BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

39 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 92C(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi339Mumbai215Bangalore84Pune39Ahmedabad33Kolkata32Hyderabad13Chennai8Indore6Jaipur6Surat2Cochin2Chandigarh1Calcutta1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)38Transfer Pricing34Section 271(1)(c)30Section 92C29Comparables/TP26Addition to Income26Penalty14Section 27410Section 92C(2)9Disallowance

M/S. EATON FLUID POWER LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 535/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No. 535/Pun/2014 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 156Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act, dated 15-01-2014, wherein the said adjustment on account of arm's length price of international transactions was made in the hands of assessee. Ld. AR further submitted that draft assessment order passed by the AO raising the demand notice along with notice for initiation of penalty proceedings is unsustainable

Showing 1–20 of 39 · Page 1 of 2

9
Section 2718
Section 92C(3)8

NALCO WATER INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -2, , PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1892/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Assessment Year:2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Shivaji B. More
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C(3)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other. The Appellant requests the Hon'ble members a right to amend, alter, substitute or add to the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal

MSC SOFTWARE CORPORATION INDIA P.LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 379/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Garg
Section 143(3)

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2009-10. 2 ITA No. 379/PUN/2014, A.Y. 2009-10 2. The brief facts of the case as emanating from records are : The assessee company is a subsidiary of MSC Software Corporation, USA. The assessee is providing software development services

UTTAM ENERGY LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-12, PUNE

Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2033/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2033/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Uttam Energy Limited, The Acit, Circle-12, Mahendra Chamber, Mayfair V Pune. Co-Op Housing Society, S A-4, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aabcu4100H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Ch Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane – Ar;S Revenue By Shri Deepak Garg – Cit Date Of Hearing 16/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Of The Learned Acit, Circle-12, Pune Passed U/Sec. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") After Giving Effect To The Learned Drp’S Order Dated 24.09.2019. 1.1 The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92BSection 92C

u/s 92CA for 18/09/2017 Specified Domestic transaction by ACIT Date of Transfer Pricing Officer’s Order making 30/10/2018 adjustments to Specified Domestic Transactions ITA No.2033/PUN/2019 / Uttam Energy Limited [A] 5.1 Before proceeding further we will reproduce the unamended Section 92BA (prior to 1/4/2017) as under : Meaning of specified domestic transaction. 92BA. For the purposes of this section and sections

KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2481/PUN/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2481/Pun/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Kimberly Clark Lever P. Ltd., Gat No.934 To 937, Village Sanaswadi Off Nagar Road, Ta- Shirur, Pune-412208. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaack4647E बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-Xi(I), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) Of The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Pune (‘The Assessing Officer’ For Short) Dated 29.10.2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Appellant Objects To The Order Dated 29 October 2012 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Pune [‘Acit’ Or ‘Ao’] Following The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) In Respect Of The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Among Other Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Garg
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 194JSection 40Section 9(1)(vii)

271(1)(c) of the Act. The learned DRP erred in not giving any directions in respect of the same. b. The learned ACIT / DRP erred in not appreciating that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the appellant for penalty proceedings to be initiated in this regard. 9. Each

LEAR AUTOMOTIVE INDIA P. LTD. ,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE

ITA 554/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: \nShri Dhanesh Bafna &For Respondent: \nShri Prakash L. Pathade
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

2, 3, 4 and 5 are allowed. Grounds No. 1 is general in nature. Ground\nNo. 6 relating to initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of\nthe Act is pre-mature.\n17.\nIn the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.\nOrder pronounced in the open court on 10th October, 2025.\nSd/-\n(R.K. Panda

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. MAGIC SOFTWARE ENTERPRISES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2447/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev GheiFor Respondent: Shri R.D. Onkar
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 92CSection 92C(4)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 11,03,966/ - on account of adjustment made to the international transaction. 3. Whether the CIT(A)-13, Pune erred in not appreciating all the facts of the case and not appreciating the meaning, tests and requirements enumerated for interpretation of terms 'due diligence' by the Hon'ble court

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. MAGIC SOFTWARE ENTERPRISES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2448/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev GheiFor Respondent: Shri R.D. Onkar
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 92CSection 92C(4)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 11,03,966/ - on account of adjustment made to the international transaction. 3. Whether the CIT(A)-13, Pune erred in not appreciating all the facts of the case and not appreciating the meaning, tests and requirements enumerated for interpretation of terms 'due diligence' by the Hon'ble court

IMERYS NEWQUEST (INDIA) P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 590/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 590/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Agiwal
Section 143(3)

92C(2) of the Act. Other grounds 5 A.Y. 2010-11 8. Erroneous levy of interest under section 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, the learned AO has erred in levying interest under section 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act, without considering the fact that the adjustment to returned income

INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. M/S. CARRARO TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2776/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92BSection 92C

u/s. 92C, we find that ‘Explanation-7’ to section 271(1)(c) comes into play. For the sake of completeness, the provisions of Explanation 7 are reproduced herein below: “Explanation-7-Where in the case of an assessee who has entered into an international transaction [or specified domestic transaction] defined in section 92B, any amount is added or disallowed

TASTY BITE EATABLES LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 337/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 337/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Garg
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)Section 274Section 92C(2)

penalty proceedings section 271(1) read with section 274 of the Act, without considering the facts of the case. 9. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other. 10. The appellant reserves the right to amend, alter or add to the grounds of appeal.” A.Y.2009-10 4. Shri Arvind Sonde appearing on behalf of assessee

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE vs. FERRERO INDIA PVT.LTD, PUNE

ITA 7/PUN/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jul 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Kumar Jain and Siddesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Smt. Vidya Bajpai

penalty proceedings under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act. 6. The AO passed the assessment order uls 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act on 17.04.2015 (Received by assessee on 07.05.2015). Aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the AO, the Assessee has filed the appeal before the CIT(A) on 03.06.2015. In respect of transfer pricing adjustment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE vs. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES LTD,, PUNE

ITA 2295/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 2295 & 2296/Pun/2017 करनििाारण वषा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . अऩीऱाथी / Appellant Circle-1(2), Pune. बनाम / V/S. Fiat India Automobiles Limited, B-19A, Ranjangaon Midc, Shirur, Pune. . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pan : Aaacf1716D द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Prashant Gadekar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 26/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; Present Appeals Of The Revenue Are Assailed Against Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 13, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 27/07/2016 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which Sprung Out Of Orders Of Penalty [For Short “Po”] Of Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-1(2), Pune [For Short “Ao”] Dt. 29/03/2017 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2009-10 & 2010-11. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 5

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Gadekar
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the penalty whereas the AO has rightly levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) after satisfying himself that the assessee failed to prove that the prices charged or paid in International Taxation was computed in good faith and with due diligence. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE vs. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES LTD,, PUNE

ITA 2296/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 2295 & 2296/Pun/2017 करनििाारण वषा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . अऩीऱाथी / Appellant Circle-1(2), Pune. बनाम / V/S. Fiat India Automobiles Limited, B-19A, Ranjangaon Midc, Shirur, Pune. . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pan : Aaacf1716D द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Prashant Gadekar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 26/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; Present Appeals Of The Revenue Are Assailed Against Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 13, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 27/07/2016 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which Sprung Out Of Orders Of Penalty [For Short “Po”] Of Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-1(2), Pune [For Short “Ao”] Dt. 29/03/2017 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2009-10 & 2010-11. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 5

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Gadekar
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the penalty whereas the AO has rightly levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) after satisfying himself that the assessee failed to prove that the prices charged or paid in International Taxation was computed in good faith and with due diligence. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

MAGNA STEYR INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 468/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri Vispi Patel & Suresh DhootFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. The Department in appeal has assailed the assessment order by raising following grounds : “01. Whether the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel was was right in law and on facts and in circumstances of the case in directing to grant proportionate adjustments

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. MAGNA STEYR INDIA P. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 352/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri Vispi Patel & Suresh DhootFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. The Department in appeal has assailed the assessment order by raising following grounds : “01. Whether the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel was was right in law and on facts and in circumstances of the case in directing to grant proportionate adjustments

RENISHAW METROLOGY SYSTEMS LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 619/PUN/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.619/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Renishaw Metrology Systems The Dy.Commissioner Limited, V Of Income Tax, Circle- S.No.283, Hissa No.2, S.No.284, S 5, Pune. Hissa No.2 & 3A, Raisoni Estate, Taluk – Mulshi, Dist-Pune. Pan: Aabcr6361F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ajit Jain & Shri Siddesh Chaugule – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Suhas Kulkarni – Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 04/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/01/2024

Section 194ASection 271Section 92C(2)Section 92C(3)Section 92D

92C(2) of the Act. 4. Corporate Tax Ground 2 Renishaw Metrology Systems Ltd., [A] adding the differential amount of Rs.15,95,000 to the taxable income of the Appellant without considering the explanation provided by the Appellant that the said income has already been offered to tax in preceding/subsequent years. 5. Others On the facts and in the circumstances

A RAYMOND FASTENERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-8, PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 311/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.311/Pun/2021 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 A Raymond Fasteners India P.Ltd., G. No. 259, 276/8B, Nighoje, Chakan, Taluka – Khed, Pune – 410 501. .......अपीलाथी / Appellant Pan : Aagca7184G

For Appellant: Shri M.P.LohiaFor Respondent: Shri B.Y.Chavan
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act”. 2 A.Y. : 2016-17 A Raymond Fasteners India P.Ltd., . Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee raises the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :- “1. erred in assessing the total income at INR 8,17,88,857 as against

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LIMITED,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 845/PUN/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jun 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 3(22)Section 92BSection 92C

u/s 92C; ii) such ALP determination was in the manner prescribed under the relevant rule; and iii) such ALP determination was done in good faith and with due diligence. 5. There is no dispute insofar as the first condition of the Explanation 7 is concerned inasmuch as the assessee computed the ALP in accordance with the provisions contained in Section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. VISTEON ENGG. CENTER (I) PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Accordingly, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 540/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ms. Nupoor ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)

92C (2) of the Act. 11. Initiation of penalty proceedings The learned ACIT erred on the facts and in law In initiating penalty proceedings section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. 12. Levy of interest obligation on account of transfer pricing adjustment The learned ACIT has erred on the facts and in law while levying interest under section 234B