Shri Haresh Talreja, Satara V. ITO, Ward-2, Satara

ITA 683/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2492 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 15-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HITENDRA NINAWE
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 6

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE . . , ! , # $ BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO.683/PN/2013 #& & / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SHRI HARESH TALREJA, PROP. TALREJA TRADERS, PLOT NO.885, P.B. HIGHWAY ROAD, MALKAPUR, KARAD, DIST. SATARA PAN NO.ABEPT2062L . / APPELLANT V/S ITO, WARD-2, SATARA . / RESPONDENT / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K. KULKARNI / REVENUE BY : SHRI HITENDRA NINAWE / ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30-09-2011 OF THE CIT(A)-III, PUNE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 WAS NOT PRESSED BY THE ASSES SEE FOR WHICH THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NO OBJECT ION. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRE SSED. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.9 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE IS DISMISSED. / DATE OF HEARING :14.03.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16.03.2016 2 ITA NO.683PN/2013 3. IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,87,212/- MADE BY THE AO ON ADHOC BASIS BEING 5% OF VARIOUS EXPEN SES OF RS.37,45,446/-. 4. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS DEBITED THE FOLLOWING EXPENSES IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT : S.NO. HEAD OF EXPENDITURE AMOUNT 1 TRAVELLING EXPENDITURE 3,21,540/ - 2 CONVEYANCE 64,330/ - 3 ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES 47,351/ - 4 FREIGHT 28,74,450/ - 5 HANDLING CHARGES 4,37,775/ - TOTAL 37,45,446/ - SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SATISFY THE AO REGARDING T HE WHOLE OF THESE EXPENDITURE AND CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES WERE FOUND THE AO DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,87,272/- BEING 5% OF THE ABOVE EXPENSES ON ESTIMATE BASIS. 5. IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN ABSENCE OF ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION GIVEN BEFORE HIM. HE OBSERVED THAT VARIOUS ITEMS OF EXPENDITURE ARE MOSTL Y SUPPORTED BY SELF MADE VOUCHERS AND THEREFORE THE VERA CITY AND ADMISSIBILITY OF THE SAME COULD NOT BE VERIFIED. 6. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AUDITED AND NO MISTAKES W ERE 3 ITA NO.683PN/2013 POINTED OUT BY THE AUDITORS. THE AO HAS ALSO NOT BROUG HT OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECTS IN THE ACCOUNTS PRODUCED BEFORE HIM. THEREFORE, DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE ON ADHOC BASIS IS NOT JUSTIFIED. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE ADDITIO N SHOULD BE DELETED. 8. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HA ND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND CIT(A) AND THE P APER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THE AO DISALL OWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,87,272/- BEING 5% OF THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.37,45,446/- ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE GIVEN EARLIER ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE FULL DETAILS FOR THE ABOVE EXPENDITURE. WE FIND THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND THAT MOS T OF THE EXPENDITURES ARE SUPPORTED BY SELF MADE VOUCHERS A ND THEREFORE THE VERACITY AND ADMISSIBILITY OF THE SAME COULD N OT BE VERIFIED. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE THAT ACCOUNTS ARE AUDITED AND THE AUDITORS HAVE NOT POINTED OUT ANY DISCREPANCIES. THE AO HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECTS. WE FIND ALTHOUGH THE AUDITORS HAVE NOT POINTED O UT ANY DISCREPANCIES IN THE ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE , HOWEVER, THE FACT REMAINS THAT SOME OF THE EXPENSES AR E SUPPORTED ONLY BY SELF MADE VOUCHERS. THEREFORE, IT CANN OT BE SAID THAT THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESS EE IS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. IT IS THE SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT FOR ANY EXPENDITURE TO BE ALLOWED 4 ITA NO.683PN/2013 AS DEDUCTION THE ONUS IS ALWAYS ON THE ASSESSEE TO SA TISFY THE AO REGARDING THE GENUINENESS OF SUCH EXPENDITURE WHICH HAS BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINE SS. SINCE IN THE INSTANT CASE ADMITTEDLY SOME OF THE EXPENSE S ARE SUPPORTED ONLY BY SELF MADE VOUCHERS, THEREFORE IT CANN OT BE SAID THAT THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE IS GENUINE AND IS INCURRED WH OLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE. THEREFORE, SOME DISALLOWANCE HAS TO BE MADE UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE. HOWEVER, DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO AT 5% O F THE ABOVE EXPENSES APPEARS TO BE ON THE HIGHER SIDE. CONS IDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE DISALLOWANCE OF 2.5% O F THE EXPENSES, IN OUR OPINION, WILL MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DISALLOW RS.93,606/- AGA INST RS.1,87,212/- DISALLOWED BY HIM WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE GETS RELIEF OF RS.93,606/- ON THIS GROU ND. GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY PARTLY ALLOWED. 10. IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.75,065/ - MADE BY THE AO OUT OF THE EXPENDITURE ON MOTOR CAR AN D ITS DEPRECIATION. 11. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THE AO DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.75,065/- WHICH INCLUDES 1/4 TH OF THE DEPRECIATION ON THE MOTOR CAR AMOUNTING TO RS.42,863/- AND RS.32,202/ - OUT OF THE EXPENSES BEING PROBABLE PERSONAL USE OF THE MOTOR CAR. 12. IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY TH E AO ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT MAKE ANY FUR THER SUBMISSIONS ON THIS ISSUE DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. I T IS 5 ITA NO.683PN/2013 THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT ALTHOUGH THE EXPENSES OF RS.3,20,202/- CAN BE DISALLOWED, HOWEVER, DEPRECIATION ON MOTOR CAR SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED SINCE N O ELEMENT OF PERSONAL USE IS INVOLVED. HOWEVER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE. WHEN ADMITTEDLY, THE MOTOR CAR IS ALSO USED FOR PERSONAL USE AND THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE SAME, THEREFORE PROPORTIONA TE DEPRECIATION ALSO SHOULD BE DISALLOWED. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GRO UND BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 13. IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO.4 THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,64,679/- MADE BY THE AO U/S.36(1)(III) OF THE I.T. ACT. 14. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE AO DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTICED THAT THERE IS ADVANCE OF LOAN TO TALREJA AGENCIES WHICH IS THE PROPRIETARY CONCE RN OF SHRI BHARAT I. TALREJA, BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO FURTHER NOTED THAT THE OPENING BALANCE WAS RS.52,05,943/- . FURT HER, THERE ARE WITHDRAWALS AND DEPOSITS OF RS.4,000/- AND RS. 9 LAKHS RESPECTIVELY DURING THE YEAR. THE AO NOTED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS RECEIVED INTEREST FROM SUCH LOAN AT RS.5,16,089/- WHICH IS 12% PER ANNUM. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS GIVING INTEREST TO TH E BANK ON THE LOAN @ 15%. HE, THEREFORE, DISALLOWED THE DIFFERENCE IN INTEREST OF 3% ON THE LOAN ADVANCED TO VARIOUS SISTER CO NCERN AMOUNTING TO RS.1,64,679/- ( I.E. RS.54,89,296/- X 3%). 15. BEFORE CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUFFICIENT OWN FUNDS AND THEREFORE IN VIEW OF THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. 6 ITA NO.683PN/2013 RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD. REPORTED IN 313 ITR 340 N O DISALLOWANCE IS WARRANTED. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THERE WAS A BUSINESS CO MPULSION OR EXPEDIENCY TO MAKE ADVANCE TO TALREJA AGENCY WITHOU T CHARGING ANY INTEREST OR CHARGE INTEREST AT LOWER RATE WHEN SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST WAS BEING PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON IT S BORROWINGS. ACCORDING TO HIM, NO BUSINESS PURPOSE OF T HE ASSESSEE IS SERVED BY SUCH ADVANCE REGULARLY MADE TO OTHER CONCERNS. HAD THE MONEY NOT ADVANCED TO RELATIVES AND SISTER CONCERNS, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR HIS BUSINESS PURPOSES AND TO THAT EXTENT HE COULD HAVE SA VED THE INTEREST COST ON BORROWED FUNDS. 16. AS REGARDS THE ARGUMENT THAT ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIEN T INTEREST FREE FUNDS AND OWN FUNDS AND THEREFORE NO DISALLOW ANCE IS CALLED FOR U/S.36(1)(III), THE CIT(A) HELD THAT SUCH SURPLUS FOU ND IS EITHER REQUIRED TO BE CIRCULATED AND UTILIZED FOR THE PUR POSE OF BUSINESS OR TO BE INVESTED IN A MANNER IT GENERATES INCO ME AND NOT FOR DIVERSION OF FUNDS TO SISTER CONCERNS FREE OF INTER EST. REJECTING THE VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND DISTINGUISHING THE DECISIONS CITED BEFORE HIM THE CIT(A) SUSTA INED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 17. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 18. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOT H THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND CIT(A) AND THE P APER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDER ED 7 ITA NO.683PN/2013 THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. WE FIND THE SUBMISS ION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIEN T OWN FUNDS WHICH IS MORE THAN THE LOAN OR ADVANCE GIVEN TO SI STER CONCERNS IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE. THEREFOR E, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD. (SUPRA) IT HAS TO BE INFERRE D THAT THE ADVANCE GIVEN TO SISTER CONCERNS WITH LOW INTE REST HAS BEEN GIVEN OUT OF THE NON INTEREST BEARING FUNDS. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES NO DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR. WE DO NOT APPRECIATE THE OBSERVATION OF THE CIT(A) THAT SUCH SURPLU S FUNDS SHOULD BE CIRCULATED IN THE BUSINESS AND UTILIZED FOR THE PU RPOSE OF BUSINESS TO GENERATE INCOME AND NO ADVANCE TO BE GIV EN TO SISTER CONCERNS FREE OF INTEREST. IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO DECIDE THE MANNER IN WHICH IT HAS TO UTILIZE ITS SURPLUS MONEY WHI CH IS INTEREST FREE. THE REVENUE CANNOT DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO UTILISE ITS SURPLUS FUNDS IN A PARTICULAR MANNER. IN THIS VIEW OF T HE MATTER, WE HOLD THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAI NING DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,64,679/- MAD E BY THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 19. IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO.5 THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGE D THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.48,000 /- MADE BY THE AO U/S.40A(2)(B) OF THE I.T. ACT. 20. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND THE ASSESSEE HA S PAID AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,00,000/- TO ARYAN TALREJA ON ACCOUNT O F BUILDING TAKEN ON RENT WHO IS A RELATIVE UNDER THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 40A(2)(B). ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID 8 ITA NO.683PN/2013 RENT @ RS.12/- PER SQ.FT. FOR THE AREA OF 2100 SQ.FTS WHER EAS THE MARKET RATE IN THE SAME AREA IS ABOUT RS.10/- PER SQ.FT . THUS ACCORDING TO THE AO THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID EXCESS REN T TO RELATED PERSONS. HE THEREFORE DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.48,000/- U/S.40A(2(B) WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). 21. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE THAT IN THE PAST ALSO THE SAME AMOUNT OF RENT WAS PAID TO THE RELATED PERSONS AND THERE WAS NO DISALLOWANCE BY THE AO EVEN IN 143(3) ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR A.YRS. 2005-06 AND 2006-07 . THEREFORE, THE REASONABLENESS OF SUCH EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE DOUBTED IN THIS YEAR AND THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION OF ANY DISALLOWANCE U/S.40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. FROM THE COPIES OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR A.Y. 2005-06 AND 2006-07 WE FIND T HAT NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE U/S.40A(2)(B) OF THE I.T. ACT , 1961. WE FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE SAME AMOUNT OF RENT HAS BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE RELATED PERSON AND NO DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE IN THE PAST, THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE ADDITION HAS TO BE DE LETED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE ON THIS ISSUE AND THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.40A(2)(B). GROU ND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 22. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.6 RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50,000/- MADE BY THE AO U/S.40(A)(IA) WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). 9 ITA NO.683PN/2013 23. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THE AO MADE ADD ITION OF RS.50,000/- INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J R.W. PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) ON THE AMOUNT OF RS.50,000/-PAID TO THE LEGAL ADVISORS ON 15-09-2006. IN APPEAL THE LD .CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PAYEE HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND PAID THE TAX ON THIS AMOUNT. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) THE AMOUNT CANNOT BE DISALLOWED. HOWEVER, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO VERIFY T HE SAME. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO HAS NO OBJECT ION FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR VERIFICATION. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUB STANTIATE WITH EVIDENCE THAT THE PAYEE HAS FILED HIS RETURN AND PA ID TAX ON THIS AMOUNT OF RS.50,000/-. THE AO SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORD INGLY. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.6 BY THE ASESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 24. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.7 RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.55,876/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW WITHDRAWALS. 25. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND THE ASSESSEE HA S SHOWN WITHDRAWAL OF RS.1,84,124/- OUT OF HIS CAPITAL ACCOUNT . THE AO NOTED THAT THE FAMILY OF THE ASSESSEE CONSISTS O F THE ASSESSEE, HIS WIFE AND 2 SCHOOL GOING DAUGHTERS. CONSIDER ING THE AMOUNT OF WITHDRAWALS FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AS VERY LOW 10 ITA NO.683PN/2013 THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.55,876/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). 26. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE THAT SUCH DISALLOWANCE IS VERY HIGH SINCE THE AO HAS CONS IDERED RS.20,000/- PER MONTH AS HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES IN THE F.Y. 2006- 07. WE FIND SOME FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE AO APART FROM MERE ESTIMA TING THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY COGENT EVIDENCE SUCH AS ANY FAMILY FUNCTION, FOREIGN TOUR OR TOUR INSIDE INDIA OR ANY CAPITAL EXPENDITURE OR EXPENDITURE OF ANY U NUSUAL NATURE. AT THE SAME TIME, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD AS TO HOW THE ASSESSEE CAN LIVE WITH AN AMOUNT OF RS.15,343/- PER MONTH WITH 4 MEMBERS OUT OF WHICH 2 DAUGHTERS ARE SCHOOL GOING. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ADDITION OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.30,000/- ON ESTIMA TE WILL MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. WE ACCORDINGLY MODIFY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO RS.30 ,000/- AS AGAINST RS.55,876/- MADE BY HIM. THIS GROUND BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY PARTLY ALLOWED. 27. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.8 RELATES TO LEVY OF INTEREST U/S.2 34A, 234B AND 234C. 28. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERE D OPINION THAT LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER THE ABOVE PROVISIONS A RE MANDATORY AND CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 11 ITA NO.683PN/2013 29. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16-03-2016. SD/- SD/- ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) ( R.K. PANDA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE ; DATED : 16 TH MARCH, 2016. ) *#,! -! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT (A) - I I I, PUNE 4. 5. 6. THE CIT-III, PUNE $ ''(, (, / DR, ITAT, B PUNE; - / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // // TRUE COPY // // $ ' //TRUE C /0 ' ( / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY (, / ITAT, PUNE