ACIT, Bulandshahr V. M/s. Williard India Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 279/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 27920114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 08-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K MONGA
• Assessee Lawyers: MRS SWEETY KHATHARI
• Keywords: Share purchase agreement
• Section: 43B; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI I BENC H BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JM & SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, A M ITA N O S .279 & 280/D/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS:1998-99 & 2007-08 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE, AAYAKAR BHAWAN,TEACHERS COLONY, BULANDSHAHR V/S . M/S WILLARD INDIA LTD., 73-74, NEHRU PLACE, SHEETALA HOUSE, NEW DELHI-19 [PAN:AAACW 3212 D] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY MRS. SWEETY KHATHARI, AR REVENUE BY SHRI A.K. MONGA, DR DATE OF HEARING 08-12-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16-12-2011 O R D E R A.N.PAHUJA:- THESE TWO APPEALS FILED ON 17 TH JANUARY, 2011 BY THE REVENUE AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 25-10-2010 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-MEERUT, RAISE THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- ITA NO.279/D/2011 1. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN DELETI NG THE ADDITION OF ` `33,94,301/- MADE TOWARDS INTEREST SHOWN TO BE PAID ON LOAN TAKEN FOR JUTE DIVISION BUT UTILIZED I N SUGAR DIVISION IGNORING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE/PROVE ITS CLAIM FOR INTEREST PAYMENT. 2. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN DELETI NG THE ADDITION OF ` `13,58,519/- OUT OF ADDITION OF ` `50,00,965/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST FREE ADVANCES GIVEN TO MOBAR INDIA LTD., AND MOBAR ENGINEERING GMBN IGNORING THE JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS CA SES IN THE CASES OF CIT VS. H.R. SUGAR FACTORY (P) LTD. (ALL.) 187 ITR 363 AND CIT VS. SARAYA SUGAR MILLS PVT. LTD. 201 IT R 181 (ALL.). I.T.A. NOS.279&280/DEL./2011 2 3. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER RESTORED. ITA NO.280/D/2011 1. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN DELETI NG THE ADDITION OF ` ` 88,87,150/- MADE U/S 43B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ON ACCOUNT OF INSTITUTIONAL INTEREST DUE BUT NOT PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE IGNORING SPECIFIC MANDATORY PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 43B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER RESTORED. 2. ADVERTING FIRST TO GROUND NO.1 IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99, FACTS IN BRIEF, AS PER REL EVANT ORDERS ARE THAT ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS COMPLETED ON NIL INCOME WITH CERTAIN ADDITIONS VIDE ORDER DATED 31.3.1990 U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT .ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT( A) ALLOWED CERTAIN RELIEF VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 24 TH FEBRUARY, 2004 AND THE TOTAL LOSS WAS DETERMINED AT ` `6,29,02,801/-. INTER ALIA, DISALLOWANCE FOR AN AM OUNT OF ` 33,94,301/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID ON LOAN TAKEN FOR JUTE DIV ISION BUT UTILIZED IN SUGAR DIVISION WAS UPHELD. ON FURTHER APPEAL BY THE ASSES SEE, THE ITAT IN PARA 20.1 OF THEIR ORDER DATED 13 TH AUGUST, 2008 IN I.T.A. NO.3196/D/2004 DIRECTED TH E AO TO EXAMINE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE SUGAR DIVISION C OMMENCED PRODUCTION AND FURTHER DIRECTED TO DISALLOW INTEREST INCURRED BEFO RE COMMENCEMENT OF COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION AND ALLOW IF INCURRED AFTER S UCH COMMENCEMENT .THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO DIRECTED TO LEAD NECESSARY EVIDE NCE IN SUPPORT OF THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION. IN PURS UANCE TO THESE DIRECTIONS, THE AO ALLOWED OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FURNI SH DETAILS REGARDING INTEREST INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF COMM ERCIAL PRODUCTION IN SUGAR PLANT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE AND ACCORDINGLY, THE AO REITERATED THE ADDITION. I.T.A. NOS.279&280/DEL./2011 3 3. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION I N THE FOLLOWING TERMS:- 6.4 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR CAREFULLY. I FIND THAT ALL D OCUMENTS REFERRED TO BY THE AR IN SUPPORT OF ITS EXPLANATIONS ARE ALR EADY AVAILABLE ON RECORD OF THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT AND MORE PARTIC ULARLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. I ALSO FIND FROM THE ORIGINAL A SSESSMENT ORDER DATED 21.03.1997 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95 TH AT THE BASIC DISPUTE BETWEEN THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND THE DEPAR TMENT WAS WHETHER THE COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION OF ITS SUGAR MILL COMMENCED ON 04.03.1994 OR FROM 10.11.94. THUS, THERE IS NO DIS PUTE BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND THE DEPARTMENT AS FAR AS COMMERCI AL PRODUCTION OF SUGAR MILL AFTER 10.11.94. THE FACT THAT COMMER CIAL PRODUCTION HAD BEEN UNDERTAKEN BY THE SUGAR DIVISION OF ASSESS EE-COMPANY DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS FUR THER PROVED FROM THE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS DECLARED IN THE NOTES TO A CCOUNT APPENDED TO THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AS AT 31.03.98. THERE FORE, RESPECTFULLY, FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HONB LE ITAT THE SAID DISALLOWANCES OF RS.`33,94,301/- TOWARDS INTEREST I S DELETED. 4. THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST T HE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT(A).THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF TH E AO WHILE THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. INDISPUTABLY, THE COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION IN SUGAR DIVISION COMMENCED IN THE PRECEDING YEARS ON OR BEFORE 10.11.1994. THEREFOR E, FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ,FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS OF THE ITA T, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION. SINCE REVENUE HAVE NOT PLACED BEFORE US ANY MATERIAL, CONTROVERTING THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF FACTS RECOR DED BY THE LD. CIT(A), WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE ,THEREFORE, GROUND NO.1 IN THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. GROUND NO.2 IN THE APPEAL FOR THE AY 1998-99 REL ATES TO DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF ` ` 13,58,519/- OUT OF ` `50,00,965/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST FREE ADVANCES GIVEN TO MOBAR INDIA LTD. AN D MOBAR ENGINEERING GMBN.DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, T HE AO DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF ` `50,00,965/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID BY THE COM PANY ON LOANS I.T.A. NOS.279&280/DEL./2011 4 BORROWED, THE ASSESSEE HAVING ADVANCED INTEREST FR EE ADVANCE TO SISTER CONCERNS. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) UPHELD TH E DISALLOWANCE, THE ADVANCE HAVING NOT BEEN MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT IN THE SHARES OF THE SISTER CONCERN. ON FURTHER APPEAL, THE ITAT VIDE THEIR AF ORESAID ORDER DATED 13 TH AUGUST, 2008 CONCLUDED AS UNDER:- 12. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. THE CRUX OF THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE AMOUNT WAS ADVANCED TO THE SISTER CONCERN FOR T HE PURPOSE OF ACQUISITION OF SHARES OF M/S MOBAR INDIA LTD. BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS SHOWING THAT THE LOAN WAS ADVANCED FOR THE PURCHASE OF SHARES. HOWEVER, ON THE OTHER HAND , ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SHOWS THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES AND THERE WAS CATEGORICALLY FINDING GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) IN PARA 7.2 OF PAGE 20 OF THE ORDER THAT ADVANCE HAD N OT BEEN MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT IN THE SHARES. BUT T HE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A LETTER DATED WHICH READ AS FOLLOWS: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT WE HAD PAID YOU AMOUNTS TO TALING TO `RS. 309,00,000 AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FOR SHAR ES OF MOBAR INDIA LTD. WE CONFIRM HAVING RECEIVED SHARE CERTIFICATE FOR 71 5,000 SHARES FOR `10/- EACH AND HAVING ADVISED YOU TO KEE P THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.`237,50,000 AS INTEREST FREE UNSECURED LOAN TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST YOUR PROPOSED ISSUE OF FURTHER SHARES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED COPIES OF SH ARE CERTIFICATE AND ALSO NOT FURNISHED DATE OF ADVANCE AND DATE OF ALLOTMENT OF SHARES TO THE ASSESSEE. ALSO THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY AGREEMENT WITH THE SISTER CONCERN FOR ACQUIRING SHARES IN SISTER CONCERN. NO DIRECT RELATION BETWE EN AMOUNT ADVANCED TO THE SISTER CONCERN AND ALLOTMENT OF SHA RES WERE FURNISHED. HENCE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE S ET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE WHE THER THERE IS ALLOTMENT OF SHARES TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND IF THE ADVANCE IS ADJUSTED TOWARDS ALLOTMENT OF SHARES THEN HE SHOULD ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO THAT EXTENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. I.T.A. NOS.279&280/DEL./2011 5 7. IN PURSUANCE TO AFORESAID DIRECTIONS OF THE I TAT, THE AO AFFORDED OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, NO REPLY WAS FILED .ACCO RDINGLY, THE AO REITERATED THE ADDITION. 8. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) REDUCED THE DISALLOWA NCE TO ` `36,42,446/- IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS : 7.4 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR CAREFULLY. I FIND THAT THE D IRECTION OF THE HONBLE ITAT ON THIS ISSUE WAS TO ALLOW INTEREST TO THE EXTENT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE EQUITY SHARES OF THE RELEVAN T COMPANIES TO WHOM THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCES HAD BEEN GIVEN BY T HE APPELLANT COMPANY. I FIND THAT TOTAL INVESTMENT OF RS.`71,50 ,100/- HAD BEEN MADE BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY IN ACQUIRING THE SHAR ES OF M/S MOBAR INDIA LTD. IN THE PAST. THEREFORE, INTEREST ESTIMATED @19% IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE SAID SUM OF RS.`71,50,100/- AMOUNTING TO `RS.13,58,519/- IS ALLOWED AND THE REM AINING DISALLOWANCE OF `RS.36,42,446/- IS CONFIRMED. 9.1 THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE AFORESAID RELIEF OF ` `13,58,519/- WHILE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT STATED TO HA VE PREFERRED ANY APPEAL .THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO WHILE THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE FINDINGS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUG H THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A),FOLLOWING THE DIRECTION S OF THE ITAT, REDUCED THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND THAT TOTAL INVESTMENT OF ` `71,50,100/- HAD BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN ACQUIRING THE SHARES OF M/S MOBAR INDIA LTD. IN THE PAST. THEREFORE, INTEREST AMOUNTING TO ` `13,58,519/- @19% ON THE AFORESAID INVESTMENT ESTIMATED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORD ER WAS ALLOWED. SINCE THE REVENUE HAVE NOT PLACED BEFORE US ANY MATERIAL, CON TROVERTING THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF FACTS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A), WE AR E NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE. THEREFORE, GROUND NO.2 IN THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. I.T.A. NOS.279&280/DEL./2011 6 11. COMING NOW TO THE APPEAL FOR THE AY 2007-08, T HE AO NOTICED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DE DUCTION OF AN AMOUNT OF INTEREST DUE TO THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS[FI]- ` `34,73,894/- AND INTEREST ON TERM LOAN- ` 53,53,256/-,TOTALING TO ` `88,87,150/- EVEN THOUGH THE AMOUNT WAS NOT PAID TO THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. ACCORDINGLY, TH E AMOUNT OF ` ` 88,87,150/- WAS ADDED U/S 43B OF THE ACT. 12. ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AN A MOUNT OF ` 4,57,21,213/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST DUE TO THE FI WAS ALREADY DISAL LOWED SUO MOTO BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE YEAR . IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ABOVE FIGURE OF ` `88,87,150/- REPRESENTED ACCUMULATED BALANCE OF IN TEREST DUE UPTO 31.03.2007 AS THE SAME WERE PICKED UP FROM SCH EDULE-4 OF UNSECURED LOANS ATTACHED TO THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.200 7 FILED WITH THE RETURN. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BREAKUP OF THE ACCUMULATED AMOUN T AS UNDER: [IN ` ] DUE AS ON DUE AS ON INCREASE 31.03.07 31.03.06 DURING FY 2006-07 INTEREST TO FIN. INSTI- TUITIONS . 34,73,894 18,81,192 15,92,702 INTEREST ON TERM LOAN 53,53,256 44,56,073 8,97,18 3 88,87,150 63,37,265 24,89,885 12.1 IT WAS CONTENDED THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S 43B S TOOD ALREADY MADE FOR THE INTEREST LIABILITY DUE AS ON 31.3.06 IN THE REL EVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE SAME CANNOT BE DISALLOWED ONCE AGAIN IN THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08. THUS, AT BEST A DISALLOWANCE OF ` ` 24,89,885/- COULD HAVE BEEN MADE U/S 43B BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 FOR INTEREST DUE BUT NOT PAID TILL 31.03.2007. SINCE T HE ASSESSEE SUO MOTO DISALLOWED A SUM OF ` `4,90,53,818/- TOWARDS INSTITUTIONAL INTEREST U/S 4 3B, WHILE CLAIMING ALLOWANCE OF ` `33,32,605/- UNDER THAT SECTION AS PER THE TAX AUDIT REPORT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME ,ANY FURTH ER DISALLOWANCE UNDER THAT SECTION SHALL AMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION, THE A SSESSEE CONTENDED . IN I.T.A. NOS.279&280/DEL./2011 7 THE LIGHT OF THESE SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. CIT(A) DELE TED THE ADDITION, HOLDING AS UNDER: 6.4 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR. I AGREE WITH THE EXPLANATIO N OF THE AR THAT TOTAL INTEREST ON INSTITUTIONAL LOANS DUE U PTO 31.03.07 AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET DID NOT ENTIRELY PERTAIN T O THE PREVIOUS YEAR CONCERNED AND IT INCLUDED CARRY FORWA RD OF SUCH LIABILITY FROM THE PRECEDING YEARS AS WELL. T HUS, THE SAID FIGURE CANNOT FORM ANY BASIS FOR MAKING DISALL OWANCE U/S 43B. MOREOVER, IF INTEREST IS OUTSTANDING AS A T 31.03.07 BUT IS PAID UPTO THE PRESCRIBED DUE DATE OF FILING RETURNS, THE SAME QUALIFIES AS ALLOWABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ITSELF AS PER SECTION 43B. THUS, EVEN THIS ASSERTI ON OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BAD IN LAW. FURTHER, I HAVE P ERUSED THE TAX AUDIT REPORT FOR THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR AND ALSO THE STATEMENT OF ASSESSABLE INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2007-08 OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY, I FIND THAT THE A PPELLANT HAD ALREADY MADE NET DISALLOWANCE OF RS.`4,57,21,21 3/- U/S 43B ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST DUE TO THE FINANCIAL INS TITUTION ON THE BASIS OF THE TAX AUDIT REPORT. THUS, IT IS MY CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE SAID DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 43B BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS A DOUBLE DISALLOWANCE. ACCORD INGLY, THE SAME IS DELETED. 13.. THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE O RDER OF THE AO WHILE THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 14. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE TOTA L INTEREST DUE TO INSTITUTIONAL LOAN UPTO MARCH, 2007 INCLUDED AMOUNT OF LIABILIT Y BROUGHT FORWARD FROM THE PRECEDING YEARS AND THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF INT EREST OF ` `88,87,150/- DID NOT RELATE TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. SINCE THE ASSESSEE SUO MOTU DISALLOWED A SUM OF ` `4,90,53,818/- TOWARDS INSTITUTIONAL INTEREST U/S 4 3B OF THE ACT, WHILE CLAIMING ALLOWANCE OF ` `33,32,605/- , THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION, WITHOUT EVEN ASCERTAINING AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE AMOUNT O F ` `88,87,150/- WAS INCLUDED IN THE AFORESAID AMOUNT OF ` `4,90,53,818/- NOR IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE AMOUNT OF I.T.A. NOS.279&280/DEL./2011 8 LIABILITY AS ON 31.3.2006 IS EMBEDDED IN THE LIABIL ITY AS ON 31.3.2007 . EVEN BEFORE US NO SUCH MATERIAL HAS BEEN PLACED. IN VI EW OF THE FOREGOING, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE LD. CIT(A) HAVE NOT PASSED A SP EAKING ORDER ON THE ISSUE, WE CONSIDER IT FAIR AND APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FIL E FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 43B OF THE ACT AFRESH I N THE LIGHT OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFT ER ALLOWING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO BOTH THE PARTIES. NEEDLES S TO SAY THAT WHILE REDECIDING THE APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHALL PAS S A SPEAKING ORDER, KEEPING IN MIND, INTER ALIA, THE MANDATE OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 250(6) OF THE ACT ,BRINGING OUT CLEARLY AS TO WHE THER OR NOT THE AMOUNT OF ` `88,87,150/- IS EMBEDDED IN THE AFORESAID DISALLO WANCE OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. SUBJECT TO T HESE DIRECTIONS , THE GROUND NO.1 IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR THE AY 2007- 08 IS DISPOSED OF. 15. GROUND NO.3 IN THE APPEAL FOR THE AY 1998-99 A ND GROUND NO.2 IN THE APPEAL FOR THE AY 2007-08 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE NOR ANY SUBMISSIONS HAVING BEEN MADE BEFORE US , DO NOT REQUIRE ANY SEPARATE ADJUDICATION AND ARE, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 16. NO OTHER PLEA OR SUBMISSION WAS MADE BEFORE U S. 17.. IN RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR THE AY 1998-99 IS DISMISSED WHILE THAT FOR THE AY 2007-08 IS ALLOWED BUT FOR STATISTI CAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV ) (A.N. PAHUJA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER NS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. M/S WILLARD INDIA LTD.,73-74, NEHRU PLACE, SHEE TALA HOUSE, NEW DELHI-19 I.T.A. NOS.279&280/DEL./2011 9 2. ASSTT. C.I.T.,CIRCLE, AAYAKAR BHAWAN TEACHERS C OLONY, BULANDSHAHR. 3. CIT (APPEALS)- MEERUT. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR, ITAT,I BENCH, NEW DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDE R DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR IT AT, DELHI