- (1.) This income tax appeal filed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act 1961(In short the Act) arises out of the order dated 8.2.2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', New Delhi in I.T.A. No. 2718/DEL/94 for the assessment year 1992-93 wherein the following substantial question of law has been raised : " Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT was illegally justified in holding that the interest received from the debtors or customers on delayed payment was income derived from the Industrial Undertaking and Deduction under Section 80 HH and 80 I of the I.T.Act was also admissible on the amount so earned."
(2.) We have heard Sri Shambhu Chopra learned counsel for the appellant income tax department and Sri Bhupesh Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent assessee and perused the records.
(3.) The only ground pressed by Sri Chopra to challenge the impugned order is that the ITAT was not justified to hold that interest received from the debtors / customers on the delayed payment was not income derived from the industrial undertaking and thus the deduction under Section 80 HH and 80 I of the Act was not admissible on the amount so earned. Sri Shambhu Chopra supporting the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer on the issue of admissibility of deduction under Section 80 HH and 80 I of the Act, submits that the respondent assessee claimed Rs. 1,60,52,674/- and Rs. 2,00,65,843/- being deductions Section 80 HH and 80 I of the Act respectively on the gross total income which includes Rs. 22,31,082/- and Rs. 30,420/- representing the amount of interest received and the profit on sale of assets respectively. This resulted in excess claim of deductions under Section 80 HH and 80 I of the Act. Before the Assessing Officer the assessee took the stand that it had paid Rs. 3,42,69,412/- as interest which is more than the amount received under the head of 'interest' and so if these two amounts are consolidated and there would be a debit balance of Rs. 3,20,38,330/-. The Assessing Officer rejected the stand of the assessee with regard to claim of deductions under Section 80HH and 80I of the Act. Sri Shambhu Chopra submits that C.I.T.(A) committed illegality to direct the Assessing Officer to consider the amount of Rs. 22,31,082/- representing the interest income for allowing deduction under Section 80HH and 80I to the appellant. He submits that ITAT also committed an error in law to dismiss the departmental appeal. He further submits that the interest received from customers on outstanding balance of sale amount is not an income from industrial undertaking of the assessee company and as such it is not allowable as deduction under Section 80HH and 80I of the Act. Sri Chopra relied on the following judgmetns : (i)CIT v. Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd., 2008 302 ITR 53). (ii) CIT v. Vishakha Industries Ltd., 2001 251 ITR 471 (iii) CIT v. K.T. Kunjumon, 2001 251 ITR 479 (iv) CIT v. Alpine Solvex Ltd., 2005 276 ITR 92) (v) CIT v. Govinda Choudhury & Sons, 1993 203 ITR 881 (vi) CIT v. Paras Oil Extraction Ltd., 1998 230 ITR 266) (vii) Totgar s Co-operative Sale Society Ltd., 2010 322 ITR 283);