THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO ITTA No.51 of 2002 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon ble Sri Justice A.Ramalingeswara Rao) This appeal is directed against order in ITA No.404/Hyd/2001, dated 23.11.2001, passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench-A, partly allowing appeal of assessee. only question of law raised, framed and to be decided is whether Tribunal was justified in sustaining following additions consequent to: i) rejection of books of accounts by assessing officer; ii) remand made by Tribunal directing assessing officer to decide afresh quantum of interest that is allowable as deduction in net profit; iii) holding of insurance receipt of Rs.37,025/- as not capital in nature; and iv) levy of interest under Section 234B and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, Act), in facts of case. So far as issue relating to rejection of books of accounts and estimation of income is concerned, Tribunal upheld rejection of books of accounts by assessing officer based on its earlier orders in assessee s own case in I.T.A.Nos.1170/Hyd/1997 and 567/Hyd/1998, dated 10.08.1999. order of assessing officer was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals), based on earlier order of Tribunal, and consequently, Tribunal upheld action of Commissioner (Appeals). In view of earlier order passed by Tribunal in respect of books of accounts in assessee s own case which has become final, we do not see any error in finding recorded by Tribunal. Regarding second issue for claim for deduction of material supplied by department from gross contract receipts prior to estimation of income, contention of assessee was accepted in view of decision of Supreme Court in Brij Bhushan Lal [1] Parduman Kumar v. CIT . Similarly, from gross contract receipts, quantum of work given on sub-contract should be subtracted as management contract receipt or sub-contract commission is assessed separately. Tribunal held that mode of calculation adopted by assessing officer and Commissioner (Appeals) resulted in double taxation, and held that estimation of profit at 12% should be applied on gross receipts minus material recoveries by department and turnover got executed through sub- contractors. It further held that from out of this net profit, depreciation should be allowed separately. Accordingly, Tribunal directed assessing officer to allow same and quantum of interest that is allowable as genuine should be decided afresh by assessing officer. This part of remand is challenged by assessee now, and we are not in position to understand how assessee can challenge order of remand when substantial issue was decided in favour of assessee. remand is only to extent of calculating quantum of interest that is allowable as genuine. In that view of matter, we hold that assessee cannot be said to be aggrieved by order of remand only for limited purpose of calculation of quantum of interest by assessing officer. Insofar as third issue relating to insurance receipt of Rs.37,025/- is concerned, Tribunal recorded that no evidence was put forward that receipt is of capital nature and, accordingly, upheld addition on this account made by assessing officer. Tribunal came to that conclusion in absence of any evidence put forward by assessee to show that receipt is of capital nature. This issue is pure question of fact and no question of law is involved. With regard to last issue of levy of interest under Section 234B and 234C of Act, Tribunal held that levy is mandatory and as it was consequential levy, same should be modified in accordance with order. As rightly pointed out by Tribunal, levy of interest under Section 234B and 234C of Act is in accordance with provisions of Act and mandatory and necessary modification has to be done pursuant to order passed by Tribunal. Learned Counsel for appellant could not point out how levy of interest under Section 234B and 234C of Act is bad in law. In view of above findings, we hold that question of law as framed for our consideration in this appeal, is not substantial question of law arising for our consideration, and accordingly dismiss appeal. miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (DILIP B. BHOSALE, J) (A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J) 03.03.2015 vs [1] (1978) 115 ITR 524 (SC) Y.Rama Chandra Reddy Hyd v. Addl. Comm. of Income-tax Assts. Hyd