B.L. Khatri, A.M. - (1.) THIS is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), Jodhpur, for the asst. yr. 1991-92. The appellant has agitated on various grounds which are discussed and decided through this consolidated order.
(2.) First of all, we shall take up the additional ground, regarding charging of interest under Section 234A and 234B of the IT Act. The learned authorised representative contended that the additional ground may be taken in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). The additional ground has been raised against levy of interest under Section 234A and 234B of the Act by the AO. The learned authorised representative has contended that the charging of interest has been held as unsustainable in the cases of CIT v. Ranchi Club (2001) 247 ITR 209 (SC), Smt. Tej Kumari v. CIT and Udai Mistan Bhandar v. CIT (1996) 222 ITR 44 (Pat). The additional ground raised by the appellant is not being admitted. It was held in the case of Indian Steel & Wire Products Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 740 (Cal) that the additional ground should normally not be allowed. Even if allowed, limitation under Section 253 should be adhered to i.e., within 60 days from the date of communication of the order of the CIT(A), This Bench of Tribunal had already held in the following cases that the additional ground can be raised within the time-limit allowed under Section 253(3) of the Act : 1. Asstt. CIT v. Ansari Builders, ITA No. 1864/Jp/94, order dt. 21st Dec., 2000 [reported at (2001) 70 TTJ (Jd) 664--Ed.) 2. Bana Lal Jat v. Asstt. CUT [ITA No. 511 & 517/Jp/2000, order dt. 21st Dec., 2000].
(3.) GROUND No. 1 : Orders of the AO and the CIT(A) are bad in law The learned authorised representative has contended that the order of the AO contained certain factual errors and there were also factual errors in the order of CIT(A). Both the authorities below could not appreciate the facts of the case.;