAN 12 YEA RS AND PROOF OF OWNERSHIP OF KOYAJI CHAWL WERE PRODUCED AN D WERE FURNISHED INCLUDING THOSE REQUIRED AS PER THE LAW. (C) YOUR APPELLANTS PRAY THAT AN ORDER OF ASSESSMEN T PASSED IN VIOLATIONS OF NATURAL JUSTICE BE QUASHED. 4. LEVY OF INTEREST U/S. 234B AND 234C (A) THE CIT(A) ONCE AGAIN ERRED IN LAW IN CONFIRMIN G THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S.234A, 234B AND 234C B INCORRECT CALCUL ATIONS AND FURTHER ERRED IN LEVYING INTEREST WITHOUT GIVIN G ANY OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AND WITHOUT PASSING ANY SPEA KING ORDER. (B) YOUR APPELLANT DENIES ANY LIABILITY TO PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE INTEREST CHARGED SUFFERED FROM ERRORS IN CALCULATIONS AND FURTHER SUBMIT THAT THE INTEREST WAS CHARGED IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE N ATURAL JUSTICE IN AS MUCH AS NO OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING WA S GIVEN AND THAT NO ORDER WAS PASSED FOR LEVY OF INTEREST S UGGESTING ITA NO.1706&3724/M/10 A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 11 LEVY OF INTEREST WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. (C) YOUR APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE INTEREST SO LEVIE D BE DELETED. ISSUE NO.1:- 8. THE MATTER OF CONTROVERSY UNDER THIS ISSUE HAS A LREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE NO.1 FOR THE A .Y.2005-06. FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE IN THIS YEAR ALSO ARE THE SAME. NOTHING DISTINGUISHABLE FACTS CAME INTO THE NOTICE BEFORE US. IN VIEW OF THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES THIS ISSUE HAS ALSO BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID TERMS AS DEC IDED BY US IN THE RELEVANT A.Y.2005-06. ISSUE NO.2 & 3:- 9. THE ISSUE NO.2 & 3 ARE NOT PRESSED BY THE ASSESS EE, THEREFORE, THESE ISSUES ARE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE A GAINST THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE HEREBY PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH JUNE , 2016. SD/- SD/- (R.C.SHARMA) (AMARJIT SINGH) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER %& # /JUDICIAL MEMBER ' ( MUMBAI; )# DATED : 29 TH JUNE, 2016 MP MP MP MP ITA NO.1706&3724/M/10 A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 12 * +%'#, -,(' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. * ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. * / CIT 5. -./ &&01 , 01' , ' ( / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. /34 5 / GUARD FILE. ' / BY ORDER, - & //TRUE COPY// ./$ ! /(DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ' ( / ITAT, MUMBAI