ORDER
These two appeals, one filed by the assessee and the other filed by the revenue arising from the order of Commissioner (Appeals) in Appeal No. 112 of 
2005-06, dated 29-12-2005 were heard together and are being disposed of throug h this common order for the sake of convenience.
2. In its appeal, the assessee has taken the following effective grounds :
“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the ground of the appellant that the notice under section 143(2) was not served upon the company within the time permitted by the statute and therefore the order of the learned assessing officer under section 143(3) of the Act was illegal arid void ab initio.
2.(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 92,52,253 on fixed assets written off by the appellant company during the year.
(ii) Without prejudice to the aforesaid, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has grossly erred in estimating the disallowance of depreciation @ 10 per cent on the fixed assets written off and thereby confirming the disallowance of Rs. 92,52,253.
(iii) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law in summarily disregarding the various legal pronouncements in favour of the appellant company, while confirming the addition of Rs. 92,52,253.
3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in failing to adjudicate on the grounds relating to the levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234D of the Act.”
The revenue has taken following grounds in its appeal :
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in allowing the exemption/deduction under section 10A of Income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that as per provisions of paras 2.2 and 2.5 of modification, any software production unit has to be physically located within software technology park in order to be considered as STP unit.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law in restricting the disallowance of depreciation on fixed assets to 10 per cent as made against @ 20 per cent.
3. First we shall deal with ground No. 2 of both the instant appeals together as these relate to the issue of claim of depreciation on fixed assets which have been written off by the assessee company during the year.
4. In brief the facts are that the assessee submitted before the assessing officer that the fixed assets worth Rs. 9,25,22,535 could not be located on physical verification, therefore, the assessee decided to write off the fixed assets of the said value. However, the assessing officer was of the opinion that since the fixed assets were not found on physical verification, the assessee could not be allowed to get the benefit of depreciation on the fixed assets and thus made an estimated disallowance of these fixed assets @ 20 per cent and added to the total income of the assessee resulting in an addition of Rs. 1,85,04,507.
5. Aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal and contended before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the depreciation was allowable to the assessee when the assets were not located and were written off in the year. In support thereof, the assessee placed reliance on following three case laws :
(i) South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (2003) 260 ITR 1 (Nag-Trib)(AT);
(ii) CIT v. G.N. Agrawal (Indl) (1996) 217 ITR 250 (Bom); and
(iii) Packwell Printers v. Asstt. CIT (1997) 59 ITD 340 (Jab-Trib).
6. The Commissioner (Appeals) disagreeing with the submissions of the assessee upheld the order of assessing officer but restricted the disallowance to 10 per cent in place of 20 per cent made by the assessing officer while making following observations :
“The case of the assessee, however, is different from those mentioned in the above-mentioned judgment. This is not the case where assets were destroyed, discarded or sold as scrap. In all such circumstances, the essential element embedded, is the existence of the asset. Some of the assets may not be actively used during the relevant period. However, such assets are available to the concern for use. Here in this case by the own admission of the assessee the assets have vanished from the scene of action. This may tantamount to being removed from the active scene of utility. The asset is not available for use at all. The assessing officer therefore has rightly held that depreciation on such assets cannot be given to the assessee as they are not in existence at all in the block of assets.”
7. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties, perused the record and carefully gone through the orders of tax authorities below as well as the case laws cited by the parties. On going through the orders of tax authorities below, we find that in the instant case, out of the fixed assets worth Rs. 9,25,22,535, the assessing officer estimated the disallowance of depreciation @ 20 per cent as the assets were not located on physical verification and the same were written off by the assessee to the extent of the value of said assets. It means that in the instant case on the principle followed the assessing officer should have disallowed the entire amount of depreciation claimed by the assessee, whereas on the contrary the assessing officer estimated the disallowance @ 20 per cent. Similarly, on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) also restricted the disallowance to the extent of 10 per cent against 20 per cent made by the assessing officer. In doing this, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that as the assets in the instant case were not destroyed/discarded or sold as scrap and as admitted by the assessee, the assets vanished from the scene of action which would tantamount to being removed from the scene of activity for utility these were not available for use the Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, restricted the disallowance as these were not in existence in the block of assets. It means that the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted that the depreciation has been allowed to the assessee on the block of assets and as some of the assets have vanished from the block they were not available for use to the assessee in the year under consideration and for this reason the depreciation on the assets was not available to the assessee.
8. Now the simple question required to be decided is whether in such circumstances, i.e., if some part of the assets from the block of the assets could not be located by the assessee on physical verification or vanished from the block of assets and the assessee has written off the value of such assets then whether the assessee is still entitled to claim depreciation on the entire block of the assets as claimed in the part or the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation only on that part of the block of assets which remained after reducing those assets which vanished and are not available to the assessee for use in the year under consideration.
9. A similar issue on almost similar facts came up for consideration in following cases:
(i) South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Jt CIT (supra) wherein the Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on entire block even if one single asset out of the entire block is discarded or not put to use by the assessee for business consideration while observing as under :
“We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that the PSL equipment was purchased and put to use by the assessee during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1990-91 and depreciation on the same as claimed by the assessee was also allowed by the assessing officer for the assessment years 1990-91 to 1992-93. Although the assessee did not claim any depreciation on the said equipment for the assessment year 1993-94 under a mistaken belief that no depreciation can be claimed thereon because of non-use of the same for the use for the purpose of business, it claimed the depreciation for the assessment year 1994-95 during the assessment proceedings before the assessing officer by filing a revised schedule of depreciation. The basis of this claim made by the assessee company was that as per the new scheme of block of assets introduced with effect from 1-4-1988, once the asset is merged into the block of asset, it loses its identity and the question of actual use of a particular asset in the later years is not relevant for allowing depreciation in respect of the same. The revenue’s stand in this regard is that as per the meaning of ‘WDV given in section 43(6)(c) with reference to the block of asset and in view of r. 5(1) of the IT Rules, 1962, the identity of a particular asset has not been done away with and for the purpose of depreciation allowance, the use of such asset during the relevant previous year has to be established. It is, therefore, pertinent to refer to the provisions of section 43(6)(c) as well as rule 5(1) which are reproduced below :
“43(6) ‘Written down value’ means—
(a)……….
(b)……….
(c) in the case of any block of assets,—
(i) in respect of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on the 1-4-1988, the aggregate of the WDVs of all the assets falling within that block of assets at the beginning of the previous year and adjusted,—
(a) by the increase by the actual cost of any asset falling within that block, acquired during the previous year; and
(b) by the reduction of the moneys payable in respect of any asset falling within that block, which is sold or discarded or demolished or destroyed during that previous year together with the amount of the scrap value, if any, so, however, that the amount of such reduction does not exceed the WDV as so increased;
(ii) in respect of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on or after the 1-4-1989, the WDV of that block of assets in the immediately preceding previous year as reduced by the depreciation actually allowed in respect of that block of assets in relation to the said preceding previous year and as further adjusted by the increase or the reduction referred to in item (i).
Rule 5(1) : Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), the allowance under clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 32 in respect of depreciation of any block of assets shall be calculated at the percentages specified in the second column of the Table in Appendix I to these rules on the WDV of such block of assets as are used for the purposes of the business or profession of the assessee at any time during the previous year.”
From the perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is evident that a reference has been made particularly to the block of assets as such and there is nothing in the said provisions to interpret that the use of individual asset is a requirement of law for claiming the depreciation. As a matter of fact, the new scheme of block of assets has been introduced in the statute from 1-4-1988, to simplify the position regarding depreciation allowance and in the case of Nathani Steels Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (1996) 56 TTJ (Bom-Trib) 240, the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal has summarised the effects of the said new scheme after reviewing the relevant amendments brought out in the Act as under :
“The effect of all these amendments is that in the case of a running concern, which has expanded or installed new plant and machinery, there is no need of separate computation of depreciation allowance as also separate computation in case of sale or demolition of such assets. The individual working of the machinery also is not necessitated as the new asset falling within the block gets added to the WDV. The effect of all these is that under the new system, even when all the assets of the block are sold, if the block has a positive balance (the moneys payable being less than the WDV), depreciation continues to be allowable even if the asset is no more in existence. Similarly, if only some assets forming part of a block are sold and if the sale proceeds of these assets wipe out the entire value of the block, no depreciation would be available even though some assets of the block continue to be used for business purpose. Therefore, the new scheme as introduced does not require use of individual assets for the grant of depreciation.
The legislature also has fully taken into account the possibility of some assets enjoying depreciation without really being put into use. In such a case, when such asset is sold, then the moneys payable in respect of the assets sold exceeding the actual cost would be taxable as short-term gains and not as long-term gains as under the old law. Therefore, there is no likelihood of the assessee using the new scheme as means to avoidance of tax. The new scheme is self-contained and there can be no loss to the revenue in the ultimate analysis.’
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal also had an occasion to consider this change of system for the purpose of allowing depreciation and after critically examining the relevant amendments made in the Act in the light of the purpose and intention of making such amendment as clarified in the CBDT Circular No. 469, dated 23-9-1986, the Tribunal observed that the legislature has prescribed mode of allowing depreciation in respect of block asset and henceforth a calculation of depreciation will be in a lump sum for the entire block of depreciable assets. The Tribunal also observed that the theory of new asset which prevailed before 1-4-1988, cannot be considered after the new provisions of block assets came into force and if a particular machinery forming part of block of assets is not used during the year, still depreciation is to be allowed on the same for the relevant year. The Tribunal further proceeded to hold that if one single asset out of the entire block has been discarded or not put to use by the assessee for business consideration, on that ground alone partial depreciation cannot be disallowed.
In the present case, the PSL equipment was purchased and put to use by the assessee in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1990-91 and the same had entered the block assets in that year itself. This being the position, the same had lost its individual identity and for the purpose of allowing depreciation on the same, the requirement of law was to establish the use of the concerned block of asset as such and not the use of the said equipment individually. As such, considering all the facts of the case and keeping in view the scheme of block of assets effective from 1-4-1988, as elaborately explained in the aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the assessee-company was entitled to claim the depreciation allowance on PSL equipment for the year under consideration. In that view of the matter, we find no justification in the impugned orders of the learned CIT(A) upholding the action of the assessing officer in not allowing the assessee’s claim for depreciation on the said equipment. We, therefore, reverse the same on this issue and direct the assessing officer to allow the claim of the assessee on this count.”
(ii) In the case of Yamaha Motor India (P) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (2008) 24 (II) ITCL 184 (Del-Trib) : (2008) 118 TTJ (Del) 395, Tribunal Delhi Bench held as under:
“Held.—The scheme of depreciation effective from 1-4-1988 has done away with asset-wise depreciation by substituting the same by the scheme of block depreciation by pooling all the assets entitled to same rate of depreciation in one block of assets. The WDV in respect of any block of assets can now be adjusted only in the manner as provided in sub-section (6) of section 43. The assessment year involved is assessment year 2000-01. Therefore, the WDV for this assessment year would be the WDV of the block of assets as at the beginning of the current assessment year under consideration which is to be increased by the actual cost of any asset falling within that block which is acquired by the assessee during the previous year and shall be reduced by the moneys payable in respect of any asset falling within that block, which is sold or discarded or damaged or destroyed during the relevant year under consideration, together with the amount of scrap value, if any, so, however, that amount of such deduction does not exceed the WDV of the block of assets as so increased. It is an admitted position that no money was payable in respect of the assets written off during the year. However, the amount of scrap value of the assets which has been discarded and written off in the year under consideration, is invariably to be reduced from the WDV as provided in section 43(6). The assessing officer has reduced the WDV of a block of assets by WDV of individual assets, by working out the same an the basis of asset-wise depreciation which is not in accord with the manner provided in section 43(6)(c). What can be reduced from WDV of a block of assets in the present case is only the scrap value of the assets, which have been discarded during the year under consideration. Therefore, having regard to the scheme of block allowing depreciation in respect of the block of assets on the WDV thereof, the reduction of the value of any assets which have either been discarded or destroyed or sold can only be made in the manner provided in section 43(6) and not with reference to the individual WDV of each asset that has been sold or discarded or damaged. Therefore, the scrap value of the assets, which have been written off and discarded during the year, is to be reduced from the WDV for the purpose of granting depreciation. The assessing officer shall recompute the depreciation only after ascertaining the scrap value of the assets, which have been discarded and written off in the books in the year under consideration. Asstt. CIT v. SRF Ltd. (2008) 21 SOT 122 (Del-Trib) relied on.
(iii) In Inductotherm (India) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2000) 73 ITD 329 (Ahd-Trib), the Tribunal held as under :
“The legislature has prescribed a different mode for allowing depreciation in respect of block of assets and henceforth a calculation of deprecation will be in a lump sum for the entire block of depreciable assets. The theory of individual asset which prevailed before 1st April, 1988 cannot be considered after the new provision of block of assets came into force. If a particular machinery were owned, forming part of block asset, is not used during the year, still depreciation is to be allowed even if assets are not used during the present year.
One single asset out-of the entire block has been discarded or not put to use by the assessee for its business consideration, for that ground alone partial depreciation cannot be disallowed.
The instant case was not a case where the assessee had sold the particular asset at a consideration which could be reduced for the purpose of computing WDV of block of assets as provided in section 43(6)(c). The assessee had discarded a particular asset during year in question, meaning thereby that particular asset was not put to use during the year.
It is true that under section 43(6)(c), it has been provided to reduce the amount of depreciation by reduction of the moneys payable in respect of any asset falling within that block, which is sold or discarded or demolished or destroyed during that previous year together with the amount of the scrap value, if any. Unless and until scrap value of the machinery which has been discarded, demolished or destroyed during the previous year is ascertained the same cannot be reduced for the purpose of computing depreciation. In the instant case, the machinery in question was only scrapped during the year, that meant it had not been used during the previous year. The scrap value of the same had not been ascertained as yet which would be possible only after selling the same. Therefore, nothing could be reduced at present from the WDV of the block of assets.”
10. Now reverting to the facts of the instant case of the assessee, we find that the assessee has furnished the details of the fixed assets as well as the value of the fixed assets written off but has not given the scrap value of the written off assets nor has informed whether these have been sold, then sale value and in case not sold then their scrap value estimated by it. In these circumstances, applying the ratio of the decisions (supra) of Tribunal, it is clear that the tax authorities below were not justified in working out the depreciation on a block of assets by reducing the value of any asset/assets which have either been discarded or destroyed or sold or written off. It means that in case, some assets, which formed part of the block of assets, are discarded or destroyed or sold or written off their WDV is to be reduced from the WDV of the block of assets for the purposes of computing depreciation and not the WDV of individual assets by working out the same item-wise. Therefore, the scrap value of the assets, which have been written off, discarded during the year, is to be reduced from WDV for the purpose of granting depreciation. In this view, we direct that in the light of the decision (supra), the assessing officer should recompute the depreciation only after ascertaining the scrap value of the assets, which have been discarded or written off in the books during the year under consideration. Accordingly, the orders of tax authorities below in this regard are set aside and the assessing officer is directed to recompute the depreciation of the entire block of assets, as directed hereinabove, as well as, as per observations of the Tribunal in the decisions (supra). The ground No. 2 of appeal taken by the revenue is rejected and ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the manner mentioned hereinabove in this order.
11. Now we shall deal with ground No. 1 of the appeal of the revenue relating to the issue of exemption/deduction claimed by the assessee under section 10A of Income Tax Act.
12. Briefly stated, the facts relating to this ground of appeal are that on perusal of the details filed by the assessee along with return of income, the assessing officer noticed that profit of Rs. 5,52,66,870 has been claimed exempt under section 10A of Income Tax Act. Thereafter the assessing officer observed that there is no material on record which may suggest that the company fulfils the condition as enumerated in sections 10A(2) and 10A(3) of Income Tax Act. He further observed that report in the prescribed proforma by the accountant certifying that the exemption is correctly claimed as envisaged in section 10A(5) has not been furnished along with the return of income allowed under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. Thereafter, the assessing officer, on considering the submissions of the assessee as well as the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 10A introduced from 1-4-1981, disallowed the exemption claimed by the assessee under section 10A of Income Tax Act on the reasoning that it is evident that industrial undertaking has (sic-not) begun production in any electronic hardware technology or software technology park. The word “in” itself indicates that the undertaking should be located in software technology park. The assessee has started availing exemption from assessment year 1995-96 and this is 8th year of claim of exemption. This also signifies that the assessee is availing exemption by virtue of provision introduced and applicable from financial year 1994-95 relevant to assessment year 1995-96. Therefore, the assessee does not fulfill the condition in regard to income derived from software technology park because the undertaking is not located in software technology park, Noida (UP) but is located at Gurgaon, Haryana. Therefore, according to assessing officer, the assessee company is not entitled for deduction under section 10A amounting to Rs. 5,52,66,870.
13. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the assessing officer was fully aware of the notification issued by the Ministry of Commerce vide No. 33/(RE)/9297, dated 22-3-1994. The content of the notification was also discussed in the assessment order.
14. In order to examine the correctness of the claim made by the assessee regarding exemptions of profit available under section 10A of the Income Tax Act, it is important to analyse the content given in section 10A as well as in the above-referred notification.
15. Section 10A(1) covers such profits and gains as are derived by an undertaking from the export of computer software for a period of ten consecutive assessment years.
16. Section 10A(2)(b) says ; This section applies to any undertaking which fulfills all the following conditions, viz., (i) It has begun or begins to manufacture or produce articles or things or computer software during the previous year relevant to the assessment year—
(a)..not disputed by the assessing officer
(b) commencing on or after the 1-4-1994 in any electronic hardware technology park, or, as the case may be, software technology park;
The Income Tax Act further clarifies the definition of “software technology park” under Expln. 2(vii) of this section. This says ‘”software technology park’ means any park set up in accordance with the software technology park scheme notified by the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry.”
17. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that assessing officer has, as quoted in the last para of the assessment order, well understood and interpreted correctly the relevant section of the Income Tax Act upto section 10A(2)(i)(b) only but did not, for reasons not known, see the definition of software technology park as given in Explanation 2(vii) of the same section of the Act. While interpreting the location of software technology park, the income tax department has to merely follow the notifications and the modifications to the notifications if any issued by the Ministry of Commerce from time to time. It is not open to the assessing officer to ignore the content of notification or selectively interpret it.
18. Commissioner (Appeals) further observed that the assessing officer had in his possession the full copy of Notification No. 30/(RE)/1992-97, dated 22-3-1994. Para 2.2 of this notification defines the software technology park. The full text of this para reads as under :
“Para 2.2 : A software technology park (STP) may be set up by the Central Government, State Governments, public or private sector Undertakings or any combination thereof. A STP may be an individual unit by itself or it may be one of such units located in an area designated as STP Complex by the department of Electronics.”
19. A STP, therefore, may be an individual unit by itself located in any area provided the Ministry of Commerce notifies the particular unit in a particular location as STP. It is, therefore, pertinent to examine whether the particular unit of the assessee is covered under the specific notification of the Government of India or not.
20. The Commissioner (Appeals) also noted in hfs order that the assessee produced before the Commissioner (Appeals) copies of all the approvals granted by the competent authority for declaring the assessee’s premises as STP. Such copies were also given to the assessing officer. Thereafter, the Commissioner (Appeals) was of the opinion that the interpretation of the assessing officer that the assessee was not entitled to exemption under section 10A due to the fact that the undertaking is not located in Software Technology Park, Noida (STP Noida) but is located at Gurgaon, Haryana is not in accordance with para 2.2 of the notification.
21. Further, according to Commissioner (Appeals), the assessing officer did not analyse the content given in para 2.2 and subsequent approvals given to the assessee’s unit as an individual unit based on para 2.2 of the notification. There is no requirement of notification under para 2.2 of a particular unit to be located inside a park. It is enough if the individual unit at a particular location is notified as STP. In the case of the assessee the approval of the Government of India is available for a particular location in Gurgaon.
22. Hence, according to the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee therefore fulfills all the requirements of section 10A and is covered within the definitions given in Explanation. 2(vii) to this section and, therefore, he restored the exemption denied by the assessing officer and allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the impugned addition made by the assessing officer.
23. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties, perused the record and carefully gone through the orders of tax authorities below.
24. In this case, we find that findings of facts recorded in the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) have not been controverted by the learned departmental Representative for the revenue. We further find that in this case, in the relevant assessment year, the notification issued by Government of India dated 22nd March, 1994 was relevant where in para 2.2 the software technology park as used in section 10A has been defined. We are of the opinion that the assessing officer has not properly analyzed the contents of para 2.2 of this notification as well as subsequent approvals given to assessee’s unit by the Government on the basis of para 2.2 of the notification. While properly analyzing para 2.2 of the notification, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly observed that there is no requirement of the notification that a particular unit is to be located inside a park but it is enough if the unit at a particular location is notified as STP. In the present case of the assessee, there is the approval of Government of India which indicates that the assessee’s unit would be located in Gurgaon. Hence, we are of the opinion that the Commissioner (Appeals) in his well reasoned and well discussed order after analyzing the provisions of section 10A as well as the notification and subsequent approvals of the Government of India in the case of assessee has rightly concluded that the assessee fulfils all the requirements of section 10A and is covered within the definition given in Explanation 2(vii) to this section and so the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly held that the assessee is entitled to exemption claimed under section 10A of Income Tax Act and has further rightly deleted the impugned addition. Accordingly, the order of Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard is upheld. Ground No. 1 of the appeal of the revenue is rejected.
25. Now we shall deal with ground No. 3 of the appeal of the assessee relating to the issue of levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234D of the Income Tax Act.
26. Learned Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B is consequential in nature. Accordingly, we direct the assessing officer that while giving appeal effect to the order of the Tribunal, he should recompute the levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B.
27. As far as levy of interest under section 234D is concerned, learned Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that in the instant case, the assessment pertains to assessment year 2002-03. Henjce no interest could be charged against the assessee under section 234D in view of the decision of Special Bench of Tribunal (Delhi) in the case of ITO v. Ekta Promoters (P) Ltd. (2008) 117 TTJ (Del-Trib)(SB) 289.
27.1 In this case, before the Tribunal, the question involved was regarding the chargeability of interest under section 234D in respect of asst. yrs. 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01.
27.2 The Tribunal observed that section 234D inserted by Finance Act, 2003 with effect from 1-6-2003, being substantive in nature has no retrospective effect, hence applicable from assessment year 2004-05 and interest under section 234D could not be charged for earlier assessment years even though regular assessments for such earlier years are framed after 1-6-2003 or refund is granted for those years after the said date.
27.3 Thereafter the Tribunal held that section 234D which was brought on statute with effect from 1-6-2003 cannot be applied to the assessment years 2003-04 or earlier years, but it will have application only with effect from assessment year 2004-05.
27.4 Thereafter the Tribunal concluded that in the instant case the interest under section 234D was rightly deleted by the Commissioner (Appeals) which was levied on the assessee under section 234D in respect of assessment years 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01.
28. Thus the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that since in the instant case of the assessee the assessment year involved is 2002-03 under consideration before the Tribunal, tax authorities below were not justified in charging interest under section 234D from the assessee and the same is liable to be deleted in view of the decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ekta Promoters (P) Ltd. (supra).
29. The learned Departmental Representative was fair enough to concede to the above submissions of learned Authorised Representative for the assessee.
30. In this view of the matter and respectfully following the decision (supra) of the Tribunal, Special Bench this issue is decided in favour of assessee and against the revenue and consequent upon the same the order of Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard is set aside and this part of ground No. 3 of the appeal of assessee stands allowed.
31. During appellate proceedings, learned Authorised Representative for the assessee has not advanced any arguments on the legal issue involved in ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee and so it is presumed that the assessee in fact has not pressed this ground before us. Otherwise also, we have decided the appeal of the assessee on merits and so decision on this legal issue is merely academic one. In the circumstances stated above, ground No. 1 of the assessee stands rejected.
32. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.
Excellent,
Can I know if there were any more similar cases and the name of the company involved here.