Kisan Discretionary Family Trust, Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT.,Circle-10, Ahmedabad

ITA 4143/AHD/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73027 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 30-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 19-11-2007
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BATHEJA
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 43B; 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD . .. . . . . . , , , , ! '# ! '# ! '# ! '#, ,, , $ $ $ $ BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ././ ./ ITA NO. 4143/AHD/2007 & '& & '& & '& & '& / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 KISAN DISCRETIONARY FAMILY TRUST NIRMA HOUSE, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD. PAN: AAACB4694E VS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10, AHMEDABAD. ()/ APPELLANT *+() / RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SH. O.P. BATHEJA, SR. D.R. ASSESSEE(S) BY : SH. S.N. SOPARKAR ALONGWITH URVASHI SHODHAN, AR !, - #./ // / DATE OF HEARING : 30/01/2014 /0' - #. / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 03 21/02/2014 1 1 1 1/ // / O R D E R PER SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A)- II, AHMEDABAD DATED 05.09.2007. 2. GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND HENCE, REQUIRES NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION BY US. 3. GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL READS AS UNDER: IN LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELL ANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING ISSU E OF NOTICE U/S.148 OF I.T. ACT. ITA NO.4143/AHD/2007 KISAN DISCRETIONARY FAMILY TRUST VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 0, AHD. FOR A.Y. 2000-01 - 2 - 4. GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL READS AS UNDER: IN LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELL ANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING RE-A SSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF I.T. ACT. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING GROUND NO. 2 AND 3 OF THE APPEAL AS QU OTED ABOVE. HENCE, THEY ARE DISMISSED AS NON-PRESSED. 6. GROUND NO. 4 OF THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF BONUS OF RS 91, 50,000/- U/S 43B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 7. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID BONUS EXPENSES OF RS 91,5 0,000/- BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE C LAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE RUNNING BUSINESS OF KISA N INDUSTRIES OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PURCHASED BY NIRMA LIMITED ON 28.03.20 00. KISAN INDUSTRIES HAD MADE PROVISION OF RS 91,50,000/- TOWARDS BONUS FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1999-2000 IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. NIRMA LIMITED H AD MADE THE PAYMENT OF RS 91.98 LAKHS ON 25.10.2000. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R OBSERVED THAT THE LIABILITY OF THE BONUS HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO NIRM A LIMITED WHO PURCHASED THE BUSINESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, BONUS EXPENSE CA N BE ALLOWED IF IT IS ACTUALLY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FIRST SOLD THE RUNNING BUSINESS ALONGW ITH ASSETS AND LIABILITIES AND THE UNPAID LIABILITY WAS TRANSFERRED TO NIRMA L IMITED. AT THE TIME OF MAKING PAYMENT, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING ANY LIA BILITY TO THE EMPLOYEES. CONSIDERING THIS ASPECT, IT WAS HELD TH AT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE CLAIM. ITA NO.4143/AHD/2007 KISAN DISCRETIONARY FAMILY TRUST VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 0, AHD. FOR A.Y. 2000-01 - 3 - 8. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT NIRMA LIMITED HAD PAID THE BONUS BEFORE THE DUE DATE. THE REQUIREMEN T WAS THAT THE BONUS HAS TO BE PAID BEFORE DUE DATE OF RETURN AS PER SEC TION 43B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND THUS, THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 43B WA S FULFILLED. IT WAS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF BUSINESS TO NIRMA LIMITED THAT T HE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE TO MAKE THE PAYMENT BUT NIRMA LIMITED WAS LIABLE TO MAKE PAYMENT. NIRMA LIMITED BEING SUCCESSOR OF THE BUSINESS, THE EFFECT IVE PAYMENT WAS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, OPINED THAT THIS ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT T ENABLE. ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, LI ABILITY OF BONUS WAS ADMISSIBLE ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE THE PAYM ENT BEFORE THE DUE DATE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE THE PAYMENT BEFORE THE DUE DATE, IT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION FOR THE SAME. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE INCURRED LIABILITY FOR MAKING PAYMENT OF BONUS OF RS 91,50,000/- UPTO 28.03.2000 IN RESPECT OF ITS BU SINESS CARRIED ON UNDER THE NAME KISAN INDUSTRIES. FURTHER, THE SAID BUS INESS UNDER THE NAME KISAN INDUSTRIES WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE ON 28.0 3.2000 TO M/S NIRMA LIMITED AND M/S NIRMA LIMITED UNDERTOOK THE LIABILI TY OF BONUS OF RS 91,50,000/-. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE TH AT BONUS OF RS 91,50,000/- WAS PAID TO EMPLOYEES ON 25.10.2000 BY THE SAID NIR MA LIMITED AND THE PAYMENT SO ACTUALLY PAID ON 25.10.2000 WAS WITHIN T HE DUE DATE SPECIFIED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. ON THE ABOVE FACTS IN THE A SSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAI M OF DEDUCTION BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF BONUS OF RS 91,50,000/- BY I NVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE PAYME NT OF BONUS WAS NOT ITA NO.4143/AHD/2007 KISAN DISCRETIONARY FAMILY TRUST VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 0, AHD. FOR A.Y. 2000-01 - 4 - MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND SECONDLY, WHEN THE PAYMENT OF BONUS WAS ACTUALLY MADE, IT WAS NOT THE LIABILITY OF THE ASSE SSEE AS THE LIABILITY OF THE BONUS BEFORE THAT DATE WAS TAKEN OVER BY M/S NIRMA LIMITED. 11. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 12. WE FIND THAT SECTION 43B PROVIDES THAT IRRESPEC TIVE OF SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE, DEDUCTION IN R ESPECT OF EXPENDITURE OF BONUS WILL BE LIABLE IN THE YEAR OF ITS ACTUAL PAYM ENT. HOWEVER, AN EXCEPTION HAS BEEN CARVED OUT IN THE SECTION SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT DEDUCTION CAN BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR IN WHICH SUCH E XPENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER ITS SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING IF ACTUAL PAYMENT OF BONUS IS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE DUE DATE SPECIFI ED U/S 139(1) AND EVIDENCE OF SUCH PAYMENT IS FURNISHED ALONG WITH TH E RETURN OF INCOME. THUS, THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ABOVE PROVISION IS THAT DEDUCTION IS TO BE ALLOWED IN THE YEAR OF ACTUAL PAYMENT WITH THE E XCEPTION THAT THE DEDUCTION CAN BE ALLOWED IN THE YEAR OF INCURRING O F EXPENDITURE WHERE SUCH PAYMENT IS MADE WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT SPECIFIED U/S 139(1) IN THE YEAR OF THE EXPENDITURE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE LIABILITY OF BONUS FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS LEGALLY LIABLE WAS TAKEN OVER UNDER CO NTRACT BY M/S NIRMA LIMITED AND THE SAID M/S NIRMA LIMITED DISCHARGED T HE SAID LEGAL LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. ON THE ABOVE UNDISPUTED FACTS, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE DECIS ION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS CLEARLY UNSUSTAINABLE. IF THE INTER PRETATION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE TAKEN AS CORRECT, THEN IT WILL LEAD TO A SITUATION WHERE THOUGH THE BONUS IS ACTUALLY PAID TO THE EMPLOYEES AND THE LEGAL LIABILITY OF MAKING PAYMENT OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISCHARGED, YET THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT BE GRANTED DEDUCTION FOR THE SAID LIABILITY OR EXPENDI TURE IN ANY YEAR I.E. THE YEAR OF INCURRING OF THE LIABILITY OR THE YEAR OF A CTUAL PAYMENT OF THE LIABILITY. ITA NO.4143/AHD/2007 KISAN DISCRETIONARY FAMILY TRUST VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 0, AHD. FOR A.Y. 2000-01 - 5 - THIS CANNOT BE THE INTENTION OF THE PROVISION OF SE CTION 43B. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE LIABILITY OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACTUALLY DISCHARGED ON 25.10.2000 WHEN M/S NIRMA LIMITED PAID THE LIABILIT Y OF THE ASSESSEE ON ITS BEHALF. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED FOR D EDUCTION IN RESPECT OF BONUS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE, THE REFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THIS ISSUE AND D ELETE THE ADDITION OF RS 91,50,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BONUS AND ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 13. GROUND NO. 5 OF THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE EXCLUSION OF THE AMOUNT OF RS 1,12,62,393/- BEING FIXED DEPOSIT INTEREST INCOME AND BANK COMMISSION W HILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE U/S 80IA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 14. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT EXCLUDED INTEREST INCOME OF RS 112.62 LAKHS FROM ELIGIBLE PROFITS WHILE CALCULATING DEDUCTION U/S 80 IA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THIS INCOME WAS NOT DERIVED FROM THE BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER THAT THE INTEREST INCOME WAS EARNED ON BANK FIXED DEPOSIT BY THE ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING. THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING OVERDRAFT FAC ILITY AGAINST FIXED DEPOSIT AND HENCE, INTEREST INCOME EARNED FROM THE FIXED DEPOSIT WAS THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THE SAME WAS TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSING OF FICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE INTEREST INCOME AND INTEREST EXPENSES. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE INTER EST INCOME CONSISTED MAINLY OF INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSIT AND BANK COMMIS SION WHICH CAN NEVER BE CONSIDERED AN INCOME DERIVED FROM THE BUSINESS OF T HE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PANDIAN CHEMICALS LIMITED VS. CIT (2003) 26 2 ITR 278 (SC). THE ITA NO.4143/AHD/2007 KISAN DISCRETIONARY FAMILY TRUST VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 0, AHD. FOR A.Y. 2000-01 - 6 - ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE CLAIM A BOUT NETTING OFF OF INTEREST WAS ALSO NOT ACCEPTABLE AS INTEREST WAS EARNED ON F IXED DEPOSIT WHEREAS INTEREST EXPENSES ARE NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO EARNI NG OF THIS INCOME. IT IS ALSO NOT A CASE WHERE FIXED DEPOSITS ARE MADE OUT O F BORROWED FUNDS. HENCE, HE HELD THAT THIS INCOME WAS NOT AN INCOME D ERIVED FROM BUSINESS AND DISALLOWED DEDUCTION. 15. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT AS PER ASSESSMENT DETAILS AVAILABLE, THE ASSESSEE HAD INCU RRED INTEREST EXPENSE OF RS 908.36 LAKHS, HENCE INTEREST INCOME SHOULD BE SE T OFF AGAINST SUCH INTEREST EXPENDITURE. 16. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION S OF THE ASSESSEE, OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY POI NTED OUT THAT INTEREST EXPENSES CANNOT BE CO-RELATED WITH THE INTEREST INC OME. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PANDI AN CHEMICALS LIMITED (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT INCOME WHICH IS NOT DERIVED F ROM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. SINCE INTEREST INCOME WAS EARNED FROM THE FIXED DEPOSIT K EPT WITH THE BANK, THEREFORE IT WAS NOT AN INCOME DERIVED FROM THE ELI GIBLE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED NEXUS BETWEEN INTEREST INCOME AND EXPENSES AND THEREFORE, RATIO OF THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF LALSON S ENTERPRISES VS. DCIT (2004) 89 ITD 25 WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE INTEREST INCO ME AND INTEREST EXPENDITURE, AND THEREFORE, NETTING OFF INTEREST IN COME WITH INTEREST EXPENDITURE WAS ALSO NOT ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE HENCE THE LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.4143/AHD/2007 KISAN DISCRETIONARY FAMILY TRUST VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 0, AHD. FOR A.Y. 2000-01 - 7 - 17. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISI ON OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSELF IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996 -97 IN ITA NO. 452 AND 608/AHD/200 AND IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 IN I TA NO. 796/AHD/2004 AND C.O. NO. 158/AHD/2007 CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 31.07.2009 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER: 20. THE NEXT COMMON ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL AND CO O F THE ASSESSEE IS AS REGARDS TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE EXCLUSION OF THE FOLLOWING INCOMES, WHILE ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80I A OF THE ACT. I) F.D. INTEREST RS 3,77,106/- II) F.D. INTEREST AGAINST L/C MARGIN RS 16,59,000/ - III) RENT INCOME RS 12,000/- IV) SERVICE CHARGES RS 12,000/- V) INSURANCE CLAIM RS 1,06,046/- 21. AT THE OUTSET LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REQU IRED ONLY NETTING SHOULD BE ALLOWED OUT OF THESE INCOMES AND LD. DR H AS NOT OBJECTED TO THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO PROVE THE NEXUS OF EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING THESE INCOMES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL ALLOW NETTING ONLY. IN VIEW OF THIS PRINCIPLE, THIS ISSUE IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. ACCORDINGLY, THIS ISSUE OF ASSESSEES APPEAL AND CO IS ALLOWED FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSES. 18. THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(A). 19. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN T HE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE DERIVED INTEREST INCOME OF RS 1,12,62,393/ - ON FIXED DEPOSITS MADE BY IT WITH THE BANK. WE FIND THAT THE DECISIO N OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT SUCH INTEREST INCOME EARNED ON FIXED DEPOSIT W ITH BANK CANNOT BE HELD AS DERIVED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT IS TO BE UPHELD IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PANDIAN CHEMICALS LIMITED VS. CIT (2 003) 262 ITR 278 (SC). ITA NO.4143/AHD/2007 KISAN DISCRETIONARY FAMILY TRUST VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 0, AHD. FOR A.Y. 2000-01 - 8 - 20. BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISIO N OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-9 7 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT NETTING OFF OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE W ITH INTEREST INCOME SHALL BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE IF THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO PROVE THE NEXUS BETWEEN THEM. WE FIND THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, BOTH THE L OWER AUTHORITIES HAVE GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THAT ANY EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR EARNING INTEREST INCOM E ON FIXED DEPOSIT WITH BANK. BEFORE US ALSO, NO MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT BY T HE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT ANY INTEREST EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY IT FOR EAR NING INTEREST INCOME ON FIXED DEPOSIT WITH BANK. IN ABSENCE THEREOF, WE DO NOT FIND ANY GOOD REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITI ES ON THIS ISSUE. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED AND THE GR OUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 21. GROUND NO. 6 OF THE APPEAL READS AS UNDER: IN LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELL ANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS GR OSSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT WITHDRAWAL OF INTEREST U/S.244A OF I.T . ACT IS CONSEQUENTIAL. 22. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSES SEE DID NOT MAKE ANY SUBMISSIONS, THEREFORE THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 23. GROUND NO. 7 READS AS UNDER: IN LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELL ANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS GR OSSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT LEVY OF INTEREST U/S. 234A, 234B, 234C AND 234D OF I.T. ACT IS CONSEQUENTIAL. ITA NO.4143/AHD/2007 KISAN DISCRETIONARY FAMILY TRUST VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 0, AHD. FOR A.Y. 2000-01 - 9 - GROUND NO. 8 READS AS UNDER: IN LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELL ANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS GR OSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING LEVY OF INTEREST U/S.234B OF I.T. ACT IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT APPELLANT HAD PAID ADVANCE TAX MORE THAN 90% OF THE ASSESSED TAX. 24. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED T HAT CHARGING OF INTEREST WAS CONSEQUENTIAL. ACCORDINGLY, THESE GROUNDS OF A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 25. GROUND NO. 9 OF THE APPEAL READS AS UNDER: IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE AP PELLANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS GR OSSLY ERRED IN REJECTING APPELLANT'S GROUND REGARDING INITIATION O F PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S 271(L)(C) OF I.T. ACT. 26. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSES SEE DID NOT MAKE ANY SUBMISSIONS, THEREFORE THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 27. GROUND NO. 10 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND HENCE RE QUIRES NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION BY US. 28. IN THIS RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 21 ST OF FEBRUARY, 2014 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( N.S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 21/02/2014 GHANSHYAM MAURYA, SR. P.S.