Towerbase Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4146/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4116 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 25-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Commercial expediency
• Section: 234B; 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.4143/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 TOWERBASE SERVICES PVT. LTD., 3 RD FLOOR, WESTERN WING, THAPAR HOUSE, 124, JANPATH, NEW DELHI. VS. ACIT, CIRCLE- 16(1), NEW DELHI. PAN : AABCT5717H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.4146/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 TOWERBASE SERVICES PVT. LTD., 3 RD FLOOR, WESTERN WING, THAPAR HOUSE, 124, JANPATH, NEW DELHI. VS. ACIT, CIRCLE- 16(1), NEW DELHI. PAN : AABCT5717H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.1711/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 TOWERBASE SERVICES PVT. LTD., MEZZANINE FLOOR, WESTERN WING, THAPAR HOUSE, 124, JANPATH, NEW DELHI. VS. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(1), NEW DELHI. PAN : AABCT5717H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) 2 ASSESSEE BY : SHRI UPVAN GUPTA, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI AMIT JAIN, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 09-01-2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16-01-2018 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, AM : ITA NO.4143/DEL/2014 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIREC TED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.03.2014 OF CIT(A)- 19, NEW DELHI RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. ITA NO.4146/DEL/2014 FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.03.2014 OF CIT(A)- 19, NEW DELHI REL ATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. ITA NO.1711/DEL/2016 FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.01.2016 OF CIT(A)- 9, NEW DELHI RELA TING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THESE WERE HE ARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. ITA NO.4146/DEL/2014 (A.Y. 2008-09) : 2. ALTHOUGH A NUMBER OF GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEY ALL RELATE TO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS.16,04,451/- LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271(1)(C) OF TH E I.T. ACT. 3. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET FILED A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND SUBMITTED THAT 3 VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) HAVE BEEN DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, PENA LTY DOES NOT SURVIVE. 4. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT TH E TRIBUNAL HAS DELETED THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES. WE FIND THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.2481/DEL/2012 AND BATCH OF O THER APPEALS VIDE ORDER DATED 19.06.2017 HAS DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF IN TEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.34,16,863/- AND DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,90,321/- MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 14A. 6. SO FAR AS ADDITION RELATING TO PROFESSIONAL AND CONSULTANCY CHARGES OF RS.13,03,500/- IS CONCERNED, THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTO RED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. SINCE OU T OF THE THREE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON WHICH PENALTY WAS LEVIE D, TWO ADDITIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE ADDITI ON RELATING TO PROFESSIONAL AND CONSULTANCY CHARGES HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE FI LE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, THEREFORE, THE VERY BASIS O F LEVY OF PENALTY DOES NOT SURVIVE. WE, THEREFORE, SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CANCEL THE PENALTY. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AT LIBERTY TO INITIATE FRESH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IN TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN 4 CONSEQUENCE TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE APPE AL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.4143/DEL/2014 (A.Y. 2010-11) : 7. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE GR OUNDS OF APPEAL RELATES TO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISAL LOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.6,94,831/- ON ACCOU NT OF BORROWED FUNDS GIVEN BY WAY OF INTEREST FREE ADVANCE TO THE WATERBASE LT D. (TWL). 8. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THE ASSESS ING OFFICER FOLLOWING HIS ORDER FOR PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.6,94,831/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST FREE ADVANCE OF RS.8.4 CRORES A ND ICD OF RS.4 CRORES TO THE COMPANY THE WATERBASE LTD. DURING THE YEAR OUT OF THE BORROWED FUNDS ON WHICH INTEREST HAS BEEN PAID. WE FIND IN APPEAL TH E LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWING HIS ORDER FOR EARLIER YEARS UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER. WE FIND THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE VIDE ITA NO.4905/DE L/2010 AND ITA NO.4970/DEL/2010 AND BATCH OF OTHER APPEALS VIDE CO NSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 19.06.2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLI SHED THE LIVE LINK BETWEEN THE ADVANCE AND THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS. THE RELEV ANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL FROM PARA 8 TO 11 READ AS UNDER :- 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD AND THE JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED 50% 5 SHARES IN THE JV COMPANY. THE LETTER DATED 06.07. 2006 WOULD REVEAL THAT IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT THE OPERATIONS OF THE JV, IT HAD REQUESTE D TWL FOR THE SERVICES OF THEIR CEO AS A REPRESENTATIVE ON THE BOARD OF THE JV COMPANY SO THAT THE JV CONTINUES TO HAVE THE BENEFIT OF HIS EXPERTISE AND ADVICE REGARDING T HE ENTIRE PRODUCTION PROCESS. IN RESPONSE AND ACCEDING TO THE REQUEST, TWL REQUESTE D FOR AN ADVANCE OF RS.10 CRORES INSTEAD OF MONTHLY MANAGEMENT FEE FOR RENDERING THE AFORESAID SERVICES. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE LETTER DATED 11.08.2006 AND 14.08.2006 THA T THE JV EXPRESSED ITS INABILITY TO MAKE THE ADVANCE AND REQUESTED THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO MAKE THE ADVANCE. THE SAID REQUEST WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY B Y MAKING THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCE OF RS. 4 CRORES TO TWL. 9. THE AFORESAID SEQUENCE OF EVENTS WOULD LEAVE NO MANNER OF DOUBT THAT THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY AS A MEASURE OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY SINCE IT HAD ACQUIRED 50% SHAREHOLDING I N THE JV COMPANY. THE CORRESPONDENCE REFERRED TO ABOVE COMPANY WOULD SHOW THAT THE SAID FUNDS WERE REQUIRED FOR THE PROPER FUNCTIONING OF THE JV COMPA NY. THE DATE OF ACTUAL ACQUISITION OF SHARES WOULD NOT ALTER THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION OF THE ADVANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE LETTER DATED 14.08.2006 BY T HE JV TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WOULD REVEAL THE ACTUAL INTENTION BEHIND THE TRANSA CTION WAS PROCUREMENT OF SERVICES FOR THE PROFITABLE FUNCTIONING OF THE JV COMPANY. THE CONTENTS OF THE SAID LETTER ARE EXTRACTED HEREINBELOW: TOWERBASE SERVICES PVT. LTD., THAPAR HOUSE, 124, JANPATH NEW DELHI-110001 KIND ATTN: MR. S.K. GANJU DEAR SIR, SUB: MANAGEMENT SUPPORT AND RENDERING OF SERVICES YOU ARE AWARE THAT PURSUANT TO ACQUISITION OF SHARE S OF HWIL BY TOWERBASE SERVICES PVT. LTD. (TSPL) FROM THE WATERBASE LTD. ( TWL), TWL IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR MANAGING THE OPERATIONS OF HANDY WA TERBASE (I) LTD. (`HWIL). WE HAD REQUESTED TWL TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THEIR S UPPORT AND ADVICE FOR SMOOTH CARRYING ON BUSINESS OPERATIO NS OF HWIL AFTER ACQUISITION OF SHARES BY TSPL AGAINST CONSIDERATION IN THE FORM OF MONTHLY SERVICE FEE. TWL HAS ACCEDED TO THE AFORESAID REQUEST OF PROVIDI NG SERVICES. HOWEVER THEY HAVE PROPOSED GRANT OF INTEREST FREE LOAN OF R S.10 CRORES INSTEAD OF ANY MONTHLY FEES, IN VIEW OF CERTAIN FINANCIAL DISTRESS . THE SUPPORT OF TWL IS ESSENTIAL FOR CONTINUOUS AND EFFICIENT BUSINESS FUNCTIONS OF HWIL, FOR WHICH NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE IS AVAILABL E, TSPL ALSO DOES NOT POSSESS SUCH EXPERTISE. HOWEVER, HWIL DOES NOT HAV E SUFFICIENT FUNDS FOR MAKING THE AFORESAID PAYMENT NOR IS IN A POSITION T O BORROW TO MAKE FURTHER ADVANCES. 6 SINCE, TSPL WILL HITHERTO STEP INTO THE SHOES OF TW L, WE REQUEST TSPL TO LEND THE AFORESAID AMOUNT TO US OR DIRECTLY TO TWL TO ME ET THE AFORESTATED PURPOSE. THE CONTINUOUS AVAILABILITY OF AFORESAID SERVICES A RE VERY CRUCIAL FOR PROFITABLE FUNCTIONING OF HWIL. WE, THEREFORE, REQ UEST YOU TO PLEASE CONSIDER THE AFORESAID PROPOSAL SERIOUSLY AND PROVIDE EARLY SOLUTION. THANKING YOU, YOURS FAITHFULLY, FOR HANDYWATERBASE INDIA (P) LTD. DR. B.S. AJITHA KUMAR GENERAL MANAGER 10 THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF S.A. BU ILDERS LTD. (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER: `WE AGREE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE DELHI HIGH COU RT IN CIT VSDALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD. [2002] 254 ITR 377 THAT ONCE I T IS ESTABLISHED THAT THERE WAS NEXUS BETWEEN THE EXPENDITURE AND THE PURPOSE O F THE BUSINESS (WHICH NEED NOT NECESSARILY BE THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSE E ITSELF), THE REVENUE CANNOT JUSTIFIABLY CLAIM TO PUT ITSELF IN THE ARM-CHAIR OF THE BUSINESSMAN OR IN THE POSITION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND ASSUME THE R OLE TO DECIDE HOW MUCH IS REASONABLE EXPENDITURE HAVING REGARD TO THE CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE. NO BUSINESSMAN CAN BE COMPELLED TO MAXIMIZE ITS PROFIT . THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES MUST PUT THEMSELVES IN THE SHOES OF THE ASSESSEE AND SEE HOW A PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN WOULD ACT. THE AUTHORITIES MUS T NOT LOOK AT THE MATTER FROM THEIR OWN VIEW POINT BUT THAT OF A PRUDENT BU SINESSMAN. AS ALREADY STATED ABOVE, WE HAVE TO SEE THE TRANSFER OF THE BO RROWED FUNDS TO A SISTER CONCERN FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDI ENCY AND NOT FROM THE POINT OF VIEW WHETHER THE AMOUNT WAS ADVANCED FOR E ARNING PROFITS. 11. THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED THE LIVE LINK BETW EEN THE ADVANCE AND THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS. THE REVENUE CANNOT STEP I NTO THE SHOES OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUGGEST THAT THE ADVANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE TO T HE JV COMPANY INSTEAD OF TWL. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 9. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD. CIT(A) H AVE FOLLOWED THEIR RESPECTIVE EARLIER ORDERS AND SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HA S DELETED SUCH DISALLOWANCE, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN A SSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS AND IN ABSEN CE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE, WE SET-ASIDE THE OR DER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND 7 DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION . THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 10. THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RELATES TO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISAL LOWANCE OF RS.40,55,582/- U/S 14A OF THE I.T. ACT. 11. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THE ASSES SING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS MADE CERTAIN INVESTMENTS IN SHARES AND MUTUAL FUNDS/ BONDS ETC. OUT OF FUNDS EITHER BORROWED BY THE ASSESSEE OR FROM COMPANYS OWN SOURCES. SINCE THES E INVESTMENTS HAVE YIELDED EXEMPT INCOME OF RS.17,33,192/-, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY EXPENSES SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D. REJECTING THE VARIOUS EX PLANATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND OBSERVING THAT NO DISALLOWANCE HAS BEE N MADE BY THE ASSESSEE SUO MOTU, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.40,55,582/-. 12. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 13. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), TH E ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 14. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE IMMEDIAT ELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT 8 YEARS. WE FIND THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.2481/DEL/2012 AND BATCH OF OTHER APPEALS ORDER DATED 19.06.2017 H AS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 22. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS ITSELF DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.49,39,553/- IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 14A OF THE ACT THE AO IS REQUIRED TO RECORD THE DISSATISFACTIO N W.R.T. THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE BARE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, NO SUCH DISSATISFACTION IS REVEALED. THE AO HAS SI MPLY CALCULATED THE DISALLOWANCE BY INVOKING RULE 8D. IT IS NOT SHOWN AS TO HOW THE DISALLOWANCE SUOMOTO CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME DOES NOT REPRESENT THE TRUE PICTURE. THE REQUIREMENT OF THE SATISFACTION IS NOT AN EMPTY FOR MALITY. THE REVENUE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH A LINK BETWEEN THE EARNING OF DIVIDEND IN COME AND THE EXPENDITURE DISALLOWED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE HONBL E SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD. VS DCIT 8 1 TAXMAN.COM 111 (SC) 2017 HELD AS UNDER: WE DO NOT SEE HOW IN THE AFORESAID FACT SITUATION A DIFFERENT VIEW COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-2003. SUB- SECTIONS (2) AND (3) OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE RUL ES MERELY PRESCRIBE A FORMULA FOR DETERMINATION OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED I N RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE AC T IN A SITUATION WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE. WHETHER SUCH DETERMINATION IS TO BE MADE ON APPLICATION OF THE FORMULA PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 8D OR IN THE BEST JUDGMENT OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER, WHAT THE LAW POSTULATES IS THE REQUIREMENT OF A SATISFACTION IN THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, AS P LACED BEFORE HIM, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO GENERATE THE REQUISITE SATISFACTION WIT H REGARD TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ONLY THEREAFTER THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 14A(2) AND(3) READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE RULES OR A B EST JUDGMENT DETERMINATION, AS EARLIER PREVAILING, WOULD BECOME APPLICABLE. 23. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, GROUND NO.2 RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 15. WE FIND THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWED THE ABOVE ORDER I N ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. SINCE THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE APPEAL DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CA SE IN THE PRECEDING TWO 9 ASSESSMENT YEARS, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL BR OUGHT TO OUR NOTICE, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE ARE AL LOWED. 16. GROUND NO.3 BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE I.T. ACT. 17. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B IS MANDATORY AND CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE. ACCORDINGLY , THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.1711/DEL/2016 (A.Y. 2011-12) : 19. IN GROUND NO.1.1 TO 1.5, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALL ENGED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.16,38,3 08/- U/S 14A R.W. RULE 8D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 20. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THE ABOVE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.4143/DEL/20 14 VIDE GROUND NO.2.1 TO 2.4. WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUE AND THE GRO UNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. FOLLOWING SIMILAR REASONING, THESE GR OUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 21. THE NEXT GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234D OF THE I.T. ACT. 10 22. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE ARE OF THE CON SIDERED OPINION THAT THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234D IS MANDATORY AND CONSEQUE NTIAL IN NATURE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 23. RESULTANTLY, ITA NO.4146/DEL/2014 BY THE ASSESS EE IS ALLOWED AND ITA NO.4143/DEL/2014 AND ITA NO.1711/DEL/2016 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 16 TH JANUARY, 2018. SD/- SD/- (BEENA A. PILLAI) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 16-01-2018. SUJEET COPY OF ORDER TO: - 1) THE APPELLANT 2) THE RESPONDENT 3) THE CIT 4) THE CIT(A) 5) THE DR, I.T.A.T., NEW DELHI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI