DCIT, Bulandshahr V. M/s Al-Hamad Frozen Foods Pvt Ltd, Bulandshahr

ITA 893/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 53221 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-11-2011
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 09-03-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS ANUSHA KHURANA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVI GUPTA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Value adopted by valuation officer; Business income; Tangible material; Valuation report; Onus to prove
• Section: 80HHC; 80IB; 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI A BENC H BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JM & SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, AM ITA NOS.893 & 894/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2002-03&2003-04 DEPUTY C.I.T., CIRCLE BULANDSHAHR, BULANDSHAHR V/S . M/S AL-HAMAD FROZEN FOODS PVT. LTD., MUNDA KHERA ROAD,KHURJA [BULANDSHAHR] [PAN NO.: AAHFA 8811 A] APPELLANT (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI RAVI GUPTA, CA REVENUE BY MRS. ANUSHA KHURANA, DR DATE OF HEARING 21-11-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21-11-2011 O R D E R A.N.PAHUJA:- THESE TWO APPEALS FILED ON 9.3.2009 BY THE REVENUE AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 18 TH DECEMBER, 2008 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-MEERUT FOR TH E AYS 2002-03 & 2003-04, RAISE THE FOLLOWING COMMON G ROUNDS:- 1. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT RELIANCE PLACED BY THE A.O. ON REPORT OF DVO FOR MAKING ADDITION TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTM ENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING WAS UNJUSTIFIED? 2. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` `2283995/- IN THE AY 2002-03 & ` 25,53,990/- IN THE AY 2003-04 WITHOUT GIVING ANY CO NCRETE FINDING ON THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE DVO WHO ESTI MATED THE COST OF THE BUILDING AT ` ` 34,86,399/- IN THE AY 2002-03 & ` 38,98,101/- IN THE AY 2003-04 AS AGAINST ` ` 12,02,404/- AND ` 13,44,111/- RESPECTIVELY AS ESTIMATED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER? 3. WHETHER THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER BY PLACING RELIANCE ON TH E VALUATION REPORT OF ITA NOS.893 & 894/DEL/2009 2 THE DVO THEREBY IGNORING THE DECISION OF THE ITAT I N THE CASE OF MANGALAM HOSPITAL (I.T.A. NO.4367 AND 4368/D/07) IN THIS REGARD? 4. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE A.O. WAS NOT J USTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB ON THE AMOUNT ADDED TO THE I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE? 5. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. RESTORED? 2. SINCE, SIMILAR ISSUES WERE INVOLVED, THESE APPEA LS WERE HEARD SIMULTANEOUSLY FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF THROUGH THIS COMMON ORDER. 3. FACTS IN BRIEF, AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS FOR THE A Y 2003-04 ARE THAT THE RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF ` `19,18,730/- FILED ON 29 TH OCTOBER, 2003 BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF FREEZING OF MEA T ETC., AFTER BEING PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (H EREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY WITH THE SERVICE OF A NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT ON 30 TH OCTOBER, 2004. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (IN A.O. IN SHORT) NOTICED THAT T HE ASSESSEE REFLECTED FREEZING AND COLD STORAGE CHARGES OF ` `2,55,92,543/- AS AGAINST ` `1,90,82,843/- IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. INTER ALIA, THE ASSESSE E CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF ` ` 19,80,730/- U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. ON VERIFICATION OF EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF SWEEPERS, TELEPHONE, KIRANA GOODS, AND MISC. EXPENS ES, THE AO CONCLUDED THAT ALL THE EXPENSES COULD NOT BE VERIFIED FOR WANT OF COMPLETE BILLS AND VOUCHERS. ACCORDINGLY, ESTIMATED EXPENSES OF ` `50,000/- WERE DISALLOWED. 3.1 THE AO FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE CONSTR UCTED BUILDING WITH AN INVESTMENT OF ` `25.36 LACS IN THE AY 2003-04 WHILE THE REGISTERED VALUER DETERMINED COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT ` ` 22,74,900/-. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE AO REFERRED THE MATT ER TO DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER (DVO) WHO ESTIMATED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTIO N AT ` ` 73,84,500/- AS AGAINST ` ` 25,46,515/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THESE TWO ASSE SSMENT YEARS. THE ITA NOS.893 & 894/DEL/2009 3 DETAILS OF COST REFLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ESTIM ATED BY THE DVO IN THE TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE AS UNDER:- F.Y. COST DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE[IN ` ] COST ESTIMATED BY THE DVO[IN ` ] 2001-02 12,02,404 34,86,399 2002-03 13,44,111 38,98,101 3.11 TO A QUERY BY THE AO AS TO WHY ADDITION OF ` `25,53,990/- (3898101 1344111) BE NOT MADE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT REPLY EV EN AFTER HAVING A COPY OF REPORT OF DVO. ACCORDINGLY, AN AMOUNT OF ` `25,53,990/- WAS ADDED IN THE AY 2003-04 ,RESULTING IN TOTAL INCOME OF ` `45,22,720/-. 3.2 LIKEWISE, THE AO ADDED AN AMOUNT OF ` ` 22,83,995/- IN THE AY 2002-03 AFTER REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT. 4. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) UPHELD THE DISALLO WANCE OF ` ` 50,000/- IN THE AY 2003-04 ON THE GROUND THAT SWEEPER, AND KIRANA E XPENSES WERE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FIRST TIME WHILE THERE WAS DI SPROPORTIONATE INCREASE IN TELEPHONE EXPENSES. 4.1 AS REGARDS ADDITION OF ` `25,53,990/-, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE REGISTERED VALUER PREPARED HIS REPORT ON THE BASIS OF CSR RATES PRESCRIBED BY UP PWD AND ALL THE PURCHASE BILLS FOR BUILDING MATE RIAL WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE DVO DETERMINED THE COST ON THE BASIS OF DELHI SCHEDULE OF RATES , WHICH COULD NOT BE APPLIED TO A PROPERTY CONSTRUCTED IN BULANDSHAHR WHICH IS AN OLD COMMERCIAL TOWN HAVING LOW COST OF MATERIAL AND LABOUR. INTER ALIA, THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON A NUM BER OF DECISIONS IN CIT VS. HOTEL JOSHI (2000) 108 TAXMAN 199 (RAJ);DY. CIT VS. SHAKTI ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. (2005) 97 TTJ (JD.) 426;M/S HARSWAROOP COLD STOR. & GEN. MILLS VS. I.T.O. (1988) 27 ITD 1 (DEL.)(TM);DCIT VS. ROHTAS PROJECTS LTD. (2006) 100 ITD 113 (LUCKNOW)(T.M.);CIT VS. RAJ KUMAR 182 ITR 436 (ALL. );BANGARAPPA HUF VS. DY. ITA NOS.893 & 894/DEL/2009 4 CIT (2005) 96 TTJ (BANG) 662;LUVKUSH VATIKA (P) LTD . VS. A.C. (2008) 12 DTR (LUCK)(TRIB.) 24;I.T.O. VS. AGENCIES RAJASTHAN (P) LTD. 2008) 117 TTJ (JP) 542;ASSTT. VIT VS. SUBBA REDDY 2005 TAX LR 373 (MAD .);M. SELVARAJ VS. I.T.O. (2002) 258 ITR 82 (CHENNAI)(T.M.)(AT);CIT VS. PRATA P SINGH AMROSINGH RAJENDRA SINGH (1993) 200 ITR 788 (RAJ.); AND SHEIK HAR CHAND JAIN & SONS VS. IAC (1989) 45 TAXMAN 82 (DELHI) AND CONTENDED THAT WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE AO WAS NOT JU STIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF DVO REPORT. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE S UBMISSIONS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 HOLDING AS UNDER:- I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, VALUATIO N REPORTS OF THE DVO AND REGISTERED VALUER AND VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS O F THE APPELLANT, AS ABOVE. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION O F THE ENTIRE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE CASE LAWS, I AM OF THE O PINION THAT THE RECORDS DO NOT SHOW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT A NY TIME DURING THE ENTIRE PRE AND POST REFERENCE PERIOD NOTICED AN D POINTED OUT ANY DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR THE BILLS/V OUCHERS FOR THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT AND EXAMINED BY HIM NOR BEFORE MAKING A REFERENCE TO THE DVO, RECOR D A FINDING REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY SPECIFICALLY POIN TING OUT ANY DEFECTS OR DEFICIENCIES. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WER E ALSO PRODUCED BEFORE THE DVO AS ALSO MENTIONED BY DVO HIMSELF IN HIS VALUATION REPORT. EVEN THE DVO HAD NOT GIVEN ANY ADVERSE COM MENT IN RESPECT OF BILLS AND VOUCHERS OF MATERIAL USED IN B UILDING CONSTRUCTION. BESIDES, THE CITATIONS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT AS ABOVE, IN FOLLOWING MORE CASES IT HAS BEEN HELD THA T UNLESS SOME DEFECTS IN ACCOUNT BOOKS ARE FOUND, THE DVOS REPOR T IS NOT VALID. 1. PAUL JOHN VS. CIT (1995) 215 ITR 92 2. CIT VS. LAKHPAT FILMS (2002) 173 CTR (RAJ.) 94 3. SEHAIYAR (KK) VS. CIT (2006) 246 ITR 351 (MAD.) IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING T HE ABOVE CITED CASE LAWS, I HOLD THAT RELIANCE PLACED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER ON REPORT OF DVO AS THE SOLE BASIS FOR MAKING THE IMPU GNED ADDITION TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION WAS UNJUSTIFIED AND ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT IS DELETED. ITA NOS.893 & 894/DEL/2009 5 4.2 FOLLOWING HIS AFORESAID DECISION IN THE AY 20 03-04, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF ` ` 22,83,995/- IN THE AY 2002-03 ALSO. SINCE THE SAI D ADDITION WAS DELETED, GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT ON THE ADDITION SO MADE WAS TREATED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 5. THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT(A). THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO WHILE THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. INDISPUTABLY, THE ADDITION OF ` `25,53,990/- IN THE AY 2003-04 AND ` ` 22,83,995/- IN THE AY 2002-03 WAS MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF DIFFER ENCE IN ESTIMATION OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATED BY THE DVO VIS-A-VIS REFLEC TED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO DID NOT POINT OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THESE TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS. APART FROM THE VALUATIO N REPORT, NO OTHER CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE SUGGESTING UNDISCLOSED INVES TMENT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE REVENUE. IT IS WELL SE TTLED THAT THE PRIMARY BURDEN OF PROOF TO ESTABLISH UNDERSTATEMENT OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME IS ON THE REVENUE AND IT IS ONLY WHEN SUC H BURDEN IS DISCHARGED THAT IT WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE TO RELY UPO N THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE DVO. [K.P. VARGHESE VS. ITO,131 ITR 597(SC); CIT VS. SMT. SHAKUNTALA DEVI, 224 CTR (DEL) 79 ; CIT VS . MANOJ JAIN (2006) 200 CTR (DEL) 327]. IN ANY CASE, THE OPINION OF THE DVO, PER SE, IS NOT AN INFORMATION AND CANNOT BE RELIED UPON WITHOUT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEING REJECTED - WHICH HAS NOT BEE N DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE. IN THIS CONNECTION ,HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THEIR DECISION DATED 19TH OCT., 2009 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6973 OF 2009 IN SARGAM CINEMA V. CIT HAVE HELD AS UNDER: DELAY CONDONED. LEAVE GRANTED. BY CONSENT, THE MATTER IS TAKEN UP FOR FINAL HEARIN G. ITA NOS.893 & 894/DEL/2009 6 IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL DECI DED THE MATTER RIGHTLY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE INASMUCH AS THE TRIBUNAL CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY COULD NOT HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER ( DVO) WITHOUT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEING REJECTED. IN THE PRESENT CA SE, A CATEGORICAL FINDING IS RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE BOOKS WERE NEVER REJECTED. THIS ASPECT HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY TH E HIGH COURT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, RELIANCE PLACED ON THE REPORT O F THE DVO WAS MISCONCEIVED. FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT IS SET ASIDE AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL STA NDS RESTORED TO THE FILE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS. 7. EARLIER ALSO SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN IN CIT V. PRATAPSINGH AMROSINGH RAJENDRA SINGH AND DEEPAK KUMAR, 200 ITR 788(RAJASTHAN) AND CIT VS. MEERUT CEMENT CO.(P) LTD . (2006) 202 CTR (ALL) 506. RECENTLY, HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT I N CIT V. BAJRANG LAL BANSAL,335 ITR 572(DEL.) HAVE ALSO CONCLUDED IN SIMILAR TERMS. IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, THERE IS NOTHING T O SUGGEST AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE AO EXAMINED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS OR HAD ANY MATERIAL IN HIS POSSESSION WHICH COULD LEAD TO A PR IMA FACIE CONCLUSION THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS DID NOT REFLECT TRUE COST OF THE AFORESAID BUILDING. EVEN BEFORE US NO SUCH MATERIAL HAS BEEN REFERRED TO BY THE LD. DR. NO DOUBT, IF BOOKS OF AC COUNT HAVE BEEN PROPERLY MAINTAINED WHEREIN ALL DETAILS HAVE BEEN R ECORDED BY THE ASSESSEE DULY SUPPORTED BY VOUCHERS/DOCUMENTS AND N O DEFECTS ARE POINTED OUT AND THE BOOKS ARE NOT REJECTED, THE RES ULT SHOWN BY THEM IS BOUND TO BE ACCEPTED. IN THE CASE UNDER CON SIDERATION , THERE IS NO COGENT OR TANGIBLE MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE MUCH LESS ANY INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE TO COME TO A CONCLUSION THA T THE ASSESSEE SPENT MORE THAN WHAT THEY CLAIMED FOR THE RELEVANT INVESTMENT IN PLOTS .IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES , WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3 IN THESE TWO APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. ITA NOS.893 & 894/DEL/2009 7 8. COMING NOW TO GROUND NO.4 IN THESE TWO APPEALS IN RESPECT OF CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT ON THE AMOU NT ADDED TOWARDS THE BUSINESS INCOME, SINCE AMOUNTS ADDED ON THE BASIS OF REPORT OF DVO HAVE BEEN DELETED , THERE IS NO QU ESTION OF ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT ON THE S AID AMOUNTS. AS REGARDS AMOUNT OF ` 50,000/- ADDED IN AY 2003-04 , THE LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT IS TO B E DETERMINED ON THE PROFITS OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING ASSESSED BY THE AO. HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HMT LTD., 203 ITR 811(KAR) HELD THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTIONS 80J AND 80 HH OF THE ACT, PROFITS AND GAINS OF NEW UNDERTAKINGS ARE NOT COMMERCIAL PROFIT S BUT ONLY SUCH PROFITS AS ARE COMPUTED IN THE MANNER LAID DOWN UNDER THE ACT IN P URSUANCE OF SECTION 80AB, AS IF EACH UNDERTAKING WAS A SEPARATE ASSESSEE . WE FIND THAT THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE KOMAL EXPORTS VS ACIT, 19 SOT 602 (DEL.) ) IN THE CONTEXT OF PROVISIONS OF SEC 80HHC OF THE ACT HELD AS UNDER:- 11. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE FOUND FROM THE RECORD THAT THE TAX PAYER IS AN EXPORTER AND HAD FILED A RETURN AT LOSS OF RS.47,27 ,650/-. THE TAX PAYER BEING EXPORTER IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 8 0HHC SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN THE SAID SECTION. SINCE TH E DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VI-A IS ADMISSIBLE ONLY WHEN THERE IS POSITIVE GROS S TOTAL INCOME, THE TAX PAYER OBVIOUSLY COULD NOT HAVE CLAIMED DEDUCTION UN DER SECTION 80HHC WHILE FILING THE RETURN OR BEFORE THE A.O. DURING T HE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT IS SEEN THAT AS AGAINST THE LOSS RE TURNED AT RS.47,27,650/- ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE AS POSITIVE INCOME OF RS.3 3,37,050/-. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE TAX PAYER REGARDING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC NEEDS TO BE RE-COMPUTED WITH REFERENCE TO THE FINALLY ASSESSED INCOME. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 8.1 SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE ITAT, MUMBAI B ENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. ZENITH RUBBER & PLASTIC WORK, 35 TTJ 259. 8.2 ON A SIMILAR ISSUE IN THE CONTEXT OF CLA IM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC OF THE ACT ON THE ADDITIONS TO THE INCOME MADE BY THE AO, HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BAWA SKIN COMPANY, 294 ITR ITA NOS.893 & 894/DEL/2009 8 537(PUNJAB & HARYANA) HELD THAT IF THE PROFITS SO A RRIVED AT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF EXPORT OUT OF INDIA OF ANY GOODS OR MER CHANDISE TO WHICH SECTION 80HHC IS APPLICABLE, THEN THE APPELLANT IS COMPLETE LY JUSTIFIED TO MAKE THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF SUCH PROFITS AS DETERMINED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER. 9. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING AND IN THE LIGHT O F AFORESAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, WE HAVE NO HESITATIO N IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE A CT ON THE AMOUNT DISALLOWED WHILE WORKING OUT THE ELIGIBLE PROFITS O F THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. THEREFORE, GROUND NO.4 IN THESE TWO AP PEALS IS DISMISSED. 10. GROUND NO. 5 IN THESE TWO APPEALS BEING MER E PRAYER NOR ANY SUBMISSIONS HAVING BEEN MADE BEFORE US ON THESE GRO UNDS, DO NOT REQUIRE ANY SEPARATE ADJUDICATION AND ARE, THEREFOR E, DISMISSED. 11. NO OTHER PLEA OR ARGUMENT WAS RAISED BEFORE U S 12. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE DISM ISSED. SD/- SD/- (I.P. BANSAL) (A.N. PAHUJA) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) NS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. DC.I.T., CIRCLE BULANDSHAHR (U.P.). 2. M/S AL-HAMAD FROZEN FOODS PVT. LTD., MUNDA KHERA ROAD KHURJA (BULANDSHAHR (U.P.). 3. CIT(A), MEERUT. 4. CIT CONCERNED. 5. DR, ITAT,A BENCH, NEW DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, DELHI ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT