These two appeals filed by assessee against consolidated order of CIT(A), New Delhi, involving exactly identical grounds and issues, passed in Appeal Nos. 134 & 135/05-06/CIT(A)-XIV/Delhi, dated 2-12-2005 were heard together and are being disposed of through this single order for sake of convenience. 2.The identical grounds of appeal taken by assessee in both its appeals are as under:- "On facts and in circumstances of case and in law Ld. CIT (Appeals) was not justified in confirming order passed by Assessing Officer under section 154/254 of Act because: (i) there was no mistake apparent from record in order passed under section 254/143(3) of Act; (ii) interest under section 234B could not be charged under section 154 of Act since there was no directions by Assessing Officer in original order for charging interest; (iii) order against which rectification order was passed had merged with order of Hon'ble ITAT and therefore Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to take recourse to rectification proceedings." 3. Briefly stated, facts relating to issue involved in these grounds of appeals are that original assessments under section 143(3) of Income- tax Act, 1961 were completed in these cases. While making assessments, Assessing Officer did not allow claim of assessee for deduction under section 80-O of Act as same was claimed by assessee on basis of gross amount of convertible foreign exchange received by assessee. 4. On appeal, CIT(A) allowed relief to assessee in toto. However, in 2nd appeal before Tribunal filed by Revenue, ITAT directed Assessing Officer to allow deduction under section 80-O of Act on net income to be computed as per directions of Tribunal issued in assessment year 1996-97. As per directions of ITAT, Assessing Officer determined income of assessee for assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98 at Rs. 7,40,660 and Rs. 14,81,970 respectively. He issued demand notice and charged interest under section 234B up to date of assessment order and same was also paid by assessee. 5. Later on, assessee moved application under section 154 of Act pointing out that interest under section 220(2) has wrongly been charged as it should be charged from date of order passed under section 254/143(3) of Act, i.e., after 30-11-2004. While examining claim of assessee, Assessing Officer noticed that in Form No. ITNS-150 sent to assessee with order under section 254/143(3) dated 30-11-2004, interest under section 234B was charged up to date of original assessment order, i.e., up to 31-3- 2000 whereas it should have been charged up to date of reassessment framed vide order under section 254/143(3) of Act, i.e., 30-11-2004. 6. Further, according to Assessing Officer, since it was mistake apparent from records, notice under section 154 was issued by him to assessee requiring it to explain as to why interest under section 234B should not be charged up to date of reassessment made vide order under section 254/143(3) dated 30-11-2004. 7. In response thereto, assessee filed reply dated 2-5-2005 wherein assessee contended that interest under section 234B of Act was not chargeable in this case because short payment of advance tax was mainly because of bona fide dispute regarding allowability/applicability/interpretation of section 80-O, i.e., whether deduction under section 80-O is to be allowed on gross basis or net basis and hence charging of interest under section 234B was not justified. In support of his contention, assessee also relied upon ratio of judgment in case of CIT v. Sedco Forex International Drilling Co. Ltd. [2003] 264 ITR 320 (Uttaranchal). 8. Learned Assessing Officer after considering reply of assessee and distinguishing facts of Sedco Forex International Drilling Co. Ltd.'s case (supra) with facts of instant case of assessee, rejected contentions of assessee and came to conclusion that by not charging correct interest under section 234B of Act vide ITNS-150 Assessing Officer committed mistake apparent from record and hence it required rectification and accordingly he rectified mistake and charged interest under section 234B of Act up to date of order of ITAT. 9. Aggrieved with order of Assessing Officer, assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) and reiterated submissions made before Assessing Officer. CIT(A) after considering submissions of assessee and analyzing provisions of section 234B and after taking into consideration decision of Apex Court in case of CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala [2001] 252 ITR 1, held that levying of interest under section 234B upon assessee was mandatory and same has been rightly charged by Assessing Officer by passing order under section 154/254 of Act because after order passed by ITAT there was no debate on point of charging interest under section 234B of Act. 10. Before us, learned AR for assessee in support of his grounds of appeals raised before us firstly contended that in this case Assessing Officer has wrongly charged interest up to date of order, i.e., 30-11-2004 passed by ITAT because same if at all is required to be charged that should have been up to date of regular assessment made by Assessing Officer. Secondly, he contended that in instant case no notice under section 154 of Act was given to assessee and hence order passed by Assessing Officer under section 254, read with section 154 of Act was invalid and thirdly, learned AR for assessee contended that since allowability of assessee's claim of deduction under section 80-O, i.e., whether it is to be allowed on gross basis or net basis was in itself debatable so no interest under section 234B could have been charged from assessee after order passed b y ITAT because assessee could not have visualized that his claim under section 80-O would be only allowed on net basis and not on gross basis by ITAT. Further according to assessee since it has declared its income as Nil neither any advance tax was required to be paid by assessee and consequently no interest under section 234B was chargeable and so Assessing Officer was not competent to pass order under section 154 of Income-tax Act, 1961 and same has been wrongly upheld by CIT(A). In Income-tax Act, 1961 and same has been wrongly upheld by CIT(A). In support thereof he has relied upon following case laws: 1. Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT [2005] 95 ITD 269 (Delhi) (SB) (Mag.) 2. Sedco Forex International Drilling Co. Ltd.'s case (supra) 3. CIT v.Reading & Bates Exploration Co. [2005] 278 ITR 47 (Uttaranchal) 4. Sri Renukeswara Rice Mills v. ITO [2005] 93 ITD 263 (Bang.) 5. Addl. CIT v. Isthmian India Maritime (P.) Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 570 (Mad.) 6. CIT v. Asian Cables Corpn. Ltd. (No. 1) [2003] 262 ITR 535 (Bom.). 11. On other hand, learned DR for Revenue countering arguments of learned AR for assessee submitted that after decision of ITAT since there was increase in liability on account of allowance of deduction under section 80-O on net basis against interest on gross basis as claimed by assessee, so, as per provisions of section 234B of Act, read with Explanation 4, Assessing Officer has rightly charged interest under section 234B of Act up to date of decision by ITAT. He further contended that since there was no debate on this point after decision of ITAT, hence, Assessing Officer has rightly issued notice under section 154 of Act and corrected his mistake which he earlier committed at time of issuing ITNS-150. 12. We have considered rival contentions of both parties, perused records and carefully gone through orders of tax authorities below as well as case laws relied upon by learned AR for assessee. 13. In order to appreciate proposition, whether Assessing Officer by passing order under section 154/254 can validly charge interest under section 234B of Income-tax Act in consequence of order passed by ITAT, we have looked into relevant provision of section 234B of Act which are reproduced as under: "234B. Interest for defaults in payment of advance tax.-(1) Subject to other provisions of this section, where, in any financial year, assessee who is liable to pay advance tax under section 208 has failed to pay such tax or, where advance tax paid by such assessee under provisions o f section 210 is less than ninety per cent of assessed tax, assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at rate of one per cent for every month or part of month comprised in period from 1st day of April next following such financial year to date of determination of total income under sub-section (1) of section 143 [and where regular assessment is made, to date of such regular assessment, on amount] equal to assessed tax or, as case may be, on amount by which advance tax paid as aforesaid falls short of assessed tax. Explanation 1.-In this section, 'assessed tax' means tax on total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on regular assessment as reduced by amount of tax deducted or collected at source in accordance with provisions of Chapter XVII on any income which is subject to such deduction or collection and which is taken into account in computing such total income. Explanation 2.-Where, in relation to assessment year, assessment is made for first time under section 147 or section 153A, assessment so made shall be regarded as regular assessment for purposes of this section. ** ** ** (4) Where, as result of order under section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or order of Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) o r sub-section (3) has been increased or reduced, as case may be, interest shall be increased or reduced accordingly, and- (i) in case where interest is increased, Assessing Officer shall serve on assessee notice of demand in prescribed form specifying sum payable and such notice of demand shall be deemed to be notice under sum payable and such notice of demand shall be deemed to be notice under section 156 and provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly. (ii) in case where interest is reduced, excess interest paid, if any, shall be refunded." 14. From plain reading of relevant provisions of section 234B it is clear that if advance tax paid by assessee is less than 90 per cent of assessed tax, assessee is liable to pay interest under section 234B of Act at prescribed rates on assessed tax or as case may be on amount of which advance tax paid falls short of assessed tax. In Explanation 1, it has also been defined what is assessed tax. As per this Explanation, assessed tax means tax on total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on regular assessment as reduced by amount of tax deducted or collected at source in accordance with provisions of Chapter XVII on any income which is subject to such deduction or collection and which is taken into account in computing such total income. From above provisions noted and discussed above, it is clear that for determining liability under section 234B of Act, assessed tax is to be taken into consideration for working out liability as noted above. It is also provided in this section itself, how interest under section 234B of Act is required to be calculated. 15. Whereas section 234B(4) specifically deals with situation where assessment made under section 143(1), 143(3) or 144 is altered/modified/revised by order of rectification, appeal, revision or reference or even by order of settlement passed under section 245D(4) of Act. Interest under section 234B shall be increased or reduced accordingly. 16. Apex Court in case of Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (supra) has held that levying of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of Act is mandatory in nature which means that after decision of Apex Court in case of Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (supra), Assessing Officer in view of clear provisions of section 234B was duty bound to work out interest under section 234B on account of order passed by learned ITAT. 17. Now, other important point which needs to be considered is terminus dated up to which interest under section 234B of Act is required to be charged by Assessing Officer and payable by assessee. sub- section (4) to section 234B simply provides that if amount on which interest is payable under sub-section (1) is increased or reduced on account of any of afore-specified orders, interest shall be increased or reduced accordingly. Obviously, statutory mandate only provides for quantification of amount of interest without whispering about terminus date up to which interest should be payable. 18. First, we were able to lay our hands on two contrary decisions of Bombay High Court and Gujarat High Court on this proposition because during t h e course of arguments no assistance was rendered to Bench by authorized representatives of both parties for resolving this controversy. 19. Bombay High Court in CIT v. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. [1984] 146 ITR 452 (FB) ruled that expression "regular assessment" is to be understood as first or original assessment made by Assessing Officer under section 143(3) or section 144 and it does not refer to fresh assessment or modification o f assessment to give effect to decision of appellate or revisional authority. Contrary to this view, Gujarat High Court in Bardolia Textile Mills Ltd. v. ITO [1985] 151 ITR 389 (FB) laid down that "regular assessment" cannot be confined to first original assessment but also includes assessment made pursuant to direction of appellate or revisional authority. 20. Now from these two contrary decisions of Full Benches of two different High Courts it was apparent that good deal of confusion and controversy hovered over implication and effect of sub-section (4) to section 234B, especially in matter of ascertaining terminal point up to which interest is payable for default in payment of advance tax till decision of Apex Court in case of Modi Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1995] 216 ITR 759, relevant page 790E-H. Because in case of Modi Industries Ltd. (supra), Apex Court has set this controversy at rest by making following relevant observations in their order:- "'Assessment' has been given inclusive meaning in sub-section (8) of section 2. It includes reassessment. 'Regular assessment' has been defined in section 2(40) to mean assessment made under section 143 or 144. In context of sections 140A, 141 and 141A 'regular assessment' could only mean original assessment made under section 143 or 144. Having regard to scheme of Act and use of phrase 'regular assessment' in various sections of Act, in section 214 'regular assessment' has been used in no other sense than first order of assessment passed under section 143 or 144. If any consequential order has to be passed by Income-tax Officer to give effect to order passed by higher authority that consequential order cannot be treated as 'regular assessment' nor can date of consequential order be treated as date of regular assessment." (p. 707) Apex Court in this case has also approved Full Bench decision of Bombay High Court in case of Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. (supra) and disapproved Full Bench decision of Gujarat High Court in case of Bardolia Textile Mills Ltd. (supra). Hence, from these two decisions rendered by Apex Court in cases of Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (supra) and Modi Industries Ltd. (supra), it is mandatory for Assessing Officer to charge interest under section 234B of Act and after decision of ITAT, he is duty bound to increase or reduce same as per order of ITAT which he has charged while passing assessment order and up to date of assessment order and not up to date of order passed by him in consequence of order passed by ITAT. 21. In instant case, we find that while issuing ITNS-150 on receipt of order of ITAT Assessing Officer charged interest up to date of assessment order passed by Assessing Officer but later on while examining application moved by assessee under section 154 of Act, he was of opinion that as per provisions of section 234B he was required to charge interest up to date of passing of order by him in pursuance of order of ITAT. Hence, by issuing notice under section 154 of Act and after considering reply of assessee he corrected mistake committed while issuing ITNS 150 wherein he charged interest under section 234B up to date of assessment order earlier passed by him. 22. On examining facts of instant case, we are of opinion that charging of interest under section 234B is not debatable as after order passed by ITAT determining deduction under section 80-O on net basis, Assessing Officer worked out interest under section 234B and charged same up to date of assessment order and vide ITNS 150 created demand and issued notice to assessee for payment of interest under section 234B and same was also paid by assessee. It further means that up to creation of demand of interest under section 234B by Assessing Officer and payment of same by assessee in response to ITNS 150 assessee was not aggrieved and so there was no question of there being any dispute in mind of assessee with respect to charging of interest under section 234B of Act after order of ITAT on account of issue of deduction claimed by assessee under section 80-O on gross basis and allowed by ITAT on net basis. 23. It further means that for first time issue regarding debatability of deduction under section 80-O and charging of interest under section 234B of Income-tax Act, 1961 was only raised by assessee when Assessing Officer issued notice under section 154 simply for charging of interest under section 234B up to date of passing of order by him in pursuance of order passed by Tribunal instead of wrong working of same in ITNS 150 up to date of assessment order. Whereas, only so- called debate raised by assessee could be said to be whether interest under section 234B is to be charged up to date of order of assessment or up to date of passing of order by him in pursuance of order by ITAT. Hence, we find that argument raised for first time by assessee, i.e., since claim of deduction under section 80-O was debatable interest under section 234B could not be levied against assessee under section 234B, is not relevant and is meaningless keeping in view above discussed facts and circumstances because from bare reading of provisions of section 234B, as well as decision of Apex Court in cases of Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (supra) and Modi Industries Ltd. (supra), as reproduced hereinabove, it is evident that Assessing Officer is duty bound to charge interest under section 234B of Act as per order of ITAT up to date of order of assessment passed by Assessing Officer and not up to date of order passed by Assessing Officer and after date of order of passed by ITAT. Hence, now it cannot be said that in instant case charging of interest under section 234B was debatable irrespective of deduction claimed by assessee under section 80-O of Act. Accordingly all arguments put forth by assessee regarding debatable issue raised before us have no merits and are rejected. 24. In instant case, assessee has not been able to establish before us that it is not liable to pay any interest under section 234B of Act after order passed by ITAT and, hence other argument of learned AR for assessee that it has not received any notice issued by Assessing Officer under section 154 of Act has no merits because in instant case assessee has sent reply to notice issued under section 154 of Act and Assessing Officer after considering reply of assessee has passed impugned order under section 254/154 of Act and accordingly this plea of assessee being devoid of any merit is hereby rejected. 25. Though, we have already considered plea of assessee regarding non-chargeability of interest under section 234B of Act because according to assessee, in this case deduction claimed by assessee under section 80-O of Act was debatable issue and so no order under section 154 of Act could be passed by Assessing Officer. This plea has already been rejected by us in light of our discussions made herein-above in this order. However, still we consider it appropriate to discuss case law relied upon by learned AR for assessee and same is discussed as under. 26. On considering decisions of Madras High Court and Bombay High Court in cases of Isthmian India Maritime (P.) Ltd. (supra) and Asian Cables Corpn. Ltd. (No. 1) (supra) we find that these cases are of no assistance to assessee for advancing proposition that charging of interest under section 234B was debatable because charging of interest under section 234B was not issue under consideration before their Lordships in cases (supra) but i n those cases their Lordships were simply required to consider issue of deduction claimed under section 80-O and while deciding that issue their Lordships held that deduction was to be allowed on gross income and not net income for purposes of calculating deduction under section 80-O whereas, simple issue under consideration before us is that in instant case when Tribunal has decided that deduction under section 80-O is to be allowed to assessee on net income whether Assessing Officer can vary interest under section 234B as per order passed by Tribunal and whether in case Assessing Officer comes to conclusions that he committed mistake in charging interest under section 234B while issuing ITNS 150, he can rectify same by passing order under section 154 of Act. 27. Similarly, other case law relied upon by ld. AR for assessee in case of Sri Renukeshwara Rice Mills (supra) decided by ITAT Bangalore Bench wherein Tribunal held that tax payable on returned income being less than Rs. 5,000, assessee was not under obligation to pay advance tax under section 208 because it could not have foreseen disallowance under section 40A(3) interest under section 234B was not chargeable, was distinguishable on facts and hence is of no help to assessee. 28. We further find that other two decisions of Uttaranchal High Court in case of Sedco Forex International Drilling Co. Ltd. (supra), and case of Reading & Bates Exploration Co. (supra) relied upon by ld. AR, their Lordships held that levying of interest under section 234B was not justified when there were conflicting decisions of Tribunal viz.-a-viz. taxability of off-period salary due to non-resident assessee at relevant time and employer company failed to deduct tax at source for which assessee could not be faulted since it does not determine proposition under consideration before us in instant case of assessee. These two cases (supra) too are of no assistance to assessee. For reasons stated above we have come to conclusion that decisions (supra) relied upon by ld. AR for assessee are, since, not directly on issue under consideration before Tribunal, therefore, are of no assistance to assessee being distinguishable on facts. 29. Now, we shall be deciding on merits as to whether after decision of ITAT, Assessing Officer was justified in charging interest under section 234B of Act up to date of assessment order or up to date of order passed by Assessing Officer in consequence of order passed by ITAT by passing order under section 254/154 of Act. In instant case, Assessing Officer has charged interest under section 234B of Act up to date of order passed by him in consequence of order of ITAT by passing order under section 254/154 of Act. This is certainly against decision of Apex Court in case of Modi Industries Ltd. (supra) as well as Full Bench decision of Bombay High Court in case of Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. (supra) [approved by Apex Court] and, hence, order passed by Assessing Officer under section 254/154 of Act charging interest under section 234B of Act up to date of order passed by him in consequence of order of ITAT is against provisions of Law and, hence, same cannot be upheld and consequently same has been wrongly been upheld by CIT(A) and, accordingly, order of CIT(A) in this regard is set-aside to this extent. In light of our above findings grounds of appeal taken by assessee stands disposed of accordingly. 30. In result, instant appeals filed by assessee are partly allowed. In terms of our order passed hereinabove. *** FREIGHTSHIP CONSULTANTS (P) LTD. v. INCOME TAX OFFICER