JUDGMENT This appeal by assessee under section 260A of Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), challenges order dated October 5, 2012, passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal") for assessment year 2000-01. appellant has formulated following questions of law for our consideration: "Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case and on proper interpretation of section 234A and section 234B of Act Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that assessee was liable to pay interest under those sections; when admittedly assessee had bona fide belief and strong arguable case that its income for relevant assessment year would be nil and, hence, no default in payment of advance tax had occurred?" appellant is engaged in business as builder and developer following project completion method for purposes of paying its taxes. During course of assessment proceedings for assessment year 2003-04, it was noticed that miscellaneous income of Rs. 1.32 crores offered to tax in assessment year 2003-04 was claimed to have been received during assessment years 1995-96 to 2003-04. During course of assessment proceedings for assessment year 2003-04, it was found that amount of Rs. 15.48 lakhs was income chargeable to tax in assessment year 2000-01 being income generated on account of parking charges collected on vacant land available with appellant and had nothing to do with any of projects being executed by appellant. As appellant had not filed his return of income for assessment year 2000-01, notice under section 148 of Act was issued. Consequent thereto, income received from parking charges of Rs. 15.48 lakhs was assessed to tax for assessment year 2000-01. On appeal by appellant-assessee, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ("the CIT(A)") set aside order of Assessing Officer. This on ground that amount earned by exploiting vacant land is amount rateable to costs of project and, therefore, properly offered to tax in assessment year 2003-04. This conclusion was reached on basis of decision of Supreme Court in CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 315 (SC). On further appeal by Revenue, Tribunal set aside order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) holding that amount received on account of parking charges is not part of any project and is business income and chargeable to tax for assessment year 2000-01. It was also held that decision of apex court in Bokaro Steel Ltd. (supra) is inapplicable. Thereafter, while giving effect to order of Tribunal in quantum proceedings, Assessing Officer charged interest under section 234A and section 234B of Act, inter alia, in respect of default in payment of advance tax for assessment year 2000-01. On appeal, Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) by order dated July 22, 2011, upheld charging of interest under section 234A and section 234B of Act as charged by Assessing Officer. On further appeal by assessee, Tribunal by impugned order dated October 5, 2012, placed reliance upon decision of Supreme Court in CIT v. Anjum M. H. Ghaswala [2001] 252 ITR 1 (SC) wherein it is held that levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B are mandatory and compensatory in nature. Thus, upholding order of Assessing Officer charging interest. Mr. Naniwadekar, learned counsel appearing for appellant, at very outset submits that grievance is limited to charging of interest under section 234B of Act. It is submitted that no question of charging interest for delayed payment of advance tax under section 234B of Act can arise in absence of finding that non-payment of advance tax was mala fide. In support, he places reliance upon decision of this court in matter of Prime Securities Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Investigation) [2011] 333 ITR 464 (Bom) and particularly emphasises fact that Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had in quantum proceedings accepted contention of appellant. As against above, Mr. Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for respondent, supports impugned order of Tribunal including its observations that decision of apex court in Bokaro Steel Ltd. (supra) is inapplicable. In present facts, appellant had not originally filed its return of income and, therefore, there was no occasion for him to make any advance payment. This non-filing of return of income was on basis of appellant's stand that in view of project completion method followed by him, income earned on parking charges would have to be returned when project was completed. This was not accepted as amount received on account of parking charges was not part of any project. Thus, parking charges was brought to tax in assessment year 2000-01. On facts in quantum proceedings, it has been held by Tribunal that amount received on parking charges has nothing to do with appellant's project and was assessable to tax in assessment year 2000-01. This has been accepted by appellant. If this be so, appellant was obliged to pay advance tax and non-payment of same would carry with it further burden on interest under section 234B of Act. This is so in view of Anjum Ghaswala (supra) where it is held that payment of interest is mandatory and compensatory. reliance by appellant on decision of this court in Prime Securities (supra) is misplaced as it was not case of Revenue that assessee therein had committed any default in payment of advance tax at time when advance tax was paid. court further held that at time of making payment of advance tax, it was not possible to anticipate events and make payment of advance tax on that basis. In present case, it is case of Revenue that there is default on part of appellant in paying advance tax on account of parking charges received by it for assessment year 2000-01. In view of above and particularly, decision of Supreme Court in Anjum Ghaswala (supra), we see no substantial question of law arising to entertain this appeal. Accordingly, appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. *** Sudhir G. Borgaonkar v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax