Kedarnath Sriramulu Kaveripatnam, Bangalore V. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 961/BANG/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2043 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 06-10-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V S SREELEKHA
• Assessee Lawyers: H N KHINCHA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBE R AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 961/BANG/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 KEDARNATH SRIRAMULU KAVERI- PATNAM, NO.292/A, 34 TH CROSS, 9 TH MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE. : APPELLANT VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(2), BANGALORE. : RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI H.N KHINCHA RESPONDENT BY : SMT V.S SREELEKHA O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AN INDIVIDUAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT (A)-I, BANGALORE, F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVEN GROUNDS OF APPEAL , OUT OF WHICH, GROUND NOS.1 AND 7 ARE GENERAL AND, THEREFOR E, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, DO NOT SURVIVE FOR ADJUDICATION. ON A PERUSA L OF THE REMAINING GROUNDS, THE CRUXES OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED ARE TWO- FOLDS WHICH ARE REFORMULATED CONCISELY AS UNDER: ITANO.961/BANG/2009 PAGE 2 OF 8 (I) THE AO HAD ERRED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.11.50 LAKHS WHICH WAS ERRONEOUSLY CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A); & (II) THE ASSESSEE DENIES LIABILITY TO PAY INTEREST U/S 2 34A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. 3. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE, VIDE HIS APPLICATIO N DATED 29.10.2009, SOUGHT THE PERMISSION OF THIS BENCH TO AMEND THE GROUND NO.2 ORIGINALLY RAISED ON THE GROUND THAT A CLERICAL MI STAKE HAD CREPT IN WHILE MENTIONING THE AMOUNTS OF ADDITION SOUGHT TO BE DEL ETED AS RS.11.5 LAKHS INSTEAD OF RS.83.10 LAKHS. 3.1. AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE ASSESSEES APP LICATION, THE ASSESSEE WAS PERMITTED TO AMEND THE GROUND NO.2 ACC ORDINGLY. 4. THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE - M.D. OF JEWELS GARDEN PVT. LTD. - FURNISHED HIS ROI, ADM ITTING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2.70 LAKHS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER DISPUTE . ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A CASH DEPOS IT TO THE TUNE OF RS.11.5 LAKHS ON 15.10.04 IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH HIS BANK STATEMENT. ON SCRUTINY OF THE BANK STATEMENT, THE AO STUMBLED UPON A FACT THAT DURING THE FY 04-05, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CASH DEPOSITS ON VARIOUS DATES TO THE EXTENT OF WHO PPING RS.83.10 LAKHS. AS THERE WAS NO PROPER COMPLIANCE TO THE REPEATED N OTICES/LETTERS PERIODICALLY ISSUED BY THE AO, THE ASSESSMENT WAS C ONCLUDED ON 31.12.2007 (BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION ON 31.12.07) , BRINGING TO TAX NET - IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS - THE ENTIRE CASH DEPOSI TS, AGGREGATING TO RS.83.10 LAKHS U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAD APPROACHED THE CIT( A) FOR RELIEF. AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD, IN DEED, DELIBERATED THE ISSUE EXHAUSTIVELY AND, THUS, OBSERVED AS UNDER: 10. EVEN TREATING THE SALE AGREEMENT GENUINE NOT A CCEPTING IT, THE SOURCE STILL REMAINS UNEXPLAINED. THE AO HAS RIGHTLY POINTED OU T THAT THE DEPOSITS ARE OF ITANO.961/BANG/2009 PAGE 3 OF 8 AROUND 50000/- TO 1 LAKH OR MORE ON MORE THAN 50 OC CASIONS ON DIFFERENT DATES. IT IS NOT EXPECTED THAT THE ALLEGED BUYER WAS GIVIN G SUCH MONEY AT REGULAR INTERVALS IN SUMS OF RS.50000/- OR MORE. BESIDES, THE AGREEMENT UPON WHICH MUCH RELIANCE IS PLACED BY THE APPELLANT DOES NOT R EFLECT THE MODE OF PAYMENT OF BALANCE OF RS.2.15 CRORES. BESIDES, THE NORMAL HUM AN CONDUCT DOES NOT PERMIT THAT EACH OF 50 TIMES THE BUYER CARRIED CASH FROM K OLKATTA TO PAY TO THE VENDOR IN BANGALORE. IF THE AMOUNT IS PAID IN LUMP SUM, IT IS AGAINST THE HUMAN NATURE TO KEEP THE SAME AT HOME AND NOT DEPOSIT IN BANK A/ C OR DEPOSIT IN SUMS OF RS.50000/- OR RS.1 LAKHS ALMOST EVERY WEEK BECAUSE THAT INVOLVED THE DANGER OF ROBBERY/DACOITY AND EVEN MURDER. THUS CIRCUMSTANTI AL EVIDENCES ARE STRONGLY AGAINST THE APPELLANT. 11. HERE A QUESTION REMAINS TO BE ANSWERED. THE D EPOSITS HAVE BEEN ADMITTEDLY MADE. THE SOURCE EXPLAINED IS FOUND NOT SATISFACTO RY. THEN WHAT MAY BE A PROBABLE SOURCE. PROBABLY IT IS NOW KNOWN TO THE D EPARTMENT AND ALSO NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN REGULAR BOOKS. APPARENTLY THE APP ELLANTS KNOWN SOURCE IS SALARY AS M.D. OR A PVT. COMPANY M/S JEWELS GARDE N PVT. LIMITED. PROBABLY, THE UNACCOUNTED MONEY OF THE COMPANY IS BEING DIVER TED TO THE PERSONAL SAVINGS BANK A/C OF THE M.D. WHO IS ALSO THE UNTITLED OWNER OF THAT COMPANY. BUT, THIS IS ONLY A PRESUMPTION AS A PROBABLE EXPLANATION TO A Q UESTION RAISED ABOVE. 6. DISENCHANTED WITH THE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP WITH THE PRESENT APPEAL. THE REITERATI ON OF THE LD.A R WAS CENTRED AROUND WHAT WAS CONTESTED BEFORE THE LD.CIT (A). TO STRENGTHEN HIS ORCHESTRATED ARGUMENTS, THE LD.A.R HAD FURNISH ED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING 1 98 PAGES WHICH CONSIST OF AMONG OTH ERS, COPIES OF (I) BANK SHEETS, (II) AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 15.12.03, (III ) CORRESPONDENCE OF THE BUYER, (IV) CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE AO ETC., 6.1. ON HER PART, THE LD. D.R WAS OF THE FIRM VIEW THAT IN SPITE OF SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE TO E XPLAIN THE SOURCES, THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DO SO AND THAT WITH THE AVAI LABLE MATERIALS ON RECORD, THE AO HAD CONCLUDED ON FACT AND CIRCUMSTAN CE. EVEN BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TOO, NO TANGIBLE PROOF WA S PUT-FORTH TO JUSTIFY THE ILL- CONCEIVED CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. DRAWING STRENGTH FROM THE RULING OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL V. C IT REPORTED IN 214 ITR 801, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE STAND OF THE LOWER AUT HORITIES REQUIRES TO BE SUSTAINED. ITANO.961/BANG/2009 PAGE 4 OF 8 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS, PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND ALSO THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDE NCES INCLUDING THE PAPER BOOKS CONTAINING 1- 17 PAGES ADVANCED BY EITH ER PARTY. 7.1. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D DEPOSITED CASH TO HIS BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH THE VIJAYA BANK ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED HIS ROI WAY BACK IN FEBRUARY, 2006 WHEREAS THE SAME WAS PROCESSED ONLY DURING MAR CH 2007 AND DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, VERY STRANGELY THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH CERTAIN DETAILS I N THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER, 2007. OF COURSE, THE ASSESSEE HAD PROMIS ED TO FURNISH THE REQUIRED DETAILS BY 31/12/2007, BUT, FOR THE REASON S BEST KNOWN ONLY TO HIM, HE HAD NOT KEPT HIS PROMISE IN TACT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE AO WAS CONSTRAINED TO CONCLUDE THE ASSESSMENT BY 31.12.200 7 ITSELF TO OUT BEAT THE LIMITATION. WHILE CONCLUDING, THE AO CONSIDERED THE ENTIRE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.83.1 LAKHS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 7.2. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT OUT THE ENTIRE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND E NCLOSED A COPY OF THE ALLEGED SALE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO WITH HAMPER VIN COM PVT. LTD. KOLKATTA AND SUBSEQUENT TERMINATION OF THE DEAL ETC. [PAGES 6 -27 OF PB]. FOR THE REASONS SET-OUT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE CIT(A) H AD FOLLOWED SUIT THE FOOT-STEP OF THE AO AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION IN TOTO. 7.3. THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS: WHETHER T HE ALLEGED SALE TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO AND THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEI VED THE ADVANCE IN CASH FROM THE SAID BUYER WAS GENUINE? 7.3.1. AS PER THE AGREEMENT OF SALE DEED DT: 15.12 .2003, THE ASSESSEE SAID TO HAVE ENTERED INTO A DEAL WITH HAMP ER VINCOM PVT. LTD. FOR THE SALE OF HIS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY SITUATED AT JA YANAGAR 4 TH BLOCK. HERE, IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT THE CIT(A) HAD DOUBTED THE VERY BONA-FIDE OF THE EXECUTION OF THE SALE AGREEMENT ITSELF ON THE G ROUND THAT THE STAMP PAPER WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN PURCHASED ON 29.3.20 03 WHEREAS THE ITANO.961/BANG/2009 PAGE 5 OF 8 EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED: 15.12.2003, S AY AFTER NEARLY NINE MONTHS OF THE DATE OF PURCHASE OF THE STAMP PAPER, WHICH ACCORDING TO HIM WAS AN IMPROBABLE ACT. HOWEVER, THE HONBLE SUPREM E COURT IN ITS WISDOM, IN THE CASE OF THIRUVENGADE PILLAI V. NAVAN EEDHAMMAL & ANOTHER IN A WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 290 OF 2001 [2008 MLJ 11 15], HAD RULED THAT THE INDIAN STAMP ACT, 1899, NO WHERE PRESCRIBED ANY EXP IRY DATE FOR USE OF A STAMP PAPER. THUS, THE OBSERVATION OF THE CIT(A) I S CONTRARY TO THE RATIO OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. 7.3.2. THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO THE ABOVE SAI D AGREEMENT WITH HAMPER VINCOM PVT. LTD. FOR SALE OF HIS RESIDE NTIAL PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.2.3 CRORES AND CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED THE CASH PAYMENTS: RS.15 LAKHS ON 15.12.03 ON THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF SALE AGREEMENT; RS.50 LAKHS ON 1. 4.04 - LETTER OF THE PURCHASER PAGE 34 OF PB; RS.50 LAKHS ON 29.9.04 LETTER OF THE PURCHASE P AGE 35 OF PB 7.3.3. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT, OUT OF THESE ADVANCES RECEIVED, HE HAD DEPOSITED THE CASH TO HIS BANK ACC OUNT ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS, DEPENDING UPON HIS BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY T O RETAIN A PART OF CASH RECEIVED WITH HIM INSTEAD OF MAKING THE DEPOSI T IN ONE GO. THE BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY COULD HAVE PREVAILED ON THE ASS ESSEE TO RETAIN THE CASH ON HAND FOR WHICH THE REVENUE HAD NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY TANGIBLE EVIDENCE TO REFUTE THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. F URTHER, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDERGOING MATRIMON IAL DISPUTE WHICH WAS LEADING TO DIVORCE HIS WIFE AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ADVISED NOT TO MAINTAIN LARGE BANK BALANCE. AS A RESULT, T HE ASSESSEE HAD TO DEPOSIT THE CASH INTO THE BANK IN PIECE MEAL. TO S UBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM, THE LD. COUNSEL HAD FURNISHED THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS P ERTAINING TO THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE BEFORE TH IS BENCH: (I) COMPLIANT LODGED ON 30.12.2003 WITH THE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE BY THE ASSESSEES WIFE AGAI NST THE ASSESSEE ATTEMPT TO MURDER AND CAUSING HARASSMENT ETC., - COPY OF FIR OF THE POLICE; ITANO.961/BANG/2009 PAGE 6 OF 8 (II)POLICE COMPLAINT LODGED ON 22.1.2004 WITH THE C IRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, JAYANAGAR POLICE STATION BY THE ASSESSEES WIFE AGA INST THE ASSESSEE THEFT/STOLEN OF HER CAR/FORGERY; & (III) COPY OF SUIT FILED BEFORE THE IV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE IN PCR NO.1610/2004 DT: 27.1.2004 BY TH E ASSESSEES WIFE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE MOREOVER, IT IS PREROGATIVE ON THE PART OF A PERSON OR AN ASSESSEE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, TO HANDLE THE CASH AT HIS POSSESSION I N BEST POSSIBLE WAY AS THE CIRCUMSTANCE SO WARRANTS. 7.3.4. REVERTING BACK TO THE ISSUE, THE BUYERS, FO R THE REASONS REVEALED IN THEIR COMMUNICATION TO THE ASSESSEE [PA GE 27 OF PB] INTENDED TO TERMINATE THE DEAL WITH THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAID PROPERTY AND DEMANDED BACK THE ADVANCES MADE TO THE ASSESSEE. 7.3.5. DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND REPORT PROCEEDI NGS, THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 5.6.2009 [PAGES 33 40 OF PB] INFORMED THE AO THAT DUE TO THE TERMINATION OF THE SALE AGREEMEN T, HE HAD REFUNDED THE ADVANCE SO RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUES DRAWN ON ICICI BANK ON 30/5/08, 25/6/08, 10/7/08, 4/8/08 AND AGAIN ON 12.11.08 AGGR EGATING TO RS.1.15 CRORES. WITH REGARD TO CASH DEPOSITS MADE FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.03 TO 31.3.04 AMOUNTING TO RS.13.01 LAKHS ALONG WITH THE SOURCES THEREOF ALSO FURNISHED VIDE HIS LETTER DATED: 25.6.09 WITH ITS ENCLOSURES (BANK SHEETS, LEDGER ACCOUNTS ) VIDE HIS LETTER DT.25.6.09 [P 41 54 OF PB] WHICH WAS DULY ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE O/O ADDL.CIT, R-II ON 1.7.09. 7.3.6. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ASSESSEE HAD TH US DISCHARGED HIS ONUS IN A BEST POSSIBLE WAY THE NAME AND POSTAL A DDRESS OF THE BUYERS, PAN NO. AND ALSO COPIES OF ICICI BANK SHEETS WHEREI N THE ADVANCE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN RETURNED THROUGH CHEQUES ETC., WH EN ALL THE REQUIRED VITAL PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN PLACED AT THE DOOR STEP OF THE AO, WHAT PREVENTED THE AO TO VERIFY AND CROSS CHECK THE VERA CITY OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THROUGH HER COUNTER-PART AT KOLKATTA, IS RATH ER INTRIGUING. EVEN THE BUYERS AT KOLKATTA COULD HAVE BEEN CONTACTED OVER T ELEPHONE (THE ITANO.961/BANG/2009 PAGE 7 OF 8 TELEPHONE NUMBERS OF THE BUYERS WERE AVAILABLE IN T HEIR LETTER-HEAD - P.34, 35 OF PB WHICH WAS SUBMITTED TO THE AO VIDE ASSESSE ES LETTER DT:5.6.09) WHETHER THEY HAVE IN FACT ENTERED INTO ANY SORT OF AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSESSEE OR OTHERWISE. THIS HAS NOT PRECISELY BEEN DONE BY THE REVENUE. 8. IN AN OVERALL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE ISSUE, WE ARE OF THE UNANIMOUS VIEW THAT THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT OF SALE ON 15.12.2003 WITH HAMPER VINCOM PVT.LTD. KOLK ATTA FOR THE SALE OF THE ASSESSEES RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR RS.2.3 CRO RES, OUT OF WHICH, THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED ADVANCES OF RS.1.15 CRORES AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. SINCE THERE WAS A BREACH OF AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE, THE PURCHASERS VIDE THEIR LETTER DT.15.9. 07 HAVE TERMINATED THE SALE AGREEMENT AND THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO REF UND THE ADVANCES. THE ASSESSEE HAD REFUNDED THE ADVANCES TO THE PURCH ASERS THROUGH ICICI BANK CHEQUES [JEWELS GARDEN]. WHEN ALL THE RELEVANT PARTICULARS WERE IN THE POSSESSION OF THE AO, THE AO SHOULD HAVE ASCER TAINED THE GENUINENESS OR OTHERWISE OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESS EE BY MAKING AN ATTEMPT TO SOUND HER COUNTER-PART AT KOLKOTTA TO FI ND OUT THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHA RGED HIS ONUS IN DISCLOSING THE NAME AND POSTAL ADDRESS OF THE BUYER S, THEIR TELEPHONE NUMBERS ETC. TO THE DEPARTMENT. THE AO SHOULD HAVE PROCURED THE PRESENCE OF THE PURCHASER PANKAJ SHAH BY ISSUAN CE OF SUMMONS AND RECORDED HIS STATEMENT BY HERSELF. IN A NUT-SHELL, THE DEPARTMENT HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO ENCASH THE VITAL INFORMATION/PA RTICULARS AT ITS POSSESSION. 8.1. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE REVENUE HAD NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD WITH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVID ENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE SO CALLED CASH CREDITS OF RS. 83.10 LAKHS WERE ORIGINATED FROM THE ASSESSEES UNEXPLAINED SOURCE W HICH ATTRACTED THE PROVISIONS OF S.68 OF THE ACT. THE ADDITION OF RS.83.10 LAKHS U/S 68 OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 8.2. BEFORE PARTING WITH, WITH RESPECTS WE HAVE DU LY PERUSED THE CASE LAW REFERRED SUPRA ON WHICH THE REVENUE HAS PL ACED STRONG RELIANCE. ITANO.961/BANG/2009 PAGE 8 OF 8 IN THAT CASE, THE HIGHEST JUDICIARY OF THE LAND, IN ITS WISDOM, HAD RULED THAT IF EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT FOUND SATISF ACTORY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ACTING REASONABLY, THERE IS A PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE AGAINST ASSESSEE AND IF ASSESSEE FAILS TO REBUT THE SAME, SUCH UN-REBUTTED EVIDENCE CAN BE USED AGAINST HIM. 8.3. WITH DUE RESPECTS, WE WOULD LIKE TO POINT OU T THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE (I) THE AO HAD NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIAT E THAT THERE WAS A PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE; AND (I I) THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED HIS ONUS IN FURNISHING ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN HIS POSSESSION AND THAT THE REVENUE HAD FAILED TO REFUT E THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH TANGIBLE EVIDENCE. THUS, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE RULING OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT DOESNT COME TO THE RESCUE OF THE REVENU E. 9. LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT ARE MANDATORY AND CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 30 TH DECEMBER, 2009. DS/- COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE (1+1) BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.