ADITYA BIRLA RETAIL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2(2)4, MUMBAI

The learned Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the submissions and examining the materials produced before him including the reconciliation of closing stock of raw material, found that the difference of 3,43,237 in the value of closing stock was due to wrongly taking rate of cheese at ` 98=35 as against ` 75=87 as per original stock register. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) being satisfied with the reconciliation statement furnished by the assessee deleted the addition.

Learned Departmental Representative submitted, before the first appellate authority the assessee has furnished additional evidence by way of reconciliation chart which was not filed before the Assessing Officer. He submitted, learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in deleting the addition without allowing an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine the additional evidence.

Learned Authorised Representative submitted, in the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer never put across to the assessee the issue of difference in valuation of closing stock of raw materials “Others”. He submitted, had the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to reconcile the difference, the assessee could have explained it.

Learned Authorised Representative drawing our attention to the reconciliation statement produced before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), a copy of which is at Page–233 of the paper book, submitted that the assessee has reconciled the difference in value of closing stock of raw material and others. He submitted, reconciliation chart was duly forwarded to the Assessing Officer by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) which is evident from the submissions made by the assessee before the Assessing Officer in the course of remand.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. From the facts and material on record, it is evident that the Assessing Officer without calling for an explanation from the assessee to reconcile the difference has made the addition alleging suppression of closing stock. However, before the first appellate authority, the assessee has reconciled the difference with supporting evidence which was sent for verification of Assessing Officer. That being the case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue. Ground no.1, raised by the Revenue is dismissed.

In ground no.2, the Revenue has challenged deletion of addition made of ` 24,89,077 on account of inflated purchases.

Brief facts are, during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the consumption of raw materials for biscuits and confectionaries for Mumbai unit was shown at 49103.146 MTs. However, from the monthly details of purchases and consumption furnished by the assessee the consumption of material worked out to ` 49280.481 MTs. The Assessing Officer, therefore, concluded that the assessee has inflated the purchases to the extent of ` 177.335 MTs Considering the fact the total consumption reported at ` 126826.558 MTs was valued at ` 17801.40 lakh, the Assessing Officer adopted

Before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), it was submitted by the assessee that as per materials brought on record, the correct consumption of raw material as per monthly statement should be 46136.446 MTs. It was submitted, in letter dated 31st March 1999, it was stated by the assessee that stores issued sugar was wrongly entered at 1.60 lakh kgs instead of 16,000 kgs. Therefore, a Credit Note no.3002 dated 31st January 1996 dated 31st January 1996, for difference of 1.44 lakh kgs was accounted for. The assessee also filed a chart reconciling the difference in consumption of raw material. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), after considering the submissions of the assessee in the light of the materials on record found that the reconciliation of consumption of raw material furnished by the assessee is on the basis of books of account, hence, is to be accepted. He, therefore, held that there being no difference in consumption of raw material as alleged by the Assessing Officer the addition of ` 24,89,077 cannot be sustained.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The only contention before us by the Learned Departmental Representative is, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has deleted the addition on the basis of additional evidence submitted before him. Learned Authorised Representative on the other hand submitted that all the evidences produced before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was sent for examination of the Assessing Officer.

Having considered the submissions of the parties, we are of the view that there is no need to interfere with the finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). As could be seen, on the basis of a monthly statement filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer has made the addition alleging purchase suppression. However, before the first appellate authority, the assessee has reconciled the difference and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) after examining the reconciliation statement having found that it is on the basis of the books of account of the assessee has deleted the addition. Further, it is evident on record, the first appellate authority has sent the evidences filed in the paper book for the examination of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the allegation of the Learned Departmental Representative that the Assessing Officer was not given opportunity to examine additional evidence is unacceptable. It is further to be noted, the Learned

In ground no.3, the Revenue has challenged deletion of addition of ` 23,05,600, made by the Assessing Officer alleging suppression of production resulting in unaccounted sales.

In the course of assessment proceedings, on the basis of information from contract manufacturing units, through notice issued under section 133(6) of the Act, the Assessing Officer found that the quantity of production shown by contract manufacturing units in their books of account is more than the quantity of production for contract manufacturing units as shown in the books of account of the assessee. As per the information obtained, the Assessing Officer found the difference in quantity produced in respect of one contract manufacturing unit at 9,217 kgs and in respect of another at 53,822 kgs. He, therefore, called upon the assessee to reconcile the difference. In response, it was submitted by the assessee that 2,560 cartoons of cream biscuits produced by Bunty Food were exported to 9 M/s. Parle Products Ltd.

The learned Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the submissions of the assessee and examining the material brought on record before him deleted the addition.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The only submission made by the Learned Departmental Representative before us is, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has deleted the addition on the basis of additional evidence which were not filed before the Assessing Officer. The learned

In ground no.4, the Revenue has challenged the deletion of addition of ` 2,29,64,845, made on account of sale of waste biscuits / biscuit powder / broken biscuit.

Brief facts are, from the details of other income of ` 228.18 lakh shown in the Profit & Loss account, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has sold waste biscuit powder, weighing 660.500 MTs for an amount of ` 9,77,569 at 1.47 per kg. The Assessing Officer, however, did not find the claim of the assessee acceptable. He observed, any prudent manufacturer will not sell broken and burnt biscuit and biscuit powder at a low rate of ` 1.47 per kg. instead of re– using part of such biscuit for manufacture as followed by contract manufacturing units. From the details submitted, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had accounted for waste biscuit weighing 664.600 MTs while reconciling the production of 31007.300 MTs disclosed in RT–12 register to Excise Department. He also noticed that the assessee had paid full Excise duty on the biscuit produced at an uniform rate of 10% on the total production of 31007.300 MTs. On consideration of the aforesaid facts, the Assessing Officer concluded

The learned Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the submissions of the assessee qua the materials brought on record, deleted the addition.

Learned Departmental Representative submitted, on a physical enquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer at the factory premises of the assessee, it was found that the entire manufacturing process is automated and there is very little scope of wastage. He submitted, even in case of wastage by way of broken biscuits, etc., they are re– usable which is found from contract manufacturing unit. He submitted, before the first appellate authority, the assessee produced additional evidence which were not brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer.

Learned Authorised Representative submitted, there is difference between the broken biscuit on the one hand and burnt and powder biscuit on the other. He submitted, while broken biscuits are reusable in the manufacturing process burnt biscuits are of no use. He submitted, biscuit powder is only sold as cattle feed at ` 1 per kg. He submitted, though, the rate of Excise duty is same on broken biscuit, burnt and powder biscuits, however they are shown as separate items in RG–1 Register. He submitted, all these facts were brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer through detail submissions made during the remand proceedings.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. As could be seen, other income shown by the assessee is from sale of broken biscuits, and powder biscuits. While burnt biscuits are of no use, broken biscuits are re–usable in manufacturing process and they have been sold at ` 26 per kg. Whereas, biscuit powder is not fit for human consumption, hence, sold at ` 1.48 per kg. These facts have been demonstrated through documentary evidence including Central Excise registers before the first appellate authority. Notably, the learned Commissioner (Appeals)

In ground no.5, the Department has challenged the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in restricting the disallowance of entertainment expenses to ` 50,000.

Brief facts are, during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer on examining the details found that the entertainment expenses of ` 7,36,706, shown by the assessee did not include expenditure on food and beverages of employees accompanying guests and expenses on food, beverages during training program, conference and product launch. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed an amount of ` 1 lakh out of the expenses claimed. The 15 M/s. Parle Products Ltd.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find that in assessment year 1995–96, while deciding department’s appeal in ITA no.66/Mum./1999, dated 28th October 2003, the Tribunal has restricted the disallowance to ` 75,000. Following the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to ` 75,000. Ground raised is partly allowed.

In ground no.6, Department has challenged deletion of addition of ` 20,57,746 on account of disallowance of expenditure on foreign travel.

During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticing that the assessee has claimed foreign travel expenses of ` 40,95,492, called upon the assessee to produce the relevant details and justify its claim. After examining the details furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer found that the foreign travel expenses

Learned Departmental Representative submitted in assessee’s own case for assessment year 1995–96, the Tribunal has upheld disallowance of 50% out of total expenditure claimed.

Learned Authorised Representative submitted, in assessment year 1984–85 to 1986–87, the Tribunal has deleted similar disallowance. He also referred to CBDT circular no.4 dated 19th June 2005.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. As could be seen from the facts on record, the specific allegation of the Assessing Officer is, except the board resolution and few fax messages, the assessee has failed to bring on record supporting documentary evidence to demonstrate the purpose of foreign travel undertaken by the directors and executives. Though, in the assessment year 1984–85 and 1986–87, the Tribunal has deleted the addition, however, as could be seen from the order dated 30th September 2004, passed in ITA no.157/Mum./1999, in assessee’s own case for immediately preceding assessment year, i.e., 1995–96, the Tribunal has upheld 50% disallowance of foreign travel expenses in respect of the very same persons. Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, we restore the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. This ground is allowed.

In ground no.7, the Department has challenged deletion of addition made of ` 1,11,71,412, on account of unutilised MODVAT credit.

We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. The Assessing Officer following similar disallowance made in the preceding assessment year has made the impugned disallowance. However, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) following the decision of 18 M/s. Parle Products Ltd.

Learned Counsels appearing before us have agreed that the issue stands decided in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd., [2003] 261 ITR 275 (SC). Considering the aforesaid submissions of the parties, we uphold the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) by dismissing the ground raised.

Ground no.8 of Revenue corresponding to grounds no.4 and 5 of the assessee will be taken up at later part of this order.

Ground no.9, of Revenue corresponding to ground no.6 by assessee is on ad–hoc disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of suppressed sale of confectionary.

Brief facts are, during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that Mumbai unit has given yield of 94.82% for confectionary item. According to him, if the raw material under the head “Others” is accounted for, the percentage of yield would come down to 91.5%. Whereas, the contract manufacturing unit has shown yield of confectionary items ranging from 86.80% to 102.67%. Accordingly, he worked out the average yield of contract

The learned Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the submissions of the assessee vis–a–vis the facts and material on record though, agreed that major discrepancy found by the Assessing Officer is on account of maida, which is not a raw material for confectionary, however, he upheld disallowance of ` 2 lakh.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded a factual finding that most of the discrepancies found by the Assessing Officer are on account of maida which is not a raw material for confectionary. That being the case, there is no justification for even sustaining a part of ad–hoc disallowance made by the Assessing Officer in respect of confectionary. Therefore, we delete the addition sustained by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Ground no.9 by the 20 M/s. Parle Products Ltd.

Ground no.10, raised by the Revenue corresponding to ground no.7 in assessee’s appeal are on the issue of part disallowance of deduction claimed on account of spoilt and damaged goods.

During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed deduction on account of spoilt and damaged goods as under:–

When the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to justify its claim, the assessee submitted debit notes issued by the distributors for damaged goods. The Assessing Officer, however, was not convinced with the submissions of the assessee. He observed that the agreement with the distributors did not bind the assessee to pay any amount towards spoilt and damaged goods. Accordingly, he made ad– hoc disallowance of 5% out of the total claim made by the assessee which worked out to ` 6,63,300. Assessee challenged the disallowance before the first appellate authority.

The learned Commissioner (Appeals) agreed with the assessee that defective goods cannot be ruled out in manufacturing process and further, manufactured items do have a self–life and there can be defects in packaging and goods may be damaged in transit also. He also agreed with the assessee that dealers / distributors will not bear the cost of damaged goods and will get it reimbursed from the assessee who is the manufacturer. However, he held that such deduction can only be allowed to the assessee in respect of goods manufactured by it. He observed, as far as the goods manufactured by the affiliates of the assessee like mouthwash an tooth brush, the assessee is at liberty to get it reimbursed from the manufacturer. Accordingly, he sustained the disallowance @ 5% out of the deduction claimed on account of mouthwash and toothbrush amounting to ` 14.04 lakh which resulted in disallowance of ` 70,200.

Having heard rival contentions, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). We are of the opinion that assessee’s claim of deduction on account of spoilt and damaged goods insofar as it relates to biscuits and confectionaries is allowable, since, assessee itself manufactures such items. However, as far as mouthwash and toothbrush are concerned, the assessee has not manufactured such products, therefore, the assessee could have returned such damaged goods to the manufacturer and claimed

Ground no.8 raised by the Revenue corresponding to ground no.5 raised by the assessee are on the issue of addition made with regard to suppressed production resulting in suppressed sales of biscuits.

Brief facts are, during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer while examining tax audit report of the assessee found that as per quantitative details of consumption in production mentioned therein, percentage of yield works out to 92.55%. He, therefore, called upon the assessee to furnish quantitative details of raw material consumed in the manufacture of biscuit and confectionary separately; percentage of yield in respect of biscuits and confectionery; percentage of shortage / wastage in the process of manufacturing biscuits and confectionery separately; monthly statement of item–wise purchases of raw materials; monthly statements of item–wise consumption of raw materials and packing materials in the process of manufacturing biscuits and confectionery separately; monthly yield of final products item–wise; monthly statement of sales item wise and so on. After verifying the details submitted by the assessee, he found that overall percentage of yield both in respect of biscuit and confectionary

In the course of hearing of appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), assessee contesting the addition made by the Assessing Officer submitted that the Assessing Officer did not appreciate the facts properly. It was submitted, the difference in coco vita oil was on account of typographical error. It was submitted, the quantity of other raw material though specifically not mentioned in the printed account but the value was shown. Reiterating the stand taken before the Assessing Officer, it was submitted that contract manufacturing units were manufacturing less number of brands as compared to Mumbai unit. It was submitted, the standard formula of manufacturing cannot be applied due to various factors including wastage in the manufacturing process. In this context, the assessee submitted the different variety of biscuits and confectionary manufactured by contract manufacturing units. The assessee furnishing a statement of reconciliation of sales submitted that the Assessing Officer did not consider the sales from depots and the 27 M/s. Parle Products Ltd.

After considering the submissions of the assessee in the context of facts and materials on record, learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of books of account accepting the reasoning of the Assessing Officer. As far as the quantum of yield is concerned, after examining the material on record he observed that the yield of Mumbai unit is less than the yield of contract manufacturing units. However, he accepted assessee’s contention that in the manufacturing process,

Learned Departmental Representative extensively referring to the observations of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order submitted that the assessee was supplying all the raw materials to the contract manufacturing units. He submitted, as per the tax audit report yield of the Mumbai unit of the assessee worked out to 92.55%. Whereas, as per the statements filed before the Assessing Officer by the assessee, percentage of yield worked out to 84.50%. He submitted, in the reconciliation statement also, discrepancy was found which was again revised by the assessee. He submitted, as per the reconciliation statement, the discrepancy was found in consumption of vanaspati, sugar, maida, coco vita oil. He submitted, as per the information obtained from contract manufacturing units, percentage of average yield was found to be 91%. He submitted, before the Assessing Officer assessee could not prove that it was manufacturing a large variety of biscuits compared to contract manufacturing units. He submitted, the Assessing Officer has worked out the yield by applying a standard formula which was accepted by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case. Learned Departmental Representative submitted, in the 30 M/s. Parle Products Ltd.

Learned Authorised Representative submitted, no defect was found in the books of account. He submitted, if there was any discrepancy, it was in the statement submitted before the Assessing Officer, that too, due to bonafide mistake. He submitted, in the tax audit report, there is no mention of percentage of yield. He submitted, as per Form no.3CD, prescribed under Income–tax Rules, 1962, in case of manufacturing concern, full quantitative details of principal

We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. On a perusal of the order of the Departmental Authorities as well as factual aspect of the issue, it is very much clear that the issue in dispute is purely a factual one and has to be decided after considering the facts brought on record. As could be seen, the Assessing Officer inferred suppression of sales by the assessee primarily taking into account the percentage of yield of biscuits of the assessee compared to the percentage of yield of the contract manufacturing units. The allegation of the Assessing Officer is, as per the tax audit report the percentage of yield works out to 92.55%, whereas, as per the statement and revised statement showing consumption of different raw material and manufacture furnished by the assessee, the yield works out to 84%. He has also referred to the information obtained from contract manufacturing units to conclude that the average yield of contract manufacturing units work out to 34 M/s. Parle Products Ltd.

Notably, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has found some of the reasons shown for lesser yield at Mumbai unit acceptable. As far as the discrepancies pointed out by the Assessing Officer with reference to the audited accounts and the statements of consumption of raw material filed before him, it is noticed that in the audited accounts while furnishing the quantitative details of principal items of raw materials and finished products, there is no mention of the percentage of yield. Therefore, allegation of the Assessing Officer that as per the audit report, the assessee has shown yield of 92.55% is factually incorrect. This is evident from Annexure–5 of the audit report copy of which is at Page–211 of the paper book. As far as the discrepancies pointed out in the original statement of consumption of raw materials and the revised statement furnished during the assessment proceedings, it is a fact that the quantity of coco vita oil has been shown at 1059 MTs instead of 1860 MTs shown in the audit report. However, in the revised statement, the quantity of coco vita oil has been shown at the correct figure of 1859 MTs. Therefore, the assessee’s explanation that the figure of 1059 MTs shown in the original statement was due to a mistake is believable. As far as the allegation of the Assessing Officer that the raw material “others” were 37 M/s. Parle Products Ltd.

There is no allegation by the Departmental Authorities that the consumption of raw materials and production of finished products as recorded in the Excise registers were doubted by the Central Excise authorities. It is also a fact on record that the Assessing Officer has not doubted the purchases made by the assessee. It is also a fact that the assessee has maintained all books of account as required under 38 M/s. Parle Products Ltd.

Thus, compared to the yield of Mumbai unit in the preceding assessment years as noted above, the assessee has shown a higher yield for the Mumbai unit in the impugned assessment year. Therefore, on over all consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that rejection of books of account and addition made on estimate basis alleging suppression of sale is not in accordance with law. Therefore, even a part of addition made by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer fully. Ground no.8 of the 40 M/s. Parle Products Ltd.

In the result, Department’s appeal is partly allowed. ./2002 Assessee’s Appeal

In ground no.1, assessee has challenged disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80I and 80IA of the Act.

Brief facts are, in the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticing that the assessee had claimed deduction under section 80I and 80IA of the Act called upon the assessee to justify the claim. After considering assessee’s submissions, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of deduction under section 80I and 80IA of the Act on the reasoning that the assessee has not claimed the deduction in the return of income and has also not quantified such deduction and secondly the assessee is not eligible to claim such deduction in view of the adverse finding on such issue in assessment year 1995–96. Though, the assessee challenged the disallowance before the first appellate authority, he also concurred with the finding of the Assessing Officer.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Learned Counsel for the assessee fairly submitted that the issue has been decided against the assessee by the Tribunal in its own case for assessment year 1994–95 and 1995–96. On a perusal of the order dated 30th September 2004, in Mum./1999, in assessee’s own case for assessment year 1995–96, we find that the Tribunal has upheld the disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80I and 80IA of the Act. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, we uphold the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue by dismissing the ground raised.

In ground no.2, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of depreciation on guest house.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Learned Counsels appearing for both the parties have submitted before us that the issue has been decided against the assessee by the Tribunal in the preceding assessment years as well as by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Britannia Industries Ltd. v/s CIT, 278 ITR 546 (SC). Notably, in assessee’s own case for assessment year 1995–96, in ITA no.157/Mum./1999 dated 30th September 2004, the Tribunal has upheld the disallowance of depreciation on guest house. Respectfully following the aforesaid

In ground no.3, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of depreciation of ` 14,18,541 on certain plant and machinery.

Brief facts are, during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer for verifying the claim of depreciation on plant and machinery called for necessary details. He found that the assessee had shown addition to the plant and machinery for an amount of ` 1,13,48,325 on which depreciation of ` 14,18,541 was claimed. From the details submitted, he found that the particular machine was actually imported by Parle Biscuits Ltd., a subsidiary of assessee in January 1991, since, it wanted to go into manufacturing of chocolate and other permitted items. However, as Parle Biscuits Ltd., could not finalise the idea of manufacturing of chocolate the machine was not used and lying idle until they were sold to Parle Products Ltd. on 26th February 1996. To verify the authenticity of assessee’s claim, the Assessing Officer made a physical enquiry by visiting the factory premises of the assessee on 15th March 1999. In the course of physical enquiry, when the assessee was called upon to produce the documentary evidence in respect of installation of machinery in the factory premises and its use, as alleged

The learned Commissioner (Appeals) also confirmed the disallowance in appeal proceedings by accepting the reasoning of the Assessing Officer.

Learned Authorised Representative submitted that the machine on which the assessee has claimed depreciation is a packaging machine and has no relationship with production. He submitted, detail use of machine was submitted before the Departmental Authorities. He submitted, not only the machine was installed in the relevant financial year but it was also used in the impugned year. In this context, he drew our attention to the commissioning certificate issued by the Chief Engineer, a copy of which is at Page–602 of the paper book. He

Learned Departmental Representative relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) submitted that onus is on the assessee to prove the use of machinery. Since the assessee failed to prove such facts, deprecation was rightly disallowed.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. As could be seen from the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), he has accepted that the assessee has produced evidence to prove that the machines were purchased through import and it was commissioned and form part of the fixed assets in the impugned assessment year. The only reason on which the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected assessee’s claim of depreciation is, the assessee was unable to prove that the machinery was used in production. As could be seen from the materials placed before us, which were also before the Departmental Authorities, the machine in question is used for cutting and wrapping confectionary toffees and were delivered at ready to use condition. Thus, it is evident that the machine has no role to play in the production activity.

Grounds no.4 and 5 having already been disposed–off while deciding ground no.8 of Department’s appeal in ITA no.4023/Mum./ 2002, vide Para–51 to 54, no separate adjudication is required at this stage.

Grounds no.6 and 7 have already been disposed off while deciding grounds no.9 and 10 of Department’s appeal in Mum./2002. Hence, no separate adjudication is required in respect of these grounds now.

In ground no.8, assessee has challenged levy of interest under section 234B of the Act. Both the parties admitted before us that this ground is consequential in nature. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to give consequential effect while re–computing the income of 46 M/s. Parle Products Ltd.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.

To sum up, both the appeals are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29.11.2017