Spi Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Pondicherry V. ACIT, Pondicherry

ITA 479/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 64223 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 17-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T N BETGERI
• Assessee Lawyers: H PADAMCHAN D KHINCHA
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 80G

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O. K. NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. I.T.A. NOS.479, 480 & 48 1/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2000-01, 2001-02 & 2002-03 M/S. SPI TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD., NO. 150, NIDARAJAPAYER STREET, PUDUCHERRY-605 001. (PAN : AABCK3967K) V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, PONDICHERRY. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI H. PADAMCHAND KHINCHA, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T.N. BETGERI, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 17. 07.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.08.20 12 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE CONSOLIDAT ED ORDER DATED 23-12-2011 PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS)-XII, CH ENNAI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01, 2001-02 AND 2002-03. 2. IN THESE APPEALS THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER CLAIMING DEDUCTION UND ER SECTION ITA NOS.479-481/MDS /2012 2 80-IA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT FOR SH ORT). THE AO REJECTED THE ACCLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSE SSEE DOES NOT COME UNDER THE PURVIEW OF SEC. 80-IA. THE ASSE SSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A). IT WAS SUBMI TTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT INADVERTENTLY THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION WAS MADEU U/S 80-IA. IN FACT IT IS A DEDUCTION CLA IMED UNDER SEC. 80-IB OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-0 1 ONWARDS. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO ON THE GRO UND THAT THE AO HAS RIGHTLY REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESS EE U/S 80-IA OF THE ACT. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION COMES UNDER SECTION 80-IB OF THE ACT A ND THEREFORE ACCORDING THE SECTION 80-IB THE ASSESSEES CASE MAY BE DECIDED. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR FAIRLY ACCEPT ED THAT THIS CASE CAN BE CONSIDERED UNDER SECTION 80-IB OF THE ACT. 5. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY E NABLED SERVICES. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A RETURN OF INCOM E FOR THE ITA NOS.479-481/MDS /2012 3 YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME AT NIL AFTER CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80-IA/80-IB OF THE ACT. THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) AND SUBSEQ UENTLY SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT WAS MADE U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80-IA/80-IB OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER P ASSED BY THE AO. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL DIRECTED THE AO TO RE-EXAMINE THE ISSU E IN DETAIL AFTER VISITING THE ASSESSEES FACTORY. AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE AO VISITED THE ASSESSEES FACTORY AND AFTER STUDYING THE PROCESSING DETAILS THE AO ISSUED A SHO W CAUSE NOTICE DATED 04-12-2009. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE T HE AO THAT THE COMPANY WAS RENDERING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EN ABLED SERVICES AS FOLLOWS : THE COMPANY OFFERS TYPESETTING AND COMPOSIT ION ACTIVITIES WITH THE HELP OF TYPESET SOFTWARES FOR PUBLISHERS. DEPENDING ON THE SOURCE MATERIAL SUBJECT MATTER, MEDIA, FORMATTING, LANGUAGE AND PRESENCE OF NON-STANDARD CHARACTERS OR HANDWRITTEN ANNOTATIONS AND THE CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS, A COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTION IS APPROPRIATELY ADOPTED IN OFFERING TYPESETTING AND COMPOSITION ACTIVITIES. T HE EXPERTISE IS IN A BROAD RANGE OF CONTENT AND LAY OU T ITA NOS.479-481/MDS /2012 4 COMPLEXITIES, FORMATS, FONTS AND SPECIAL CHARACTERS AS WELL AS HIGH END PAGINATION SOFTWARE TO DIGITALL Y MERGE TEXT, ILLUSTRATIONS AND TABULAR CONSTRUCTS IN TO COMPLEX PAGES.THE COMPANYS HANDS ON EXPERIENCE IN QUARKXPRESS, 3B2, INDESIGN, TEX, LATEX, HAS ENABLE ACCURACY IN STRUCTURE OF THE DOCUMENT, SPEED OF TURNAROUND AND FINALLY SPEED TO MARKET, FOR SEVERAL PUBLISHERS IN THE US AND EUROPE. THE WORK IS RECEIVED IN PAPER FORM AS MANUSCRIPT. THIS IS THE DATA OR MATERIAL GIVEN BY THE AUTHOR FO R TYPESETTING. THIS IS A KIND OF RAW DATA WHICH CANN OT BE USED BY ANY READER AS IN THE FORM OF BOOK. THIS RAW DATA GIVEN BY THE AUTHOR UNDERGOES THE FOLLOWING PROCESSES : 1. DATA ENTRY PROCESS & TAGGING. 2. COPY EDITING & EDITORIAL PROOF READING. 3. COMPOSITION PAGINATION PROCESS. 4. GRAPHIC ART EITHER USE AS IT IS OR RE DRAW. 5. PROOF READING & QUALITY CHECK. 6. INDEXING. 7. FRONT AND BACK END MATTERS AND COVER DE SIGN. 8. CREATION OF DELIVERABLES ELECTRONIC AN D/OR HARD COPY. THE SERVICES DETAILED ABOVE ARE IN THE NATURE OF DATA PROCESSING ACTIVITIES. THE NATURE OF THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY THE APPELLANT AMOUNTS TO MANUFACTURE OF AN ARTICLE OR A THING. ITA NOS.479-481/MDS /2012 5 THE AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF T HE ASSESSEE HAS OBSERVED THAT REGARDING MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIE S OF THE ASSESSEE, AFTER VISITING THE ASSESSEES FACTORY TO GET VERSANT WITH THE FULL DETAILS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY, IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RECEIVING THE MANUS CRIPT IN PAPER FORM AND AFTER SUBJECTING THE SAME INTO TYPESETTING , INDEXING, PAGINATION, ETC. DELIVERS IN ELECTRONIC AND OR HARD COPY TO THE SUPPLIERS/AUTHORS. ON EXAMINING THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY, IT FORMATS MANUSCRIPTS INTO PDF AND COMPUT ER FILES WHICH IS USED FOR PRINTING. THE FORMATTED PDF FILES/CDS CONTAIN THE MANUSCRIPTS IN TYPESET FORM. THE PROGRAMME CONTAIN ED IN THE CDS COULD NOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN MANUFACTURED BY THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY. LOGICALLY THEREFORE THE FORMATTED MATTER IN THE CD OF THE AUTHOR CANNOT BE STATED TO BE AMOUNTING TO MANUFACT URE FOR PRODUCTION OF AN ARTICLE OR THING. HE DENIED THE C LAIM OF DEDUCTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED THE AMOUNTS TO THE T OTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE C IT(A). BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAS RE-ITERATED THE SAM E SUBMISSIONS WHICH HE HAD MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. TH E LEARNED ITA NOS.479-481/MDS /2012 6 CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASS ESSEE HAS OBSERVED THAT IN THE ASSESSEES CASE, .THE RAW MATERIAL AND THE SO-CALLED FINAL PRODUCT IS ONE AND THE SAME, I.E. CONTENTS OF THE SUBJECT. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVES THE MANUSCRIPTS WHICH ARE EITHER TYPED OR HAND WRITTEN ONES. ON RECEIPT, THE ASSESSEE CONVERTS THEM INTO DIGITAL FORM BY TYPING OR SCANNING IN TO THE COMPUTER. THEREAFTER THE SAME IS EDITED AND FORMATTED INTO DESIRED PAGES. ALSO CERTAIN DRAWINGS ARE ALSO SCANNED AND REDRAWN BY USING COMPUTERS. THUS, BEFORE AND AFTER THE ASSES SEES ACTIVITY, THE CONTENTS I.E. DATA REMAINS THE SAME. THE ONLY CHANGE IS THE MEDIUM WHICH HOLDS THE DATA I.E. PAPER MEDIUM TO DIGITAL MEDIUM. HENCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE ASSESSEES ACTIVITY THE CONTENTS ARE THE SAME AND USE IS ALSO THE SAME. HENCE THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS RESULTING IN A NEW THING OR ARTICLE. THE ABOVE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSE IS NOTHING BUT TRANSFERRING THE DATA/INFORMATION FROM PAPER MEDIUM TO ELECTRONIC MEDIUM. ITA NOS.479-481/MDS /2012 7 THUS THERE IS NO NEW ARTICLE OR THING WHICH COMES INTO EXISTENCE AS A RESULT OF THE ASSESSEES ACTIVITY. HENCE THE ASSESSEES ACTIVITY OF CONVERTING THE PAPER MANUSCRIPTS INTO ELECTRONIC ONES CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A MANUFACTURING OR PRODUCING A THING OR ARTICLE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 80-IA/80-IB OF THE ACT. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE TRIBU NAL. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT A CHANGE IN COMPOSITION FROM MANUSCRIPT TO HARD DISC AMOUNTS TO MANUFACTURE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE F OR DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB(3) OF THE ACT. HE RELIED ON THE PAPER BOOK PA GE NO. 266 TO 270 AND SUBMITTED THAT BY CARRYING OUT THE ABOVE PR OCESS THE ASSESSEE IS MANUFACTURING HARD DISC/ELECTRONIC MEDI A. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS USED THE RAW MATERIAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE PRODUCTION AND FOR THAT HE RELIED ON PAGE 13 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER RELIED ON SECTION 2(29BA) OF THE ACT AND CIRCULAR NO. 5 OF 2010 DATED 03-06-2010. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISIONS IN THE CASES OF CIT V. ORACLE SOFTWARE IN DIA LTD. (320 ITA NOS.479-481/MDS /2012 8 ITR 546) (SC); CIT V. APOLLO HOSPITAL ENTERPRISES ( 338 ITR 68) (MAD) AND CIT V. HLS INDIA LTD. (NOW HLS ASIA LTD.) (335 ITR 292) (DEL). 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVES A MANUSCRIPT AND CONVERTS IT INTO A HARD DISC OR ELECTRONIC MEDIA. THIS DOES NOT AMOUNT TO MANUFACT URING OR PRODUCING AN ARTICLE OR THING. THEREFORE, THE ASSE SSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB OF THE ACT. MANUFA CTURING MEANS THE OUTCOME SHOULD BE SOMETHING DIFFERENT. HERE TH E ASSESSEE IS NOT BRINGING ANYTHING NEW. RECEIVING A MANUSCRIPT IN THEFORM OF PAPERS OR BOOK AND CONVERTING THE SAME INTO A HARD DISC OR ELECTRONIC MEDIA IS NOT AMOUNTING TO MANUFACTURING AN ARTICLE OR THING. THE LEARNED DR ARGUED THAT THE CASE LAWS RE LIED ON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAVE NO APPLICATIO N TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE RECOR DS AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ONLY ISSUE FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE ACTIVITIES CAR RIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE COME WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SUB-CLAUSE (3) OF SECTION 80- IB OF THE ACT OR NOT. AS PER SECTION 80-IB(3) TO CLA IM DEDUCTION ASSESSEE SHOULD MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCE ANY ARTICLE OR THING. IN ITA NOS.479-481/MDS /2012 9 THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE SECTION THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PROVE THAT IT IS MANUFACTURING OR PRODUCING AN ARTICLE OR THING. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVES FROM ITS CUSTOMERS MANU SCRIPTS WHICH ARE EITHER TYPED OR HANDWRITTEN ONES. AFTER RECEIV ING THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE CONVERTS THE SAME INTO TYPED FORM BY T YPING OR SCANNING INTO THE COMPUTER. THEREAFTER THE SAME IS EDITED AND FORMATTED INTO DESIRED PAGES AND ALSO CERTAIN DRAWI NGS ARE ALSO SCANNED AND REDRAWN BY USING COMPUTER. THEREAFTER THE SAME IS COPIED INTO THE HARD DISC AND SUPPLIED TO THE AUTHO RS OR CLIENTS. PRACTICALLY THE ASSESSEE IS RECEIVING SOME INFORMAT ION ON MANUSCRIPT AND CONVERTING THE SAME INTO HARD DISC F OR USING IN THE COMPUTER. IN OUR OPINION, THE ABOVE ACTIVITY OF TH E ASSESSEE NEITHER AMOUNTS TO MANUFACTURING NOR AMOUNTS TO PRO DUCING AN ARTICLE OR THING. THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOTHING BUT TRANSFERRING THE DATA/INFORMATION FROM PAPER MEDIUM TO ELECTRONIC MEDIUM. THE DATA USED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE AND A FTER THE CONVERSION IS THE SAME. THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE CONTENT. INSOFAR AS SECTION 2(29BA) INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT (NO.2) OF 2009 W.E.F. 01-04-2009 AND CIRCULAR NO.5 OF 2010 DA TED 03-06- 2010 ARE CONCERNED, THE SAME HAVE NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CON SIDERATION. ITA NOS.479-481/MDS /2012 10 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE O RDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 10. COMING TO THE CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY THE LEARN ED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ORACLE SOFTWARE INDIA LTD. (320 ITR 546) (SC) THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS CONSIDE RED THAT WHETHER THE PROCESS BY WHICH A BLANK COMPACT DISC ( CD) IS TRANSFORMED INTO SOFTWARE LOADED DISC CONSTITUTES MANUFACTURE OR PROCESSING OF GOODS. THE FACTS CONSIDERED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE ABOVE CASE ARE ENTIRELY DIFFER ENT FROM THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE. THEREFORE THE ABOVE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE. 11. INSOFAR AS THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE LE ARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF APOLLO HOSPITAL ENT ERPRISES (338 ITR 680 (MAD) IS CONCERNED, THE HONBLE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT HAS CONSIDERED WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO INVESTMENT ALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF X-RAY, ULTRA SOUND, ANGIOGR APHY, GAMMA CAMERA, STRESS ANALYSIS EQUIPMENT ETC. AND BY FOLLO WING VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE HIGH COURTS HELD THAT HOSPITAL AND INDIVIDUAL DOCTORS ARE ENGAGED IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND THER EFORE THE ITA NOS.479-481/MDS /2012 11 ASSESSEE WAS TREATED AS AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING A ND ALSO ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION OF ANY ARTICLE OR THING. 12. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS TRANSFERR ING THE DATA/INFORMATION FROM PAPER MEDIUM TO ELECTRONIC ME DIUM. THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE CONTENT AND IT IS NOT PRODUCING ANY NEW THING OR ARTICLE. THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE A SSESSEE IS A MANUFACTURER. THUS THE ABOVE CASE LAW RELIED UPO N BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE PRESENT CASE. 13. IN THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT RELIED ON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, NAMELY, CIT V . M/S. HLS INDIA LTD. (335 ITR 292) (DEL), THE FACTS ARE THAT PRODUCTION OF LOG BY WAY OF WIRELINE LOGGING WAS THE CONCERNED ACTIVI TY. WIRELINE LOGGING ASSISTS THE MINERAL OIL CONCERNS PRIMARILY TO ASCERTAIN AS TO WHETHER THERE IS ANY GAS OR OIL IN THE WELL, AND IF THERE IS SUCH PRESENCE, THEN ITS AVAILABILITY AT WHAT DEPTH AND T HE QUANTITY OF SUCH RESERVES, AND WHETHER SUCH GAS OR OIL CAN BE E XTRACTED. IN THOSE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE HONBLE DELHI HI GH COURT HAS HELD THAT IF AN OPERATION/PROCESS RENDERS A COMMODI TY OR ARTICLE FIT FOR USE FOR WHICH IT IS OTHERWISE NOT FIT, THE OPER ATION/PROCESS FALLS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE WORD MANUFACTURE APPLIE S. EVEN FROM ITA NOS.479-481/MDS /2012 12 ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE, WHICH FORMS THE SECOND LIMB OF THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENT, THE CASE TILTS IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE. THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, WHE REIN THE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT, HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE PRESENT CA SE. 14. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE OPINION THAT WHETHER TH E ASSESSEE IS MANUFACTURING OR PRODUCING AN ARTICLE OR THING HAS TO BE DECIDED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE. BY DRA WING ANALOGY IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MANUFACTURIN G OR PRODUCING AN ARTICLE OR THING. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS G ROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR ALL THE ASS ESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 15. ANOTHER GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF FOREIGN TRA VEL EXPENSES OF ` 9,14,278/-. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT WITH REGARD TO THE EXPENSES RELATING TO FOREIGN TRAVEL DEBITED UNDER THE HEAD TRAVEL AND CONVEYANC E A SUM OF ` 9,14,2788/- WAS DEBITED ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVEL EXPENS ES PERTAINING TO OTHERS. THESE EXPENSES WERE APART FROM THE EXPENSES RELATING TO THE M.DS VISIT. THOUGH SHOW CAUSE NOT ICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, IT HAD NOT FILED ANY REPLY . HENCE IT WAS CONSTRUED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD NOTHING TO FURNISH ITA NOS.479-481/MDS /2012 13 AGAINST THIS AND THEREFORE THE SUM OF ` 9,14,278/- WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 16. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LEAR NED CIT(APPEALS). IN HIS ORDER THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS ) HAS OBSERVED THAT NO DETAILS WERE FILED WITH REGARD TO THE FOREI GN TRAVEL TO SHOW THAT THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIV ELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS AND ACCORDINGLY HE DISMISSE D THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 17. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. EVEN BEFORE US NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN FILE D TO SHOW THAT THE FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES INCURRED FOR OTHERS WER E EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, EXCEPT STATING THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS. WE THEREFORE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE O RDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 18. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 THE ASSESSEE HA S RAISED A SIMILAR GROUND OF DISALLOWANCE OF FOREIGN TRAVEL EX PENSES TO THE TUNE OF ` 1,12,806/-. NEITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE HAS FI LED ANY DETAILS. EVEN BEFORE US NOTHING HAS BEEN FILED. FOR THE REA SONS STATED IN ITA NOS.479-481/MDS /2012 14 PARAGRAPH 17 OF THIS ORDER ABOVE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000- 01, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 19. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 AND 2001-02 TH E ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ANOTHER GROUND OF APPEAL RELATI NG TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT PRESSED THIS GROUND OF APPEAL FOR BOTH THE ASSESSME NT YEARS. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 20. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION RELATES TO THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THIS IS CONSEQUENTIAL AN D HENCE IT IS DISMISSED. 21. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON TUESDAY, THE 28 TH OF AUGUST, 2012, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (DR. O. K. NARAYANAN) ( V.DURGA RAO ) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 28 TH AUGUST, 2012. H. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT(A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE