DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s Kajaria Ceramics Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 2744/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3696 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 23-06-2010
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: C S AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Business income; Wrong claim; Difference of opinion; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 80HHC; 80HH

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 2744 /DEL/2009 1/10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, BENCH D BEFORE SHRI I. P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A K GARODIA, ACCOUTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2744 /DEL/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98) DCIT, CIRCLE 14, VS. M/S. KAJARIA CERAMICS LTD., NEW DELHI J 1/B-1,(EXTN.), MOHAN COOP. INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI. (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) PAN / GIR NO. 14-K APPELLANT BY: SMT. KAVITA BHATNAGAR, CIT DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI C S AGGARWAL, SR. ADV. & SHRI RAVI PRATAP MALL, ADV., ORDER PER A. K. GARODIA, AM: 1. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) III, NEW DELHI DATED 30.03.2009 FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 1997-98. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER: 1) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS.2.47 CRORES LEVIED BY THE A.O. U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961. 2) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING TH E PENALTY I.T.A. NO. 2744 /DEL/2009 2/10 U/S 271(1)(C) EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD WRONGLY CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80HH WHICH WAS NOT DUE TO THEM. 3) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETIN G THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXCESSIVE DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC. 4) THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS AND NOT TENABL E IN LAW AND ON FACTS. 5) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND A NY/ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE O F THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS ARE NOTE D BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARAS 4, 4.1 AND 4.2 OF HIS ORDER WHICH A RE REPRODUCED BELOW: 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY WAS INCORPORATED ON 20.12.1985 TO MANUFACTURE AND S ALE OF CERAMIC TILES. IT HAD SET UP AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTA KING AT A- 27/88, INDUSTRIAL AREA, SECUNDARABAD, DISTRICT BULA NDSHAHAR IN THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND HAD COMMENCED COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION AT ITS INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING ON 12.08.1988 IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1988-89 RELEVANT T O THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1989-90. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED IT S RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98, THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION, ON 29.11.1997 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.6,94,25,007/-. THE RETURN OF INCOME HAD BEEN FU RNISHED ALONG WITH A COMPUTATION OF INCOME, ANNUAL AUDITED ACCOUNTS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1996-97 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 AND THREE ANNEXURE A, B & I.T.A. NO. 2744 /DEL/2009 3/10 C CONTAINING BASIS OF CLAIM MADE U/S 80HHC OF RS.1,24,45,388/- AS PER THE REPORT U/S 80HHC OF RS.1,74,48,752/-. THE A.O. COMPLETED ASSESSMENT U/ S 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 28.03.2000 DETERMINING TAXA BLE INCOME OF RS.9,71,53,060/- BY DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION MADE U/S 80HH OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS THA T, INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING OF THE APPELLANT WAS NOT SIT UATED IN THE BACKWARD AREA. THE A.O. HAS RELIED ON THE LETTER D ATED 29.02.2000 WRITTEN BY TEHSILDAR, SECUNDERABAD READ WITH NOTIFICATION NOS. SOS 165(T) DATED 19.12.1986 TO HO LD THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM U/S 80HH OF THE ACT. THE A.O. HELD THAT, SINCE AS PER THE CERTIFICATE IS SUED BY THE TEHSILDAR, THE UNDERTAKING OF THE APPELLANT IS SITU ATED IN BLOCK-SECUNDERABAD AND, SUCH BLOCK IS SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED BY THE NOTIFICATION AS A BACKWARD AREA, THEREFORE T HE APPELLANT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/ S 80HH OF THE ACT. APART FORM ABOVE, THE LD. A.O. ALSO RESTR ICTED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION MADE U/S 80HHC OF THE ACT AT RS.22,68,078/- AS AGAINST CLAIM OF RS.1,24,45,388/- . 4.1 ON APPEAL, LD. CIT(A) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 14.02.2001 GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. ON FURTHER APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS CONSOLIDATED ORDER DA TED 31.03.2006 RESTORED THE MATTER OF COMPUTATION OF DE DUCTION U/S 80HH OF THE ACT TO THE FILE OF A.O. WITH CERTAI N OBSERVATIONS AND, FURTHER AS REGARDS DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC OF THE ACT IT WAS HELD THAT, INTERESTS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS BUSINESS INCOME AND, ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO THE C LAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC ON SUCH BUSINESS INCOME. I.T.A. NO. 2744 /DEL/2009 4/10 4.2 THEREAFTER, THE A.O. PASSED AN ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 31.12.2007 IN PURSUANCE TO THE AFORESAID ORD ER OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL DATED 31.03.2006 WHEREIN HE HELD T HAT, INCOME COMPUTED UNDER AN ORDER DATED 28.03.2000 AT RS.9,71,53,060/- HAD CORRECTLY BEEN COMPUTED AND, A SSESSEE WAS NOT FURTHER ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION EITHER U/S 80 HHC OR U/S 80HH OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THEREAFTER BY AN ORDER U /S 154/143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 14.02.2008 DETERMINED T HE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AT RS.8,87,48,210/- SINCE T HE INCOME AS A RESULT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 14 .02.2001 HAD BEEN COMPUTED AT RS.8,87,48,210/-. THE AFORESA ID ORDER HAS BECOME FINAL, AS NO APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED B Y THE ASSESSEE AGAINST SAID ORDER. THUS, FINALLY THE A.O . COMPUTED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HH AND, U/S 80HHC OF T HE ACT AS UNDER: S. NO. PARTICULARS UNDER SECTION 80HH UNDER SECTION 80HHC 1. DEDUCTION CLAIMED 1,74,48,752/- 1,24,45,388/- 2. DEDUCTION ALLOWED BY A.O. NIL 22,68,078/- 3. DEDUCTION ALLOWED BY CIT(A) NIL 1,06,20,970/- 4. AMOUNT FINALLY DISALLOWED 1,74,48,752/- 18,24,41 8/- 3. IN THE MEANTIME, THE A.O. HAD INITIATED PENALTY PRO CEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C). IN THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, I T WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE A.O. THAT NO P ENALTY IS LEVIABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE BUT THE A .O. WAS NOT SATISFIED AND HE IMPOSED THE PENALTY OF RS.247 LACS BEING 300% I.T.A. NO. 2744 /DEL/2009 5/10 OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF ITS TRUE INCOME AND FURNIS HED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME WHICH RESULTED IN ITS INCOME BEING ASSESSED AT RS.8,87,48,210/- AS AGAINST THE I NCOME DECLARED OF RS.6,94,25,010/-. AGAINST THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE A.O., THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND AS PER THE IMPUGNED ORDER, LD. CIT(A) HA S DELETED THE ENTIRE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE A.O. AND NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE PENALTY ORDER WHERE AS T HE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT AS PER THE RECENT JUDGME NT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. AS REPORTED IN 322 ITR 158, NO P ENALTY IS IMPOSABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. SO FAR THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING ITS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC IS CONCERNED, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME WAS ALLOW ED ALTHOUGH IN PART. AGAINST THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DED UCTION UNDER THIS SECTION OF RS.1,24,45,388/-, THE A.O. HAS INIT IALLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.22,68 ,078/- AND THEREAFTER, A FURTHER RELIEF WAS ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A) OF RS.1,06,20,970/- AND THE FINAL DISALLOWANCE OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC IS OF RS.18,24,418/- ONLY. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS REGARD THE DISPUTE WAS REGARDING INTEREST INCOME AS TO WHETHER THE SAME IS INCOME FR OM OTHER SOURCES OR INCOME FROM BUSINESS. THE A.O. HAS HELD THAT INTEREST INCOME IS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BUT IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL AS PER ORDER-DATED 31.03.2006 THAT THE ENTIRE I.T.A. NO. 2744 /DEL/2009 6/10 INTEREST INCOME OF RS.790.12 LACS SHOULD BE TREATED AS BUSINESS RECEIPT INSTEAD OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IT I S ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THEREAFTER, THERE WAS A CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SUCH INTEREST RECEIPT OF RS.790.12 LACS SHOULD BE S ET OFF AGAINST INTEREST PAYMENT OF RS.1515.12 LACS AND HENCE THERE CANNOT BE ANY REDUCTION FROM BUSINESS PROFITS AS PER CLAUSE ( BAA) OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 80HHC. BUT INSTEAD OF ALLOW ING SET OFF OF ENTIRE INTEREST RECEIPT AGAINST INTEREST PAYMENT , CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT INTEREST PAYMENT OF ONLY RS.752.49 LACS C AN BE SET OFF AGAINST INTEREST RECEIPT AND FOR THIS REASON, THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC WAS REDUCED. PENALTY FOR SUCH DISALLOWANCE IS NOT JUSTIFIED BECAUSE THER E IS NEITHER ANY CONCEALMENT OF THE INCOME NOR FURNISHING OF INA CCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 5. REGARDING THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80HH, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT PARA 11.1 TO 11.8 OF THE ORDER OF LD. C IT(A) ARE RELEVANT WHEREIN, IT IS NOTED BY THE CIT(A) THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS SET UP AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AT A-27/88, INDUST RIAL AREA, SICUNDARABAD DISTT. BULANDSHAHAR IN THE STATE OF U. P. AND COMMENCED COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION IN FINANCIAL YEAR 1 988-89. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80HH FOR THE FIR ST TIME IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 AND THE SAME WAS ALLOWED AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. ON 12.03.1996 U /S 143(3). IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN THE NEXT YEAR I.E. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 ALSO, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING D EDUCTION U/S 80HH WAS ALLOWED BY THE A.O. AS PER ASSESSMENT ORDE R DATED 19.03.1999 PASSED BY HIM U/S 143(3). IT IS SUBMITT ED THAT IN THE PRESENT YEAR, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ALL OWED BY THE I.T.A. NO. 2744 /DEL/2009 7/10 A.O. ON THE BASIS OF LETTER DATED 29.02.2000 WRITTE N BY THE TEHSILDAR, SICUNDARABAD READ WITH NOTIFICATION NO. SOS 165(T) DATED 19.12.96 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNM ENT U/S 80HH OF THE I. T. ACT. IT IS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS APPROACHED THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN WRIT PETIT ION NO.2765/01 FOR QUASHING THE NOTIFICATION DATED 19.1 2.1996 ISSUED BY CBDT AND FURTHER CIRCULAR DATED 01.05.198 7 WHICH PROVIDES THAT BENEFIT U/S 80HH WAS AVAILABLE ONLY F OR UNITS ESTABLISHED IN THE EXCLUDED AREA AS PER THE NOTIFIC ATION STARTED PRODUCTION/MANUFACTURING BEFORE 10.09.1986. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT HIS WRIT PETITION WAS DISMISSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 21.02.2006 AGAINST WHICH THE ASSES SEE FILED SLP BEFORE THE HONBLE APEX COURT AND THE HONBLE A PEX COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 120.07.2007 HAS SET ASIDE TH E HON'BLE HIGH COURTS ORDER AND THE MATTER IS PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THESE FACTS CLEARL Y SHOW THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS BONA FIDE AND EVEN IF THE CLAIM IS ULTIMATELY NOT ALLOWED, PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED T HE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHO RITIES BELOW AND THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT CITED BY TH E COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE PENALTY HAS BEE N IMPOSED BY THE A.O. FOR REDUCTION IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC AND ALSO FOR REJECTING THE ENTIRE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80HH. WE HAVE NOTED THA T THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC WAS R EDUCED ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AS SESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT ENTIRE INTEREST INCOME IS BUSINESS INC OME AND AFTER I.T.A. NO. 2744 /DEL/2009 8/10 NETTINGS THERE IS NET INTEREST PAYMENT AND THEREFOR E NOTHING IS REQUIRED TO BE EXCLUDED FROM BUSINESS PROFIT ON THI S ACCOUNT AS PER CLAUSE (BAA) OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 80HHC. THE A.O. CONSIDERED THE INTEREST INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND HENCE THE ENTIRE INTEREST INCOME HAS BEEN EXCLU DED FROM BUSINESS PROFIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE DE DUCTION ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 80HHC. IT WAS HELD B Y THE TRIBUNAL IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL THAT INTEREST INCOME HAS TO BE ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME ONLY. BUT REGARDING CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SET OFF AGAINST INTEREST PAYMENT, IT W AS HELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT ENTIRE INTEREST RECEIPT CANNOT BE S O SET OFF AND OUT OF INTEREST RECEIPT OF RS.790.12 LACS, SET OFF CAN BE ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.752.49 LACS ONLY AND OF THE BAL ANCE AMOUNT, 90% HAS TO BE EXCLUDED FORM BUSINESS PROFIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 8 0HHC. FOR THIS REASON, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTIO N U/S 80HHC WAS REDUCED BY THE A.O. AMOUNTING TO RS.22,68,078/- . CONSIDERING THESE FACTS AS NARRATED ABOVE, WE ARE O F THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT SUCH DISALLOWANCE WAS ON AC COUNT OF DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AND IT WAS A DEBATABLE MATTER ALL ALONG AND HENCE FOR SUCH PART DISALLOWANCE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS CONCEALED INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULAR S OF INCOME AND HENCE PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 7. IN CONNECTION WITH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DE DUCTION U/S 80HH, WE FIND THAT SUCH CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS A LLOWED BY THE A.O. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 AND ALSO FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 AND IN BOTH YEARS, ASSESSME NT ORDERS I.T.A. NO. 2744 /DEL/2009 9/10 ARE PASSED IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3). IN THE PRESENT YEAR, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJ ECTED BY THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF LETTER DATED 29.02.2000 WRITTE N BY THE TEHSILDAR SICUNDERABAD WHEREAS THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE PRESENT YEAR WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 29.11.199 7 I.E. MUCH PRIOR TO THAT LETTER OF TEHSILDAR DATED 29.02.2000. ADMITTEDLY AS PER THE NOTIFICATION NO.SOS-165(T) DATED 19.12.1986 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT U/S 80HH OF THE I. T. ACT, T HE BLOCK IN WHICH THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING OF THE ASSESSEE IS SITUATED I.E. BLOCK OF SICUNDERABAD WAS SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED BY THE NOTIFICATION AS BACKWARD AREA. IT IS ALSO NOTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON PAGE 13 OF HIS ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S ALSO FURNISHED A CERTIFICATE DATED 19.08.2000 FROM TEHSI LDAR SICUNDERABAD WHEREIN IT IS CERTIFIED THAT THE INDUS TRIAL UNDERTAKING OF THE ASSESSEE IS SITUATED AT JOKHABAD VILLAGE CELL WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM SICUNDERABAD BLOCK AND THAT THE SAME IS NOT EXCLUDED EVEN IN TERMS OF NOTIFICATION NO. SOS- 165(T) DATED 19.12.1986. IN VIEW OF THESE TWO CONTRADICTO RY CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE TEHSILDAR, SICUNDERABAD DATED 29.02.2000 AND 19.08.2000, IT HAS TO BE ACCEPTED TH AT IT IS A DEBATABLE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERT AKING OF THE ASSESSEE IS SITUATED WITHIN THE BACKWARD AREA OR NO T AND HENCE IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS A FALSE CLAIM. THE A.O. HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN A SSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 AND 1996-97 AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R PASSED BY HIM U/S 143(3) IN BOTH THE YEARS AND HENCE IT CA NNOT BE SAID THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT YEAR WAS WITHOUT ANY BASIS, FALSE OR TOTALLY INADMISSIBLE. IT IS A SETTLED POSITION I.T.A. NO. 2744 /DEL/2009 10/10 BY NOW THAT IN RESPECT OF ANY ADDITION OR DISALLOWA NCE ON A DEBATABLE ISSUE, IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C ) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. WE HAVE SEEN THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE A LSO, THE ALLOWABILITY OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUC TION U/S 80HH IS A DEBATABLE ISSUE IN VIEW OF THE 2 CONTRADICTORY CERTIFICATES/LETTERS OF TEHSILDAR SICUNDERABAD AND HENCE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS C ALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AS PER WHICH IT WAS HELD BY HIM THAT ON THE BASIS OF PECULIAR FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS NEITHER ANY CONCEALMENT OF INCOME NOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE CLAIMS OF THE ASSE SSEE I.E. FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80HH AND SECTION 80HHC. WE, THEREFOR E, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. 9. THIS DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 0 2 ND JULY, 2010. SD./- SD./- (I. P. BANSAL) (A K GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 02 ND JULY,, 2010 SP. COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT TRUE COPY: BY ORDER 4. CIT(A) 5. DR DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI