Deepak R. Shah, A.M.: This appeal by assessee is directed against order of learned CIT(A), Davangere, dt. 12th March, 2003. first ground of appeal is against disallowance of sum of Rs. 1,79,350 being discount allowed to customers through credit notes. assessee-firm carried on business in purchase and sale of seeds and pesticides. survey was conducted at business premises of assessee on 2nd July, 1998. During course of survey, assessee agreed to offer additional income of Rs. 2,45,000 for assessment year under appeal. assessee declared sum as there were certain cash credits in books of account for which assessee had no documentary evidence to substantiate genuineness of such cash credits. During course of survey, AO also found certain credit notes in premises of assessee. AO held that credit notes are not issued by assessee. Thus, such rebate/discount has not been passed on. Even recipient of such discount has not accounted as such credit notes were not issued. He accordingly disallowed sum. When matter was carried before learned CIT(A), learned CIT(A) asked for remand report from AO vide his letter dt. 5th July, 2002. direction of learned CIT(A) is containing following words: "The AO is directed to provide cross-verification of assessee before disallowing claims of incentive amounting to Rs. 1,66,290. Same is case with regard to discount amounting to Rs. 1,79,212. In interest of natural justice, AO is directed to provide adequate opportunity to assessee to prove these expenses and cross-verify payment of incentive and discount." When AO conducted further enquiry pursuant to such remand report, t h e assessee filed necessary details. However, while passing impugned order, learned CIT(A) held that "there is no question of providing cross- examination facility to appellant. payment of discount is not genuine". assessee, therefore, challenges above finding. Learned counsel for assessee, S/Shri V. Srinivasan and Virupanna Amberkar submitted that learned CIT(A) has gone against his own direction. While calling for remand report, assessee filed all details. AO has collected certain information, which was not provided to assessee and hence, learned CIT(A) has asked AO to provide all these details. This direction has not been complied with. Accordingly, matter is required to be restored back t o AO to provide all information and consider submission by assessee. It was, therefore, concluded that in interest of justice, matter is required to be restored to AO. Learned Departmental Representative submitted that in interest of justice, matter may be restored back. On careful consideration of relevant facts and arguments advanced, we are convinced that matter is required to be restored back to AO for examining claim of assessee afresh. We set aside direction of learned CIT(A) and AO shall provide necessary information collected in this regard and also to consider claim of assessee in regard to claim of discount/rebates. next ground of appeal is against disallowance of remuneration to partners. AO held that for purpose of "book profits" as defined in s. 40(b), income declared during course of survey cannot be considered. He accordingly restricted claim of remuneration, after excluding additional income declared during survey, from book profits. same was upheld by learned CIT(A). Learned counsel for assessee submitted that any credit in books of account and forming part of profit as per P&L a/c is to be considered for purpose of book profit defined in s. 40(b). Sec. 68 is not independent of any of charging provisions and income is taxed under either of heads. In present case, cash credit is nothing but part of book profit and accordingly taxed as business income. When it is taxed as business income as per s. 40(b), such income forms part of book profit and remuneration thereon is allowable, which is authorized by and in accordance with terms of partnership deed. For this proposition, he relied upon decision of Tribunal, Bangalore, in ITA No. 325/Bang/1997 in case of Sharada Rice Mills, dt. 18th Dec., 2000. Learned Departmental Representative, on other hand, relied upon appellate order. It was submitted that decision of Tribunal relied is distinguishable on facts. We have carefully considered relevant facts and arguments advanced. cash credits were found recorded in books of account. Thus, nature of such cash credits attains character of business income. words book profit defined in s. 40(b) mean net profit as shown in P&L a/c computed in manner laid down in Chapter IV-D. assessee included such unexplained cash credits in its P&L a/c. book profit is to be computed in manner laid down in Chapter IV-D. Thus, this cash credit forms part of book profit. assessee is not carrying on any other business and has no other source of income. Thus, whatever income arising to assessee is business income and hence, computation is in accordance with Chapter IV-D. Thus, it can be held that such cash credit forms part of book profit for purpose of computation of remuneration. AO is directed to include such cash credit in book profit for purpose of allowing remuneration to partners which is authorized by and in accordance with terms of partnership deed. next ground of appeal is against charging of interest under ss. 234B and 234C of Act. Interest under s. 234C is chargeable on advance tax payable on basis of income declared in return of income. Interest under s. 234B is consequential in nature, as assessee does not deny its liability to pay advance tax. In result, appeal is allowed. *** DEEPA AGRO AGENCIES v. INCOME TAX OFFICER