ACIT, Meerut V. M/s. The Bhaghpat Co- Operative Sugar Mills Ltd.,

ITA 1535/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6217 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 25-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V R SANBHADRA SENIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: P S KASHYAP
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH H : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1535/DEL./2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) ACIT, CIRCLE 2, VS. M/S. THE BAGHPAT COOPERATIVE SU GAR MILLS LTD., MEERUT. BAGHPAT. (PAN : AAAAT0568P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.S. KASHYAP, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI V.R. SANBHADRA, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 25.02.2016 DATE OF ORDER : 30.03.2016 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : APPELLANT, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, C IRCLE 2, MEERUT (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE REVENUE ), BY FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORD ER DATED 31.12.2013 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), MEERUT QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON THE GROUN DS, INTER ALIA, THAT :- 1. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS JUSTIFIED I N DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,24,90,645/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DIF FERENCE IN THE ITA NO.1535/DEL./2014 2 SALES PRICE OF SUGAR BETWEEN THAT OF THE ASSESSEE A ND OF ANOTHER ENTITY LOCATED IN THE SAME AREA AND ADOPTING THE AV ERAGE RATE OF SUGAR SOLD BY THAT ENTITY FOR DETERMINING THE SALE VALUE OF SUGAR SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS JUSTIFIED I N DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,11,04,197/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW YIELD OF SUGAR. 3. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS JUSTIFIED I N DELETING THE ADDITION OF INTEREST ACCRUED AND DUE ON LOANS FROM THE PUBLIC FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, TO THE TUNE OF RS.8,50,94,9 98/-, THAT WAS NOT PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING OF RETURN, U/S 43B(D) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 4. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS JUSTIFIED I N DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.14,39,583/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF OUTST ANDING OLD SUNDRY CREDITORS. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, MODIFY A ND/OR DELETE ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. 6. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), MEERUT, MAY B E SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. RESTORED. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE : ASSESSEE S CASE WAS SUBJECT TO SCRUTINY AND CONSEQUENTLY NOTICES UNDER SECTION 143 (2) AND 142 (1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTE R THE ACT) WERE ISSUED AND CONSEQUENTLY, SHRI PREMJEET KASHYAP CA AND SHRI AJAY KUMAR, CA ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS, PRODUCED B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND CASE WAS ALSO DISCUSSED WITH THEM. AS SESSEE IS INTO THE BUSINESS OF PRODUCTION AND TRADING OF SUGAR. T HE AO TAKING NOTE OF THE AVERAGE SELLING LOW RATE AND LOW YIELD OF THE SUGAR OF THE ASSESSEE IN COMPARISON TO RAMALA SAHAKARI CHINI MILLS LTD. CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE A VERAGE SELLING ITA NO.1535/DEL./2014 3 RATE AND AVERAGE YIELD OF RAMALA SAHAKARI CHINI MIL LS LTD. AND SBEC SUGAR LTD. SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED. THE AR OF TH E ASSESSEE RELIED UPON HIS ACCOUNT BOOKS AND HAS NOT PREFERRED TO FURNISH ANY ADDITIONAL EXPLANATION. THE AO BY APPLYING THE AVE RAGE SELLING RATE AND YIELD OF SUGAR OF RAMALA SAHAKARI CHINI MI LLS LTD. CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IF THE FIXED PRICE OF THE SU GAR AND THE PRICE OF THE SUGAR TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, THE AVERAGE SALE PRIC E OF THE SUGAR SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SIMILAR TO TH E SALE PRICE OF RAMALA SAHAKARI CHINI MILLS LTD. AND THEREBY MADE A N ADDITION OF RS.2,24,90,645/- I.E. ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE OF S ALE PRICE. SIMILARLY, THE AO MADE THE COMPARISON OF PER QUINTA L YIELD OF THE SUGARCANE OF THE ASSESSEE WITH RAMALA SAHAKARI CHIN I MILLS LTD. AND NOTICED THE DIFFERENCE OF YIELD TO THE EXTENT O F 0.33% AND OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SUGAR PRODUCTI ON LESS BY 12,229 QUINTAL AND CONSEQUENTLY MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.2,11,04,197/-. 3. ASSESSEE IN SCHEDULE C OF THE BALANCE SHEET SH OWN THE INTEREST ACCRUED AND DUE BUT NOT PAID TO THE TUNE O F RS.8,50,94,998/-. THE AO FINDING THE EXPLANATION M ADE BY ASSESSEE NOT TENABLE AND BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED U/S 43B(D) OF THE ACT MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.8,50,94,99 8/- ON THE GROUND THAT NO PROOF OF PAYMENT OF THIS AMOUNT OF I NTEREST IS FILED ITA NO.1535/DEL./2014 4 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE A O MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.14,39,583/- ON ACCOUNT OF OUTSTANDIN G LOAN TO BE PAID TO THE CREDITOR PENDING FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR ON THE GROUNDS INTER ALIA THAT THE ASSESSEE IS INTO THE REGULAR BU SINESS OF SUGAR CRUSHING AND FOR SUGAR PRODUCTION; THAT SUGARCANE I S REGULARLY REQUIRED FROM THE FARMERS; AND THAT THE PAYMENT IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE REGULARLY AND MOREOVER, IN OTHER CASES, ASSESS EE HAS BEEN MAKING THE PAYMENT TO OTHER FARMERS ON REGULAR BASI S WITHIN 15 DAYS OR A MONTH. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT TAKEN ANY COERCIVE ACTION IN CASE OF THOSE CREDITORS, IT SHOWS THAT TH ERE IS NO EXISTENCE OF ANY SUCH CREDITORS AND MOREOVER, THERE IS NO CON FIRMATION ON RECORD FILED BY THEM, CONSEQUENTLY MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.14,39,583/-. THE AO BY MAKING TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.12,73,42,770/- AND BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT BROUGH T FORWARD LOSSES OF RS.12,73,42,770/- ASSESSED THE INCOME AT NIL. 4. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT ( A) BY WAY OF FILING THE APPEAL WHO HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL. FEEL ING AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE HAS COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL, GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS R ELIED UPON AND ITA NO.1535/DEL./2014 5 ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN T HE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. GROUNDS NO.1 & 2 6. UNDISPUTEDLY, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN PRODUCED AND PERUSED BY THE AO BUT HAVE NOT DISPUTED THE SAME ON ANY GROUND WHATSOEVER . SO FAR AS THE QUESTION OF MAKING COMPARISON BY THE AO RECORDI NG DIFFERENT RATE OF SALE OF SUGAR BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS RA MALA SAHAKARI CHINI MILLS LTD. IS CONCERNED, THE AO HAS LOST SIGH T OF THE UNDISPUTED FACT THAT WHEN THE RATE OF LEVY SUGAR (R ATE FIXED BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR DISTINCTION OF THE SUGAR THROUGH PUB LIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (PDS) AND THE ASSESSEE WAS IDEN TICAL) BUT THE AVERAGE RATE TO THE FREE SUGAR SALE OF ASSESSEE AS WELL AS RAMALA SAHAKARI CHINI MILLS LTD. WERE DIFFERENT (ASSESSEE S AVERAGE SUGAR RATE WAS 1702.50 PER QUINTAL WHEREAS AVERAGE RATE O F SALE OF RAMALA SAHAKARI CHINI MILLS LTD. WAS 1725.175 PER Q UINTAL) SHOWING A MINOR VARIATION BETWEEN THE AVERAGE SALE PRICE OF THE TWO UNITS. 7. SO FAR AS THE QUESTION OF COST OF PRODUCTION IS CONCERNED, THE NUMEROUS FACTORS LIKE INTEREST ON MONEY BORROWED FO R THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS CERTAINLY AFFECTS THE AVERAGE COST OF P RODUCTION. WHEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN CORREC TLY MAINTAINED ITA NO.1535/DEL./2014 6 AND AUDITED IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS, EXAC T COMPARABILITY OF THE TWO ENTITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROFITABILIT Y IS NOT POSSIBLE. MOREOVER, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY PRODUCED SALES RECORD, SALES- TAX AND EXCISE RECORD AND NO DISCREPANCY HAVE BEEN FOUND BY THE AO, THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE AV ERAGE SALE PRICE OF THE SUGAR IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. MOREOVER, THE ASSE SSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO SELL THE GOODS AT CHEAPER RATES SO AS TO ENHANCE ITS SALE OR TO MEET WITH HIS LIABILITIES AND HE CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO TRANSFER THE GOODS BY MARKET PRICE ONLY. 8. SIMILARLY, SO FAR AS THE QUESTION OF ADDITION OF RS.2,11,04,197/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW YIELD OF SUGAR A S MADE BY THE AO IS CONCERNED, THE SAME HAS AGAIN BEEN MADE BY TH E AO ON THE BASIS OF ASSUMPTIONS AND ESTIMATION WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ACTUAL AND FACTUAL POSITION OF BO TH THE ENTITIES I.E. ASSESSEES SUGAR MILL AND RAMALA SAHAKARI CHINI MIL LS LTD.. THE AO BROUGHT ON RECORD THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE YIELD AT 8.3% FROM 34.48 QUINTAL OF SUGARCANE AS AGAINST YIELD OF 8.33% FROM CRUSHING OF 50.03 QUINTAL OF SUGARCANE. 9. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT YIELD OF ANY CROP OF ONE FARMER CANNOT BE COMPARED WITH THE YIELD OF ANOTHER FARMER THOUGH ADJOINING TO EACH OTHER BECAUSE IT MAY DEPEND ON NU MEROUS FACTORS, LIKE, QUALITY OF SEEDS, PESTICIDES AND MAN URES USED, DAY-TO- ITA NO.1535/DEL./2014 7 DAY LOOK AFTER OF THE CROP, ETC. TAX AUTHORITIES A RE NOT ENTITLED TO MAKE ADDITION MERELY ON GROUND OF LOW YIELD SHOWN B Y THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF GUESSWORK PARTICULARLY WHE N THE ENTIRE TRANSACTIONS AS TO SALE, PURCHASE AND CRUSHING OF S UGARCANE HAS BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN THE ORDIN ARY COURSE OF BUSINESS WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY AUDITED AND HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE AO. SO, THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF YIELD CO MPARABILITY MADE BY THE AO IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LA W AND CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE SAME. 10. HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN JUDGMENT CITED AS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL VS. CALCUTTA DISCOUNT CO MPANY LTD. REPORTED IN 91 ITR 8 (SC) DECIDED THE IDENTICAL ISSUE TO THE EFFECT THAT WHERE A TRADER TRANSFERS HIS GOODS TO A NOTHER TRADER AT A PRICE LESS THAN THE MARKET PRICE, AND THE TRANSACTI ON IS A BONA FIDE ONE, THE TAXING AUTHORITY CANNOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE MARKET PRICE OF THOSE GOODS, IGNORING THE REAL PRICE FETCHED, TO ASCERTAIN THE PROFIT FROM THE TRANSACTION. AN ASSESSEE CAN SO AR RANGE HIS AFFAIRS AS TO MINIMIZE HIS TAX BURDEN. SO FINDING NO INFIR MITY OR PERVERSITY IN THE FINDINGS RETURNED BY THE LD. CIT (A), GROUND NOS.1 & 2 ARE DETERMINED AGAINST THE REVENUE. GROUND NO.3 ITA NO.1535/DEL./2014 8 11. THE AO BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED U/S 43B(D) OF THE ACT MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.8,50,94,998/- ON ACC OUNT OF INTEREST ACCRUED AND DUE BUT NOT PAID BY REJECTING THE CONTE NTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LENDER CONCERNS ARE INSTITUTIONS CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND NOT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. HOWEVER , CIT (A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, BY RELYING UPON THE FINDING RET URNED BY THE CIT (A), NOIDA VIDE ORDER DATED 26.08.2013 IN ASSES SEES OWN CASE QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, HELD THAT THE INST ITUTION OF UTTAR PRADESH GOVERNMENT ARE NOT COVERED IN THE DEFINITIO N OF PUBLIC FINANCIAL INSTITUTION AND THEREBY DELETED THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE AO. 12. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE IN SCHEDULE C OF T HE BALANCE SHEET HAS SHOWN THE INTEREST ACCRUED AND DUE BUT NO T PAID AS UNDER:- SHAKKAR VISHESH NIDHI RS.1,18,29,590/- STATE GOVT. LOAN RS.5,65,34,280/- UP COOPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORIES FEDERATION LTD. RS.1,67,31,128/- TOTAL RS.8,50,94,998/- 13. NOW, THE SOLE QUESTION FOR DETERMINATION IN THI S CASE IS, AS TO WHETHER THE AFORESAID LENDERS FALL IN THE DEFINI TION OF PUBLIC FINANCIAL INSTITUTION EMPOWERING THE AO TO INVOKE T HE PROVISIONS CONTAINED U/S 43(D)? IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS COME UP BEFORE THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT, DELHI BENCH H, NEW DELH I IN ACIT ITA NO.1535/DEL./2014 9 VS. BAGHPAT COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD., ITA NO.61 57/DEL/2012, IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 -08. 14. THE COORDINATE BENCH PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE IS SUE IN CONTROVERSY AS UNDER:- 6. THE SECOND ISSUE IS DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PA ID TO FEDERATION. THE AO DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT ON THE GRO UND THAT THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST IS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF BUSIN ESS OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. CIT(A) GAVE A FINDING THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS TAKEN LOAN FROM GOVT. OF INDIA AND UP GOVERNMENT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND THAT THIS IS EVIDENT FROM THE SANCTION ED LETTERS AND HENCE THE INTEREST IN QUESTION IS ALLOWABLE U/S 36( 1). WE HAVE SEEN REASON TO INTERFERE IN THIS FINDING OF THE FIRST AP PELLATE AUTHORITY. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED A LEGAL ARGUMENT THAT, THE I NTEREST IN QUESTION CANNOT BE ALLOWED, AS IT IS HIT BY THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 43 B(D) OF THE ACT. 7. SECTION 438(D) OF THE ACT READS AS FOLLOWS :- D) 'ANY SUM PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE AS INTEREST ON ANY LOAN OR BORROWING FROM ANY PUBLIC FINANCIAL INSTITU TION (OR A STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION OR A STATE INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT 'CORPORATION), IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERM AND COND ITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT GOVERNING SUCH LOAN OR BORROWING. AS THE INTEREST IN QUESTION IS PAYABLE TO GOVT. OF INDIA AND THE STATEMENT OF UP GOVERNMENT, SECTION 43(B)(D) DO ES NOT APPLY. HENCE WE DISMISS THIS GROUND. 15. NO GROUND HAS COME UP BEFORE US TO DEPART FROM THE FINDINGS RETURNED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE AFORESAID C ASE AND MOREOVER SHAKKAR VISHESH NIDHI, STATE GOVT. LOAN AN D UP COOPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORIES FEDERATION LTD. DO NOT FALL UNDER THE DEFINITION OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTION SO AS TO ATTRAC T THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED U/S 43B(D) BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION. SO FINDING NO ITA NO.1535/DEL./2014 10 ILLEGALITY OR INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS RETURNED BY THE LD. CIT (A), GROUND NO.3 IS DETERMINED AGAINST THE REVENUE. GROUND NO.4 16. THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.14,39,583/- ON AC COUNT OF OLD CREDITORS BY REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE AS SESSEE THAT THE AFORESAID DUES HAVE NOT BEEN PAID ON THE GROUND THA T WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MAKING PAYMENT TO ALL REGULAR FAR MERS WHO ARE SELLING THEIR CROPS, THE OLD CREDITORS APPEARED TO BE NOT IN EXISTENCE. HOWEVER, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDITION. 17. A BARE PERUSAL OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO GO ES TO PROVE THAT HE HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT MAK ING ANY INVESTIGATION AND WITHOUT PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS NOT EVEN CALLED THE CO NFIRMATION LETTERS FROM THE AFORESAID OLD CREDITORS TO RETURN THE FINDINGS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BUT PROCEEDED SUMMARILY TO HOLD THAT T HE SAID CREDITORS ARE NOT GENUINE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF TH E FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MAKING PAYMENT TO THE CURRENT CRE DITORS REGULARLY AS REQUIRED UNDER THE ACT. 18. EVEN IN THE REMAND REPORT DATED 31.12.2013, THE AO HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT HE HAS NOT OBTAINED ANY CONFIRMATION OF THE CREDITORS FROM THE ASSESSEE. ON THE FACE OF THE ADMITTED FAC T THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER BEEN DISPUTED BY THE AO AND ITA NO.1535/DEL./2014 11 THE ASSESSEE IS AN UTTAR PRADESH GOVERNMENT UNDERTA KING AND ALL THE PURCHASES ARE BEING MADE AGAINST THE BILLS MAKI NG ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES AND CONJECTURES IS NOT SUSTAI NABLE. SO FINDING NO ILLEGALITY OR INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS RETURNED BY THE LD. CIT (A), GROUND NO.4 IS ALSO DETERMINED AGAINST THE REVENUE. 19. IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE HE REBY DISMISS THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2016. SD/- SD/- (S.V. MEHROTRA) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 30 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2016 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), MEERUT. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.