UOP India Private Ltd., New Delhi v. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4286/DEL/2011 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2012 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 428620114 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AAACU2687E
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 4286/DEL/2011
Duration Of Justice 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant UOP India Private Ltd., New Delhi
Respondent ACIT, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-03-2012
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted H
Tribunal Order Date 30-03-2012
Date Of Final Hearing 21-03-2012
Next Hearing Date 21-03-2012
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 26-09-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI H BENC H BEFORE SHRI A.N. PAHUJA AM AND SHRI C.M. GARG JM ITA NO.4286/D EL. /2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08 UOP INDIA PRIVATE LTD. PLOT NO.2A FIRST FLOOR MALVIYA NAGAR CORNER MARKET NEW DELHI V/S . ASSISTANT CIT CIRCLE 18(1) NEW DELHI [PAN:AAACU 2687 E] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI NAGESHWAR RAO AR REVENUE BY SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR DR O R D E R A.N.PAHUJA:- THIS APPEAL FILED ON 26.09.2011 BY THE ASSESSEE AG AINST AN ORDER DATED 26.07.2011 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-XXI NEW DELHI RAISES THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- ON THE FACTS OF AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A)-XXI NEW DELHI (CIT(A)) HAS: 1 ERRED IN PASSING AN ORDER WHICH IS BAD IN LAW AS : 1.1 DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION OF EXPENSES IS AGAIN ST THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD NOTIFIED BY CBDT UNDER SECTION 145(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT). PARA A(4) (I) OF NOTIFICATION NO. S.O. 69(E) DATED 25.01.1996 RECOGN IZING THE PRINCIPLE OF PRUDENCE CLEARLY STATES THAT PROVISIO NS SHOULD BE MADE FOR ALL KNOWN LIABILITIES AND LOSSES EVEN THOU GH THE AMOUNT CANNOT BE DETERMINED WITH CERTAINTY AND REPR ESENTS ONLY A BEST ESTIMATE IN THE LIGHT OF AVAILABLE INFO RMATION. 1.2 FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION EXPENSE IS ALLOWAB LE AS PER THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS IN THE CASE OF; I) CIT VS. WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA (P) LTD. & HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. (2010) (312 ITR 254); II) CIT VS. MARUTI UDYOG LTD. (2009) (320 ITR 729); DATE OF HEARING 21-03-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30-03-2012 ITA NO.4286/DEL./2011 2 III) OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPN. LTD. VS. CIT (2010) ( 322 ITR 180) & IV) SUTLEJ COTTON MILLS LTD. VS. CIT (1978) (116 IT R 1). 1.3 AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 251 OF THE ACT C IT(A) CANNOT REMAND BACK THE CASE. THUS CIT(A) ERRED IN REMAND ING BACK THE CASE FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION EXPE NSES AND CLAIM FOR TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE AND ADVANCE TAX. 2.1 ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY L D. AO OF THE OUTSTANDING EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO INR `4 792 249 AGAINST THE PROVISION FOR EXPENSES TREAT ING IT AS CONTINGENT LIABILITY. 2.2 ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE OUTSTANDING EXPENSES OF INR 4 792 249 PERTAINS TO FEES FOR SERVICE PROVI DER ELECTRICITY EXPENSES COURIER CHARGES TELEPHONE EXPENSES ETC WHICH HAVE ACCRUED DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ITSELF. 2.3 ERRED IN IGNORING THE EVIDENCES FILED IN THIS R EGARD. 3. ERRED IN IGNORING THAT THE TOTAL NET LOSS OF INR 9 655 351 WHICH INCLUDES NET REALIZED LOSS OF INR 8 651 880 AND NET UNREALIZED LOSS OF INR 925 491 WHICH IS CLEARLY ALLOWABLE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND HONBLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS (SUPRA). THOUGH THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS EXPLICITLY APPRECIAT ED APPELLANTS RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA (P) LTD. REPORTED AT 312 ITR 254 IN HIS ORDER NO CLEAR FINDINGS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE ORDE R. 4. ERRED IN CONFIRMING LD. AO ORDER FOR THE CHARGE OF INTEREST AMOUNTING TO INR 918 417 UNDER SECTION 234D OF THE ACT. 5. ERRED IN DIRECTING THE LD. AO FOR VERIFICATION O F THE APPELLANTS CLAIM FOR WITHDRAWAL OF INTEREST AMOUNT ING TO INR 885 495 GRANTED U/S 244A OF THE ACT ON THE REFUND CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. ITA NO.4286/DEL./2011 3 THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD AMEND VARY OM IT OR SUBSTANTIATE ANY OF THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEA L AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL AND CONSIDER EACH OF THE GROUNDS AS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE OTHER GR OUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. ADVERTING FIRST TO GROUND NOS. 1.1 & 2.1 TO 2.3 IN THE APPEAL FACTS IN BRIEF AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS ARE THAT THE E-RET URN OF INCOME OF ` ` 9 46 23 915/- FILED ON 30.10.2007 BY THE ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND ENGINEERING SERVICES INCLUDING TRADI NG IN PROJECT MANAGEMENT WAS REVISED ON 31.03.2009 DECLARING INCOME OF ` ` 10 20 74 658/-. THE RETURN WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY WITH THE SERVICE OF A NOT ICE U/S 143(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) IS SUED ON 19.9.2008. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFF ICER (A.O. IN SHORT) NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED INTER ALIA DEDUCTION OF ` `47 92 249/- ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION FOR EXPENSES SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD CURRENT LIABILITIES. TO A QUERY BY THE AO SEEKING DETAILS OF THESE EXPENSES EVIDE NCE OF PAYMENT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT JUSTIFY THEIR PAYMENT NOR SUBMITTED ANY EVI DENCE IN SUPPORT THEREOF. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWED MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF AC COUNTING AND DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE LIABILITY FOR THESE EXPENSES CRYSTALLIZED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE AO R DISALLOWED THE CLAIM RESUL TING IN ADDITION OF ` 47 92 249/-. 3. ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE FINDINGS O F THE AO IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS:- 4. GROUND NO.2.1 AND 2.2 ARE AGAINST THE DISALLOWA NCE OF ` `47 92 249/- AGAINST THE PROVISION FOR EXPENSES. I N THIS REGARD ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISCUSSED IN THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT IN THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPH 3.2 HAS OBSERVED THAT ASSESS EE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND HAS CLAIMED EXP ENDITURE ON ACCRUAL BASIS AT THE END OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. SO HE HAS HELD THAT THESE EXPENSES SHALL BE ALLOWED IN THE SUBSEQUENT P ERIOD. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS LEARNED AR OF THE APPELLANT ITA NO.4286/DEL./2011 4 ATTENDED AND FILED A WRITTEN SUBMISSION WHEREIN TH E ISSUE HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT THIS AMOUNT PERTAINS TO OUTSTAN DING EXPENSES WHICH HAS ACCRUED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR 2006-07 AND HAVE BEEN INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE BUSINESS PURPO SE OF THE APPELLANT. THESE EXPENSES COMPRISE OF FEE OF SERVI CE PROVIDER ELECTRICITY EXPENSES COURIER CHARGES TELEPHONE EX PENSES ETC. IN RESPECT OF WHICH EITHER INVOICES WERE RECEIVED BY T HE APPELLANT AT THE YEAR END OR FACILITIES/SERVICES HAVE BEEN UTILI ZED IN THE MONTH OF MARCH 2007 AND HENCE PROVIDED ON ESTIMATED BASIS FOLLOWING THE MERCANTILE BASIS OF ACCOUNTING. FROM THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE IT APPEARS THAT EXPENSES HAVE BEEN CLAIMED ON ESTIMATE D BASIS. IN FACT WHEN MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING IS BEING FOLLOWING TWO JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT NO ACCRUAL OF LIABILITY IN THIS YEA R ONLY ESTIMATE IS MADE SO IT IS A CONTINGENT LIABILITY. A) RAJASTHAN STATE MINES & MINERALS LTD. VS. CIT 2 08 ITR 1010 (RAJASTHAN); B) T.N. SMALL INDS. DEVELOPMENT CORPN. VS. CIT 242 ITR 122 (MAD). SO IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACTUAL PAYMENT ONLY WHICH I S ALLOWABLE. IN ANNEXURE-I OF THE PAPER BOOK ASSESSEE HAS FILED FUL L DETAILS OF OUTSTANDING EXPENSES AS ON 31.3.2007 ALONG WITH THE DETAILS OF THE DATE OF THE PAYMENT. THE CHART IS MADE ANNEXURE A TO THIS ORDER. FROM THE REMARKS COLUMN ALSO IT APPEARS THAT PROVIS ION HAS BEEN REVERSED AND OFFERED TO TAX IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR BUT THIS KIND OF ACCOUNTING PROCEDURE WAS NOT ADOPTED IN ALL THE CAS E. SO IT IS PROVED THAT EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN CLAIMED ON ESTIMAT E BASIS. SO IT WILL BE TREATED AS CONTINGENT LIABILITIES. AS CONTI NGENT LIABILITY IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE THEREFORE ACTION OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IS CONFIRMED. GROUNDS NO.2.1 AND 2.2 ARE DISMISSED. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A).THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE CARRYING US THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND DETAILS PLACED ON PA GE 25 OF THE PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISION WAS MADE FOR EXPENSES TOWARDS SECURITY CHARGES HOUSEKEEPING CHARGES OVERTIME SALARY OF DRIVERS F EE OF SERVICE PROVIDER ELECTRICITY EXPENSES COURIER CHARGES TELEPHONE EX PENSES AND PROVISION FOR COMMISSION PROVISION FOR TAX RETAINERSHIP MISC. P ROVISIONS ETC..WHILE RELYING UPON THE DECISIONS IN CALCUTTA CO. LTD. VS. CIT ITR (VOL.XXXVII-(1959) 37 ITR 1 ITA NO.4286/DEL./2011 5 (SC) & BHARAT EARTH MOVERS VS. CIT (428 ITR .245) ( SC) THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF PROVISION WAS ALLOW ABLE. 5 .ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE FI NDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY REPLY BEF ORE THE AO. TO A QUERY BY THE BENCH THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THEY HAD SUBMITTE D A REPLY VIDE LETTER DATED 27 TH DECEMBER 2010 BEFORE THE AO. HOWEVER WE FIND THA T THERE IS NO DISCUSSION OF THIS REPLY EITHER IN THE ORDER OF THE AO OR EVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LETTER BEING OF THE SAME DATE AS THE DATE OF ASSESS MENT ORDER AND THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST AS TO WHETHER OR THE LETTER WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO BEFORE PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE TH ROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS ALSO THE DECISIONS REFERRED TO BY THE LD. AR. AS I S APPARENT FROM THE AFORESAID FACTS THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION O F PROVISION FOR THE AFORESAID EXPENSES ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWED MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE LIABILITY FOR THESE EXPENSES CRYSTALLIZED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. BEFORE US THE LD . AR CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A LETTER DATED 27.12.2010 BEFORE THE AO ENCLOSING INTER ALIA ANNEXURE 4 GIVING DETAILS OF THE PROVISION FOR EXP ENSES. HOWEVER THERE IS NO DISCUSSION EITHER IN THE ORDER OF THE AO OR IN TH E IMPUGNED ORDER REGARDING FILING OF THIS LETTER OR JUSTIFICATION FOR ACCRUAL OF THESE EXPENSES IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN FACT THE LETTER DATED 27.12.2010 IS OF THE SAME DATE AS THE DATE OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE BEFORE US THAT THAT THE SAID LETTER WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO BEFORE PASSING OF THE A SSESSMENT ORDER. IN ANY CASE ANNEXURE 4 TO THE SAID LETTER DOES NOT REVEAL EITHER THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF LIABILITY FOR THESE EXPENSES NOR ANY EXPLANATION AS TO HOW THE LIABILITY FOR THESE EXPENSES ACCRUED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED DIFFERENT DETAILS R EVEALING DATE OF PAYMENT OF SOME OF THE EXPENSES IN PENULTIMATE COLUMN AS MEN TIONED IN THE ANNEXURE TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER. APPARENTLY THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT ANALYSE THE NATURE OF ITA NO.4286/DEL./2011 6 VARIOUS EXPENSES COMPRISING THE AMOUNT OF ` 47 92 249/- NOR RECORDED ANY FINDINGS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT LIABILITY FOR EACH OF THE SAID EXPENSES ACCRUED OR CRYSTALLIZED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. A MER E GLANCE AT THE IMPUGNED ORDER REVEALS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT CARE TO A NALYSE THE NATURE OF LIABILITIES UNDER THE RELEVANT BILLS NOR RECORD ED ANY FINDING AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT VARIOUS EXP ENSES COMPRISING THE AMOUNT OF ` 47 92 249/- ACCRUED OR AROSE IN THE YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION. ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SY STEM OF ACCOUNTING. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT ACCRUAL OF A STATUTORY LIABILITY DEP ENDS UPON THE TERMS OF THE RELEVANT STATUTE. THE QUANTIFICATION OR ASCERTAINME NT CANNOT POSTPONE ITS ACCRUAL TO THE EXTENT OF ADMITTED LIABILITY. ON THE OTHER H AND CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ACCRUES WHEN THE BASIS FOR ITS QUANTIFICATION IS SETTLED BY AN AGREEMENT OR OTHERWISE. AS HELD BY THE HONBLE GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN THEIR DEC ISION IN SAURASHTRA CEMENT & CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CIT 213 ITR 523(GUJ) MERELY BECAUSE AN EXPENSE RELATES TO A TRANSACTION OF AN EARLIER YEAR IT DOES NOT BECOME A LIABILITY PAYABLE IN THE EARLIER YEAR UNLESS IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE LIA BILITY WAS DETERMINED AND CRYSTALLIZED IN THE YEAR IN QUESTION ON THE BASIS O F MAINTAINING ACCOUNTS ON THE MERCANTILE BASIS. IN EACH CASE WHERE THE ACCOUNTS A RE MAINTAINED ON THE MERCANTILE BASIS IT HAS TO BE FOUND IN RESPECT OF A NY CLAIM WHETHER SUCH LIABILITY WAS CRYSTALLIZED AND QUANTIFIED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR SO AS TO BE REQUIRED TO BE ADJUSTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THAT PREVIOU S YEAR. IT WAS FURTHER CONCLUDED THAT IT IS ACTUALLY KNOWN INCOME OR EXPEN SES THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE OR THE LIABILITY TO PAY WHICH HAS COME TO BE CRYSTALLIZED WHICH IS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT UNDER THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. AN ESTIMATED INCOME OR LIABILITY WHICH IS YET TO BE C RYSTALLIZED CAN ONLY BE ADJUSTED AS A CONTINGENCY ITEM BUT NOT AS AN ACCRUED INCOME OR LIABILITY OF THAT YEAR. 6.1 SIMON IN HIS INCOME TAX SECOND EDITION VOLU ME II AT PAGE 204 UNDER THE CAPTION 'ACCRUED LIABILITY' OBSERVES AS UNDER : ' IN CASES HOWEVER WHERE AN ACTUAL LIABILITY EXIS TS AS IS THE CASE WITH ACCRUED EXPENSES A DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE ; AND THIS IS NO T AFFECTED BY THE FACT THAT THE ITA NO.4286/DEL./2011 7 AMOUNT OF THE LIABILITY AND THE DEDUCTION WILL SUBS EQUENTLY HAVE TO BE VARIED. A LIABILITY THE AMOUNT OF WHICH IS DEDUCTIBLE FOR IN COME-TAX PURPOSES IS ONE WHICH IS ACTUALLY EXISTING AT THE TIME OF MAKING THE DEDU CTION AND IS DISTINCT FROM THE TYPE OF LIABILITY ACCRUING IN PETER MERCHANT LTD. V . STEDEFORD (INSPECTOR OF TAXES) WHICH ALTHOUGH ALLOWABLE ON ACCOUNTANCY PRINCIPLES IS NOT DEDUCTIBLE FOR THE PURPOSES OF INCOME-TAX.' 6.2 IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING AND IN THE LIGHT O F VIEW TAKEN BY THE HONBLE GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN THE AFORECITED DECISION ESPECIALLY W HEN THERE IS NO EVIDENCE BEFORE US AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE LETTER DATED 27. 12.2010 WAS BEFORE THE AO WHEN HE PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND LD. CIT(A) HAVE NOT RECORDED ANY FINDINGS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CE WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM NOR EVEN AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE LIABILITY IN RESP ECT OF EACH OF THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE AMOUNT OF ` 47 92 249/- CRYSTALLIZED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WE CONSIDER IT FAIR AND APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE FOR DECID ING THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE GROUND NOS. 1.1 & 2.1 TO 2.3 IN THE APPEAL BEFORE US SO FAR AS THESE RELATE TO PROVISION FOR EXPENSES OF ` 47 92 249/- AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN THE LIGHT OF VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS INCLUDING THOSE REFERRED TO ABOVE AFTER ALLOWING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO BOT H THE PARTIES. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT WHILE REDECIDING THE ISSUE THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHALL PASS A SPEAKING ORDER KEEPING IN MIND INTER ALIA THE MANDATE OF PROVISI ONS OF SEC. 250(6) OF THE ACT BRINGING OUT CLEARLY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE LIAB ILITY FOR EACH ITEM OF THE EXPENDITURE COMPRISING THE AMOUNT OF ` 47 92 249/- REALLY CRYSTALLIZED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS GROUND NOS.1.1 &2.1 TO 2.3 IN THE A PPEAL SO FAR AS THESE RELATE TO PROVISION FOR EXPENSES OF ` 47 92 249/- ARE DISPOSED OF. 7. GROUND NOS.1.2 1.3 & 3 IN THE APPEAL RELATE TO FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS OF ` 9 655 351/-. THE LD. AR ADMITTED THAT IN FACT THI S GROUND WAS ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE APPEAL EFFECT ORDER D ATED 27.9.2011 OF THE AO. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND WAS NOT PRESSED BEFORE US AND IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. ITA NO.4286/DEL./2011 8 8. GROUND NO.4 RELATES TO LEVY OF INTEREST OF ` 9 18 417/- U/S 234D OF THE ACT AND GROUND NO.5 RELATES TO WITHDRAWAL OF THE INTERE ST OF ` 885 495 GRANTED U/S 244A OF THE ACT ON THE REFUND. THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY SUBMISSIONS OF THESE GROUNDS AND MERELY STATED THAT THESE GROUNDS ARE CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE. THE LEVY OF INTEREST BEIN G MANDATORY IN NATURE ACCORDINGLY THESE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED. HOWEVER THE AO SHALL ALLOW CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF IF ANY WHILE GIVING EFFECT T O OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS. 9. GROUND NO. 1 IN THE APPEAL BEING GENERAL IN NAT URE NOR ANY SUBMISSIONS HAVING BEEN MADE BEFORE US ON THIS GROU ND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SEPARATE ADJUDICATION WHILE NO ADDITIONAL GROUND HA VING BEEN RAISED BEFORE US IN TERMS OF RESIDUARY GROUND IN THE APPEAL ACCORDING LY THESE GROUNDS ARE ALSO DISMISSED. 10. NO OTHER PLEA OR ARGUMENT WAS MADE BEFORE US. 11. IN THE RESULT APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT SD/- SD/- (C.M. GARG) (A.N. PAHUJA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER NS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1 UOP INDIA PRIVATE LTD. PLOT NO.2A FIRST FLOO R MALVIYA NAGAR CORNER MARKET NEW DELHI . 2. ASSTT. CIT CIRCLE-18(1) NEW DELHI 3 CIT CONCERNED. 4. CIT (APPEALS)-XXI NEW DELHI 5. DR ITAT H BENCH NEW DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI