S.C. Tiwari, A.M.: This appeal has been filed by Revenue on 30th March, 2000 against order of learned CIT(A)-II, New Delhi dt. 17th Dec., 1999 in case of assessee in relation to intimation under s. 143(1)(a) made by AO for asst. yr. 1997-98. In this appeal Revenue has disputed order of learned CIT(A) holding that AO was not justified in determining tax liability under provisions of s. 115JA and in charging consequential interest under ss. 234A, 234B and 234C. According to learned CIT(A) AO has no powers to make such adjustments while making order of intimation under s. 143(1)(a) of Act. During course of hearing before us learned Departmental Representative pointed out that relevant provisions of s. 143(1)(a) as applicable to asst. yr. 1997-98 are as under: "143(1)(a) Where return has been made under s. 139, or in response to notice under sub-s. (1) of s. 142, (i) if any tax or interest is found due on basis of such return, after adjustment of any TDS, any advance tax paid and any amount paid otherwise by way of tax or interest, then, without prejudice to provisions of sub-s. (2), intimation shall be sent to assessee specifying sum so payable, and such intimation shall be deemed to be notice of demand issued under s. 156 and all provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly; and (ii) if any refund is due on basis of such return, it shall be granted to assessee: Provided that in computing tax or interest payable by, or refundable to, assessee, following adjustments shall be made in income or loss declared in return, namely: (i) any arithmetical errors in return, accounts or documents accompanying it shall be rectified; (ii) any loss carried forward, deduction, allowance or relief, which, on basis of information available in such return, accounts or documents, is prima facie admissible but which is not claimed in return, shall be allowed; (iii) any loss carried forward, deduction, allowance or relief claimed in return, which, on basis of information available in such return, accounts or documents, is prima facie inadmissible, shall be disallowed." learned Departmental Representative argued that under provisions as above-quoted if any tax is found due on basis of information available in return of income, AO was entitled to determine tax so payable and intimate same to assessee. There was no room for doubt that amounts payable under s. 115JA were tax payable by assessee. In instant case AO had not relied upon any extraneous information or particulars and done t h e working of tax due from assessee under s. 115JA on basis of documents annexed to return of income only. learned CIT(A), therefore, erred in holding that AO had no such powers under s. 143(1)(a). Secondly learned Departmental Representative argued that as far as provisions of ss. 234A, 234B and 234C are concerned, same have been held mandatory by Hon ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala & Ors. (2001) 171 CTR (SC) 1: (2001) 252 ITR 1 (SC) and subsequent judgments in CIT vs. Hindustan Bulk Carriers (2003) 179 CTR (SC) 362: (2003) 259 ITR 449 (SC) and CIT vs. Sant Ram Mangat Ram Jewellers & Ors. (2004) 186 CTR (SC) 115: (2003) 264 ITR 564 (SC). learned Authorised Representative of assessee referred to decision of Tribunal, Delhi Bench "A", New Delhi dt. 29th April, 2005 in case of Travel Club (India) (P) Ltd. in ITA No. 213/Del/2004. He argued that in that decision Tribunal had noted that in Form No. 1 for return of income, there was no column for computing income under provisions of s. 115JB. There was of course Sch. I under heading "Book profits under s. 115JB" but book profit computed in accordance with above Schedule was not required to be taken to Sch. F "Statement of total income". On that basis Tribunal had held that it would be unjust to impose penalty under s. 271(1)(c) on assessee for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. learned Authorised Representative of assessee argued that it, thus, follows that there was no liability on assessee to declare tax payable under s. 115JA. That being so AO could not make any such adjustment and in instant case learned AO has clearly exceeded his powers under s. 143(1)(a). learned Authorised Representative of assessee referred to judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court in case of Salwan Construction Co. & Ors. vs. Union of India (2000) 161 CTR (Del) 300: (2000) 245 ITR 175 (Del). He argued that following ratio of that judgment, we should hold that provisions of s. 143(1)(a), as they exist today, should be applied to find out whether or not adjustment of kind made by learned AO is permissible. learned Authorised Representative of assessee argued that there were direct High Courts judgments that if assessee did not work out tax liability under s. 115J, no tax under s. 115J could be charged by way of intimation under s. 143(1)(a). He relied in this respect on following judgments: (i) Mahalakshmi Glass Works Ltd. vs. Sunil Gupta, Asstt. CIT (1992) 108 CTR (Bom) 127: (1993) 203 ITR 658 (Bom); (ii) CIT vs. Super Roller Flour Mills Ltd. (2000) 161 CTR (AP) 275: (1999) 238 ITR 931 (AP); and (iii) Parikh Engineering & Body Building Co. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2000) 158 CTR (Pat) 469: (1999) 238 ITR 554 (Pat). learned counsel read elaborately from judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Karnataka Small Scale Industries Development Corpn. Ltd. vs. CIT (2003) 179 CTR (SC) 1: (2002) 258 ITR 770 (SC). He pointed out that Hon ble Supreme Court laid down two stages for determination of tax payable under s. 115J. First stage was computation of total income on completion of assessment. Second stage was computation of 30 per cent of book profit. It was only when assessed total income fell short of 30 per cent of book profit that provisions of s. 115J could be applied. It, therefore, followed that there was no question of determination of any tax payable under s. 115JA in intimation under s. 143(1)(a) without there being completion of order of assessment under s. 143(3). learned Authorised Representative also referred to judgment of Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CIT vs. S.S. Banga (2006) 202 CTR (P&H) 90: (2005) 279 ITR 107 (P&H). learned Departmental Representative in his rejoinder referred to para 3 and para 13 of decision of Tribunal in case of Travel Club (India) (P) Ltd. (supra). He pointed out that contention of assessee that income determined under s. 115JB did not constitute total income of company was rejected by Tribunal and it was held that whatever is deemed to be total income of assessee by virtue of s. 115JB is also total income within meaning of s. 2(45), s. 5 and s. 139(1) of Act and, therefore, company was obliged in law to declare its book profit ascertained under s. 115JB as its total income and pay tax thereof. Again in para 13 Tribunal held that since assessee had along with return of income attached P&L a/c and balance sheet from which AO could have computed book profit under s. 115JB and demanded tax in accordance therewith, basic fact relating to computation of book profit had been given with return of income. There was, therefore, no assistance to case of assessee from decision of Tribunal in case of Travel Club (India) (P) Ltd. (supra). In that decision only lenient view was taken in relation to levy of penalty for concealment of income. At outset we are of considered opinion that act of AO to make order under s. 115JA while issuing order of intimation under s. 143(1)(a) is integral part of determination of tax found due on basis of return of income itself. While doing so AO has made no adjustment at all even if in return of income filed assessee had omitted or failed to make computation of tax liability under provisions of s. 115JA of Act. Provisions of s. 143(1)(a) enjoin upon AO to determine tax or interest payable by assessee on basis of return of income filed by assessee himself and if after credit of any TDS and any advance tax paid, any tax or interest is found due, to issue intimation to assessee specifying sum so payable, or to grant if any refund is found due to assessee after giving credit of TDS and advance tax paid along with intimation issued under s. 143(1)(a). However, advance tax paid along with intimation issued under s. 143(1)(a). However, provisions of s. 143(1)(a) permit AO to make certain adjustments to income or loss declared in return of income by assessee, which are in nature of prima facie adjustments as specified in provisions of s. 143(1)(a) itself. Thus, provisions of s. 143(1)(a) have two operatives. Primary operative relates to determining of tax payable and credit of any TDS and any advance tax paid by assessee. secondary operative is adjustments to income or loss declared in return in accordance with provision. In our considered opinion, calculation of tax liability under s. 115JA is within first part of operation of s. 143(1)(a) itself, i.e., to find out tax or interest or refund due on basis of return of income filed by assessee. It is integral part of activity of determination of tax payable and not in nature of adjustment as such to income or loss declared in return of income. Thus, if on basis of return of income filed by assessee, any tax liability is fastened upon assessee by virtue of provisions of s. 115JA, determination thereof in intimation under s. 143(1)(a) is part of basic implementation of provision and it does not fall in category of adjustments made by AO to income or loss returned by assessee. Hence very debate whether it is in nature of prima facie adjustment or not does not arise because such computation of tax payable under s. 115JA is made by way of process of implementation of provisions of s. 143(1)(a) itself. After consideration of matter we find that there is scant assistance to arguments of assessee from various authorities cited and relied upon by learned Authorised Representative of assessee during course of hearing before us. First of all, we may mention that decision of Tribunal, Delhi Bench in case of Travel Club (India) (P) Ltd. (supra), on which much reliance was placed by learned Authorised Representative of assessee, is in fact in favour of Revenue and against assessee in relation to question for consideration in this appeal before us. In aforesaid decision Hon ble Tribunal have in para 3 of their order observed as under: "3. learned counsel for assessee first contended that book profit does not constitute total income of company and, therefore, there was no obligation to disclose book profit in return of income as total income and there can be no concealment if assessee-company had not declared book profit in its return. Sec. 115JB provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of Act, where in case of company income-tax payable on total income computed under provisions of Act is less than 7.5 per cent of its book profit, such book profit shall be deemed to be total income of company and tax payable by company on such total income shall be amount of income-tax at rate of 7.5 per cent. Explanation below section defines book profit as net profit shown in P&L a/c prepared as per provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and increased or decreased by certain amounts mentioned therein, with which we are not concerned. Sec. 139(1) obliges every company to file return of income on or before particular date if its total income during previous year exceeded maximum amount not chargeable to income-tax. Sec. 2(45) defines total income to mean total amount of income referred to in s. 5, computed in manner laid down in Act. Sec. 4 says that tax shall be charged at rates prescribed in relevant Finance Act in accordance with and subject to provisions of Act in respect of total income of previous year of every person. In light of these provisions, we are unable to accept contention of learned counsel for assessee. Whatever is deemed to be total income of assessee by virtue of s. 115JB is also total income within meaning of s. 2(45), s. 5 and s. 139(1) and, therefore, company was obliged in law to declare its book profit ascertained under s. 115JB as its total income and pay tax thereon." From extract of Tribunal order as given by us it is abundantly clear that there is no doubt that assessee s tax liability under s. 115JB can be brought to tax by way of order of intimation under s. 143(1)(a) of Act. dispute before them related to question as to whether in case of assessee, who had along with return of income attached all particulars needed for computation of book profit under s. 115JB, but who had otherwise omitted to compute his tax liability under s. 115JB, it can be held that assessee had concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of his income within meaning of provisions of s. 271(1)(c) so as to attract penalty thereunder. In present appeal we are concerned with primary issue as to whether or not AO is empowered to compute tax liability under s. 115JA on basis of return of income even if assessee has failed or omitted to do so in return of income. On this primary aspect there is no doubt expressed in order of Tribunal in case of Travel Club (India) (P) Ltd. (supra) and they have dealt with secondary question as to whether assessee having failed to compute tax liability under s. 115JB in return of income, can be visited by penalty under s. 271(1)(c). As to reliance placed by assessee on judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court in case of Salwan Construction Co. vs. Union of India (supra), we find same to be entirely misplaced. First, as we have stated earlier, computation of tax liability under s. 115JA is part of main provision of s. 143(1)(a) and it is not in nature of "adjustment" specified under provisions of s. 143(1)(a). There is no change in legal position in this behalf and, therefore, there is no force in argument of learned Authorised Representative of assessee that provisions of s. 143(1)(a), as they existed at time of intimation under s. 143(1)(a) or as they exist today during course of proceedings before us, should be applied. judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court in case of Salwan Construction Co. (supra) relates to prosecution provisions on failure to deduct tax at source. position in relation to tax liability provisions of IT Act is fairly well-settled that if amendment is of substantive nature so as to effect/affect tax payable by assessee, amended provision would apply prospectively. Where, however, new provision relates to machinery provision or procedural provision of Act, amended provision would apply to all proceedings pending as on date of amendment. In our opinion provisions of s. 143(1)(a) directly affect tax payable by assessee and, therefore, any amendment in that provision has to be treated as substantive and applicable prospectively. We may also mention that none of three judgments, viz., (1992) 108 CTR (Bom) 127: (1993) 203 ITR 658 (Bom) (supra), (2000) 158 CTR (Pat) 469: (1999) 238 ITR 554 (Pat) (supra) and (2000) 161 CTR (AP) 275: (1999) 238 ITR 931 (AP) (supra) relate to facts of case before us. In none of three aforesaid Court judgments there was any dispute as to whether or not tax liability under s. 115JA can be computed in order of intimation under s. 143(1)(a). In under s. 115JA can be computed in order of intimation under s. 143(1)(a). In all three cases assessees had themselves worked out tax payable on basis of book profits. AO, however, made his own adjustments to amount of book profit as worked out in return of income and by way of order under s. 143(1)(a) AO demanded higher amount of tax payable under s. 115J, than that determined by assessees themselves. In none of those three cases, there is any doubt that AO cannot compute tax liability under s. 115J on basis of information available in return of income where assessee has not done that in return of income. During course of hearing before us there was considerable debate as to whether or not AO was justified in charging interest under ss. 234A, 234B and 234C. We find that preponderance of judicial opinion is that AO can charge interest under ss. 234B and 234C in relation to any shortfall in payment of tax payable under s. 115J by way of advance tax. Reference in this respect is invited to following judgments: (i) CIT vs. Holiday Travels (P) Ltd. (2003) 181 CTR (Mad) 442: (2003) 263 ITR 307 (Mad); (ii) CIT vs. Upper India Steel Mfg. & Engg. Co. Ltd. (2004) 192 CTR (P&H) 385: (2005) 279 ITR 123 (P&H); (iii) Karimtharuvi Tea Estates Ltd. & Anr. vs. Dy. CIT (2000) 163 CTR (Ker) 565; (iv) Assam Bengal Carriers Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 162 CTR (Gau) 170: (1999) 239 ITR 862 (Gau); (v) Itarsi Oils & Flours (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2001) 170 CTR (MP) 158: (2001) 250 ITR 686 (MP); and (vi) CIT vs. Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd. (2003) 183 CTR (Bom) 491: (2003) 265 ITR 119 (Bom). It may be mentioned that in case of Kerala High Court judgment cited above, levy of additional tax under s. 143(1A) in relation to interest under s. 234B too has been upheld by Hon ble Kerala High Court. In other words issue is not treated to be one on which there may be more than one opinion. In result, we are of view that learned CIT(A) is completely unjustified in holding that AO is not empowered to charge interest (sic-tax) under s. 115JA while issuing intimation under s. 143(1)(a). We, therefore, reverse decision of learned CIT(A) and restore order under s. 143(1)(a) and tax as demanded thereunder by AO. In result, this appeal filed by Revenue is allowed. *** JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. MOHAN EXPORTS INDIA LTD.