Tribunal partially allows appeal on excess interest under Section 234C, citing failure to consider stock market conditions.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the assessee concerning the excess interest charged under Section 234C of the Act. The Tribunal found that the CIT (A) failed to consider the uncertainty regarding performance fees based on stock market conditions, leading to an unjustified decision. The issue related to excess interest under Section 234B was dismissed as it became irrelevant after the decision on Section 234C.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Failure of the CIT (A) to pass an order on all grounds of appeal.
2. Failure of the CIT (A) to pass order on excess levy of interest under Section 234C of the Act.
3. Failure of the CIT (A) to pass order on excess levy of interest under Section 234B of the Act.

Issue 1: Failure of the CIT (A) to pass an order on all grounds of appeal:
The appeal was filed against the order passed by NFAC, Delhi, for A.Y. 2019-20. The appellant contended that the CIT (A) erred in passing an order on all grounds of appeal without considering the submissions. The appellant requested a speaking order on all grounds of appeal. The fact in brief was that the CPC, Bangalore, processed the return of income and charged interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Act. The appellant argued that the CIT (A) dismissed the appeal without proper consideration. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant's counsel emphasized the uncertainty of stock market performance fees and cited relevant precedents. The Departmental Representative supported the lower authorities. The Tribunal observed that the CIT (A) did not consider the uncertainty regarding performance fees based on stock market conditions. Relying on judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal allowed the ground of appeal of the assessee.

Issue 2: Failure of the CIT (A) to pass order on excess levy of interest under Section 234C of the Act:
The appellant challenged the excess interest charged under Section 234C of the Act. The appellant, engaged in Portfolio Management Services, argued that performance fees could only be ascertained on the last day of the year due to stock market volatility. The appellant cited relevant decisions to support their case. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities did not dispute the uncertainty of estimating performance fees due to market volatility. Considering the precedents and factual submissions, the Tribunal found the CIT (A)'s decision unjustified and allowed the ground of appeal.

Issue 3: Failure of the CIT (A) to pass order on excess levy of interest under Section 234B of the Act:
The appellant also contested the excess interest charged under Section 234B of the Act. Since the Tribunal had already allowed the appeal regarding excess interest under Section 234C, the issue related to Section 234B became infructuous and did not require adjudication. Therefore, this ground was dismissed as it was no longer relevant after the decision on Section 234C.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the assessee concerning the excess interest charged under Section 234C of the Act, while dismissing the issue related to excess interest under Section 234B as it became irrelevant.

---