DCIT, UDAIPUR V. M/s. GLG Builders & Developers, UDAIPUR

ITA 374/JODH/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 37423314 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 07-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2013

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL: JODHPUR BENCH : JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA NOS.374 & 375/JODH/2013 (A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08) DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VS. M/S. GLG BUILDERS & UDAIPUR. DEVELOPERS, 1 ST FLOOR, 22, FATEHPUR, GLG COMPLEX, UDAIPUR. PAN NO. AAFFG 8674 B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NOS. 29 & 300/JODH/2013 (A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08) M/S. GLG BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS, VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, C/O SHRAWAN KUMAR GUPTA, UDAIPUR. ADVOCATE & TAX CONSULTANT, 416, SURYA CHAMBER, RADIO MARKET, NEHRU BAZAR, JAIPUR. PAN NO. AAFFG 8674 B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR GUPTA. DEPARTMENT BY : DR. DEEPAK SEHGAL - D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 07/05/2014. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13/06/2014. 2 O R D E R PER HARI OM MARATHA, J.M BOTH THE APPEALS BY THE DEPARTMENT PERTAIN TO A.YS . 2006-07 AND 2007-08 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RE SPECTIVE YEARS ARISE OUT OF COMMON ORDER DATED 26.3.2013 WHICH IS A COM MON ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), CENTRAL, JAIPUR AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF B Y THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONGRUENCE, BREVITY AND CONVENIENCE . 2. TO START WITH, WE WILL TAKE UP THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF ITA NO. 374/JU/2013 AND CROSS OBJECTION NO. 29/JU/2013 FOR A.Y. 2006-07. 2.1 THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (APPEALS), CENTRAL, JAIPUR HAS ERRED IN TRE ATING THE TRANSFER OF 50% OF THE PROPERTY OF THE FIRM TO ITS PARTNER JUST BEFORE ITS RECONSTITUTION AS A NORMAL BUSINESS TRANSACTION OF SALE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (APPEALS), CENTRAL, JAIPUR HAS ERRED IN NOT APP LYING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 45 (4) OF THE IT ACT ON THE E NTIRE 3 EXERCISE OF RECONSTITUTION OF FIRM INCLUDING THE TR ANSFER OF 50% OF THE PROPERTY TO A PARTNER IN THE GUISE O F SALE, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KAPOORCHAND SRIMAL VS. CIT (131 ITR 431 ) HAS HELD THAT APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS THE JURISDICTION AS WELL AS THE DUTY TO CORRECT ALL ERRORS IN THE PROCE EDINGS UNDER THE APPEAL. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (APPEALS), CENTRAL, JAIPUR HAS ERRED IN IGNORI NG THE FINDING OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. A. N. NAYAK (265 ITR 246/MUMBAI), WHEREIN I T IS HELD THAT THE EXPRESSION 'OTHERWISE' IN SECTION 45 (4) OF THE IT ACT TAKES WITHIN ITS SWEEP NOT ONLY THE CASE S OF DISSOLUTION, BUT ALSO THE CASES OF SUBSISTING P ARTNERS OF PARTNERSHIP TRANSFERRING ASSETS IN FAVOUR OF RETIRING PARTNERS. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (APPEALS), CENTRAL, JAIPUR HAS ALSO ERRED IN NO T CONSIDERING THE RECENT DECISION OF HON'BLE IT AT, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF OM NAMAH SHIVAY BUILDER S & DEVELOPERS, ITA NO. 3053/MUM/2008 IN WHICH BY FOLLOWING DECISIONS OF VARIOUS COURTS AND ANA LYZING THE LEGAL PROVISION IT IS HELD THAT THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 45 (4) OF THE IT ACT ARE APPLICABLE IN RESP ECT OF 4 WORK IN PROGRESS OF THE FIRM ALSO IRRESPECTIVE OF T HE FACT THAT VALUATION OF WORK IN PROGRESS WAS DONE AT THE COST ONLY. 5 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE ID. CIT(A), CENTRAL, JAIPUR HAS ERRED IN DELETING T HE TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 37,75,738/- HOLDING THAT 'T HE ACTION OF THE AO IN ADOPTING PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD AND REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED'. 2.2 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS I N ITS CROSS OBJECTION: 1.1. THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153C DATED 27/12/2011 IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION AND FOR VARIOUS OTHER REASONS AND HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 1.2 THE ID. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WEL L AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A O IN TAKING THE ACTION U/S 153C AND ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U /S 153C WHICH WAS BAD IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS O F THE CASE FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION AND FOR VARIOUS OTHER REASONS AND HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 2.1 THE ID. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN MAKING THE TRADING 5 ADDITION WITHOUT INVOKING THE PROVISION OF S. 145(3 ). FURTHER IF IT IS DEEMED THAT THE ID. AO HAS INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF S. 145(3) THEN THE ID AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS IN INVOKING THE PROVISI ONS OF S. 145(3). THE PROVISION OF 145(3) SO INVOKED (IF A NY INDIRECTLY) BY THE AO, BEING CONTRARY TO THE PROVIS IONS OF LAW, HENCE RIGHTLY QUASHED BY THE ID. CIT(A). 3. THE ID. AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON T HE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234ABC. THE APPELLANT TOTALLY DENIES IT LIABILITY OF CHARGING O F ANY SUCH INTEREST. THE INTEREST, SO CHARGED, BEING CON TRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS, MAY KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 3. THE ASSESSEE M/S GLG BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS CAR RIED ON BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE/CONSTRUCTION AS ITS NAME SUGGESTS. SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE RESIDENTIAL AS WE LL AS BUSINESS PREMISES OF SHRI S.Z. ALAUM ON 6.10.2009 U/S 132 OF THE INCO ME-TAX ACT, 1961 ['THE ACT', FOR SHORT]. DURING THIS SEARCH, VARIOUS INCR IMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. IN FACT, SHRI S.Z. ALAUM, HIS WI FE AND HIS NEPHEW ADIL RIZVI ARE THE PARTNERS IN THE ASSESSEE-FIRM. THIS FIRM HAS DEVELOPED A COMPLEX WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN THE NAME AS M/S GLG CO MPLEX. IN THE CASE OF SHRI S.Z. ALAUM, ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A OF THE ACT WAS 6 INITIATED FOR A.YS. 2004-05 TO 2009-10. DURING ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CASE IT WAS NOTICED THAT MONEY SEIZE D, MATERIAL/ INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE FIRM. A SUR VEY ACTION U/S 133A OF THE ACT WAS ALSO CARRIED OUT AT THE BUSINESS PREMIS ES OF M/S GLG BUILDERS AND S Q CONSTRUCTION AND REAL ESTATE ON 6.10.2009. DURING THIS SURVEY ALSO CERTAIN INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND IMPOUNDED AS ANNEXURE AS-1 TO AS-4. BUT DURING THE POST SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AND VERIFICATION, IT WAS FOUND THAT ALL THE ABOVE SEIZE D DOCUMENTS ARE RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE-FIRM. THE MAIN PARTNER SHRI S.Z. A LAUM IN HIS STATEMENT U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT HAS ADMITTED THAT THESE ANNEX URES CONTAINED DETAILS OF PROPERTIES PURCHASED AND SOLD WHICH INCLUDED SHO PS AND FLATS BY THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S GLG BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS. HOWEVER, HE HAS STATED THAT ALL THESE DOCUMENTS FOUND SHALL BE EXPL AINED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AFTER ISSUING REQUISITE NO TICES IN RESPECT OF A.Y. 2006-07 AND WITH REGARD TO THE RETURN FILED IN RESP ONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153C OF THE ACT FILED ON 30.3.2011 WHICH IS SAM E AS WAS FILED ON 1.7.2006 ORIGINALLY RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE RECORDS WHICH WERE GATHERED DURING THE POST SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, I T WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE-FIRM CONSISTED THREE PARTNERS NAMELY, SHRI GOVIND AGARWAL, SMT. MANI AGARWAL AND SHRI LAL SINGHVI WHO HAD RETIRED A ND IN THEIR PLACE SHRI 7 S.Z. ALAUM AND SMT. ZAREEN HUMA AND ADIL RIZVI ENTE RED INTO PARTNERSHIP. ON THIS OCCASION, THE ASSESSEE-FIRM T RANSFERRED 50% OF LAND ON WHICH CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL FLATS FOR RS. 95 LAKHS VIDE CONVEYANCE DEED DATED 25.2.2006 AND THIS SUM WAS CREDITED IN T HE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF SHRI GOVIND AGARWAL. HOWEVER, THE SUB-REGISTRAR VA LUED THIS LAND AT RS. 1,27,01,500/- WITH REFERENCE TO SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. BUT THIS MOVE OF THE A.O. WAS REFUTED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER D ATED 24.8.2011 STATING THAT PROPERTIES PURCHASED/SOLD ARE IN THE TRADING A CCOUNT ACTIVITIES OF THE REGULAR BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND THEREFORE , PROVISIONS RELATED TO CAPITAL GAIN WOULD NOT APPLY INCLUDING PROVISIONS O F SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. THE A.O. WAS NOT AGREEABLE. HE HAS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE- FIRM ORIGINALLY CAME INTO EXISTENCE VIDE PARTNERSHI P DEED DATED 11.8.2003 WHERE SHRI S.Z. ALAUM HAD 18%, SHRI GOVIND AGARWAL HAD 35%, SMT. MANI AGARWAL HAD 23%, SHRI LAL SINGH SINGHVI HAD 9% AND SMT. ZAREEN HUMA HAD 15%. CAPITAL WAS CONTRIBUTED BY ALL PARTNERS AND L AND SITUATED AT FATEHPURA WERE PURCHASED BY MAKING DIRECT PAYMENTS TO THE SELLERS FROM THE INDIVIDUAL BANK ACCOUNT OF THE PARTNERS. THUS ALL THE PARTNERS CONTRIBUTED THEIR CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION BY GIVING LA ND TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM WHICH HAS BECOME A CAPITAL AMOUNT OF THE FIRM. THI S AMOUNT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY TRANSFERRED TO SHRI GOVIND AGARWAL BY CONVEYANCE DEED. 8 THIS EXERCISE HAS BEEN TREATED BY THE A.O. AS A MOV E TO AVOID TAX LIABILITY. THE A.O. HAS NOT ACCEPTED THAT THE LAND IS NOT STOCK IN TRADE BUT AS CAPITAL ASSET OF THE FIRM AND ON THE SALE OF WHICH CHARGING OF CAPITAL GAIN WOULD ARISE. HE HAS OBSERVED THAT THE TRANSFER OF LAND BY THE ASSESSEE-FIRM TO ITS PARTNER SHRI GOVIND AGARWAL IS OF CAPITAL NATURE AND IS TAXABLE UNDER THE ACT, MORE SPECIFICALLY, SHORT TER M CAPITAL GAIN AS TRANSFER TOOK PLACE WITHIN THREE YEARS. SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN HAS BEEN WORKED OUT AT RS. 56,83,495/- [RS. 1,27,01,500/- M INUS RS. 70,18,005/-]. TOTAL COST OF THE LAND HAS BEEN TAKEN AT RS. 1,40,3 6,010/- AS 50% HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO SHRI GOVIND AGARWAL. ACCORDING LY, ADDITION OF RS. 56,83,495/- HAS BEEN MADE AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAI N. FURTHER, THE FIRM IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF MULTI -STORIED COMPLEXES. THE PERIOD TAKEN IN COMPLETION OF SUCH BIG COMPLEXE S WOULD FALL IN VARIOUS YEARS. THEREFORE, THE ACCOUNTING FOR CONST RUCTION BY ALLOCATING REVENUE AND COST IN THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING PERIOD RECOGNIZED ON THE BASIS OF PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD WAS TAKEN TO BE MORE RELEVANT. THE A.O. SOUGHT EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER IT HAD ADOPTED PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD AS PER AS-7 AN D AS-9 TO COMPUTE PROFIT OR NOT. BUT HE A.O. HAS FOUND THAT THE APPL ICATION OF PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD IN THIS CASE IS MORE APT. FURTHE R INFORMATION WAS 9 GATHERED FROM THE ASSESSEE REGARDING PURCHASE AND S ALE OF FLATS/SHOPS, ETC. AFTER MAKING IN-DEPTH INVESTIGATION THE A.O. HAS COMPUTED TOTAL SALE PRICE FLOOR WISE WHICH COMES TO RS. 5,55,92,24 2/-. FINALLY, THE A.O. HAS APPLIED AS-7 TO COMPUTE ACTUAL PROFIT OF THE AS SESSEE FIRM FOR A.Y. 2005-06 TO 2010-11 CONSIDERING SALES OF SHOPS/FLATS AS STATED ABOVE AND PERCENTAGE COMPLETION OF PROJECT AT 100% AND PROFIT WORKED OUT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX AS UNDER: A.Y. COST DECLARED BY ASSESSEE LAND COST TOTAL COST % CO MPL ETE D PROPORTIO NATE SALE PROFIT PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE PROFIT TO BE ADDED 2005 - 06 1718480 416128 2134608 6 3238218 1103610 0 1103610 2006 - 07 8192839 1983886 10176725 28 15438175 5261451 1485713 3775738 2007 - 08 10905524 2640759 13546283 37 20549823 7003540 1001025 6002515 2008 - 09 4800459 1157311 5957770 16 9005943 3048174 821352 2226822 2009 - 10 3059962 735821 3795783 10 5726001 193218 1413537 516681 3.1 FINALLY THE A.O. HAS COMPUTED THE ASSESSEES TO TAL INCOME AS UNDER: RETURNED INCOME 178173 ADD: - STCG AS PER PARA.9 5683495 ADD: - AS PER PARA NO.10 3775738 TOTAL ASSESSED INCOME 9637406 ROUNDED OFF 9637410 10 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL AND THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 45(4) OF THE ACT WILL NOT APP LY TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE AND HE HAS ALSO DELETED THE TRADING ADDITION O F RS. 37,75,738/- HOLDING THAT THE ADOPTION OF PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD AND REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 3.2 THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN LEGAL GROUND AND HAS CHA LLENGED THE VERY FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 153C R.W.S 143(3) O F THE ACT AND HAS ALSO CHALLENGED THE APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT FOR MAKING TRADING ADDITIONS AND HAS ALSO DISPUTED CHAR GING OF INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE CAR EFULLY PERUSED THE ENTIRE MATERIAL ON RECORD. DURING HEARING, THE LD. A.R. SHRI SHRAWAN KUMAR GUPTA DID NOT PRESS LEGAL GROUNDS RAISED IN H IS CROSS OBJECTION. THEREFORE, GROUNDS RAISED IN CROSS OBJECTION STAND DISMISSED. 4.1 BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE REITERATED THEIR EARLIER ARGUMENTS BEFORE US. 11 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE HAVE FOUND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF CAPITAL GAIN WOULD NOT BE ATTRACTED I N THIS CASE. FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THIS VERY TRIBUNAL TAKEN IN SIMILAR CASES WHICH ARE AS UNDER: VI) IT MAY ALSO BE MENTIONED THAT IN THE SIMILAR FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE HON. JURISDICTIONAL ITAT IN T HE CASE OF M/S. UNIQUE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS VS. DCIT, CC -2, JAIPUR IN ITAS NO. 73 TO 77/JPR/2012, 689 TO 690/JP /12 AND 208 TO 215/JP/12 VIDE ORDER DATED 14/03/2013 DELETE D THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY REJECTING THE STAND OF T HE AO ADOPTING PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD AND REJECTION OF BALANCE SHEET U/S 145(3) OF IT ACT. VII) THE HON. ITAT, JODHPUR IN SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE CASE OF M/S. SURYA ESTATE IN I TA NO. 505/10-11 AND 510/10-11 VIDE THEIR ORDER DATED 21/11/2012. AGAIN REJECTED THE ACTION OF THE AO /C IT(A) IN DETERMINATION OF INCOME BY SUBSTITUTING PROJECT COM PLETION METHOD TO PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DISC USSED ABOVE AND PLACING RELIANCE ON THE CASE LAWS DISCUSS ED ABOVE OF VARIOUS COURTS AND JURISDICTIONAL ITAT, THE ACTI ON OF THE AO IN ADOPTING PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD AND REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AMOUNTING TO R S. 12 3775738/- FOR A.Y. 2006-07 AND RS. 6002514/- FOR A. Y. 2007-08 ARE ACCORDINGLY DELETED. THEREFORE, GROUND NOS. 1 TO 5 OF REVENUES APPEAL C ANNOT BE ALLOWED. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE STAND DISMISSED. ITA NO. 375/JU/2013 & CO NO. 30/JU/2013 7. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A), CENTRAL, JAIPUR HAS ERRED IN DELETING T HE TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 64,38,280/- HOLDING THAT THE ACTIO N OF AO IN ADOPTING PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD AND REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 7.1 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS I N ITS CROSS OBJECTION: 13 1.1 THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) R .W.S. 153C DATED 27/12/2011 IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION AND FOR VARIOUS OTHER REASONS AND HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 1.2 THE ID. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WEL L AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A O IN TAKING THE ACTION U/S 153C AND ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U /S 153C WHICH WAS BAD IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS O F THE CASE OF FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION AND FOR VARIOUS OT HER REASONS AND HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 2.1 THE ID. AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN MAKING THE TRADING ADDITION WITHOUT INVOKING THE PROVISION OF S. 145(3 ). FURTHER IF IT IS DEEMED THAT THE ID. AO HAS INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF S. 145(3) THEN THE ID AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS IN INVOKING THE PROVISI ONS OF S. 145(3). THE PROVISION OF 145(3) SO INVOKED (IF A NY INDIRECTLY) BY THE AO, BEING CONTRARY TO THE PROVIS IONS OF LAW, HENCE RIGHTLY QUASHED BY THE ID. CIT(A). 3. THE ID. AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS O N THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234ABC. THE AP PELLANT TOTALLY DENIES IT LIABILITY OF CHARGING OF ANY SUCH INTEREST. THE INTEREST, SO CHARGED, BEING CONTRARY TO 14 THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS, MAY KINDLY BE DELE TED IN FULL. 8. FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND GROUNDS IN THIS YEAR AR E EXACTLY SIMILAR TO THE EARLIER A.Y. 2006-07. THEREFORE, WITH SIMILAR REASONING, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL AS WELL AS THE CROSS OBJECTION. 8.1 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WEL L AS THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE STAND DISMISSED. 9. TO SUM UP, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS BOTH THE CROSS OBJECTIONS STAND DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 13 TH JUNE, 2014). SD/- SD/- (N.K.SAINI) (HARI OM MARATHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 13 TH JUNE, 2014. VL/ 15 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE LD.CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE D.R ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, JODHPUR.