This is appeal by assessee which is directed against order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 31-1-1981 for assessment year 1976-77. 2. first ground of appeal is of general nature which requires no decision. 3. next point of appeal is that Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 7,91,079 claimed by assessee as deduction on account of export duty refundable as per conditions of sale to foreign buyer and that Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate terms n d conditions of contract for sale which should have been considered for ascertaining liability of assessee to refund amount during accounting year, as ascertaining liability. 4. ITO noted in assessment order that accounting period of assessee relevant to year under consideration ended on 30-9-1975. assessment was done under section 143(3)/ 144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 (' Act '). method of accounting was noted to be mercantile. He pointed out that on 30-9-1975 assessee debited, gunny export sale account with Rs. 7,91,079.60 with corresponding credit to account styled amount refundable to parties on account of customs duty reduction'. He noted that for payment of customs duty and cess expenses, assessee debited its trading account with Rs. 38,86,757, which represented actual payment of customs duty and cess to Government on export sales during year. He pointed out also that during year assessee received four orders for sale of jute goods to General Organisation for supply of goods, Cairo (Egypt) and orders were received through State Trading Corporation of India (STC), which in turn negotiated such orders through Trade Centre of Arab Republic of Egypt, Calcutta Centre. details of those four orders were narrated by ITO in assessment order. 5. goods to be supplied to foreign buyer consisted of hessian cloth, hessian bags, etc., of different sizes. During year customs duty on such hessian goods was at Rs. 600 per metric ton and that customs duty was abolished from June 1975. ITO noticed that against above orders received from Egyptian parties certain goods were exported after abolition of export duty in June 1975, thereby assessee was not required to pay any customs duty on those shipments, i.e., at rate of Rs. 600 per metric ton which works out to Rs. 7,91,079. He pointed out that total value of goods covered by these subsequent shipments as per bills concerned came to Rs. 65,35,143 and on basis of letter of credit issued by Egyptian importer, assessee got payment against bills, from Bank of Baroda, Calcutta Branch on basis of sight drafts issued. ITO examined bills and sight draft and noticed that bills were encashed at prevailing exchange rate and sale proceeds were fully credited in accounts. ITO, therefore, found that sale proceeds at contracted rate were realised by assessee during year under account. 6. It was contended by assessee that contracts for sales included t h e customs duty enforced at relevant point and as there was abolition of customs duty with effect from 1-6-1975, Egyptian party had case for claiming refund for customs duty accounting to Rs. 7,91,079. In order to provide for such anticipated claims, assessee debited sales account accordingly and in that process claimed above amount to be deducted from sales. ITO asked assessee whether any such claim was made by Egyptian party and it was clarified that there was no such claim. ITO further found that on 30-9-1976 (relevant to assessment year 1977-78) assessee credited account with above sum and showed amount under miscellaneous income for that assessment year. Thus, ITO inferred that assessee was not required to pay any amount to Egyptian party as there was no claim as such. ITO also perused letter dated 10-3-1976 given by Trade Centres of Arab Republic of Egypt to effect that it was confirmed that Egyptian party had no claim pending with assessee in respect of contracts for jute goods shipped during year 1975. According to ITO, on basis of terms of contracts, Egyptian party cannot have any legal claim against assessee because of abolition of customs duty as mentioned above. 7. assessee submitted in his letter dated 7-11-1978 on that basis of 7. assessee submitted in his letter dated 7-11-1978 on that basis of terms of sale, customs duty recovered from buyer was liability on date of closing of relevant year and hence it was shown as such in accounts and that, however, consequent to negotiation assessee was not required to refund and amount was accordingly credited to profits and loss account for assessment year 1975-76. ITO could not appreciate such contention of assesses so as to justify claim made for year under consideration. He was of view that as exporter assessee was responsible for payment of customs duty and question of recovery from buyer did not arise at all. He pointed out that contracts for sale were entered into at stipulated FOB, Calcutta and importer had no concern with payment of customs duty by exporter to Government. He inferred that claim of assessee was without any basis and that there was no liability ascertained during year as there was no claim made by Egyptian party, nor there was any enforceable legal liability accrued to assessee during year. ITO observed that it was settled that sales tax or other duty, i.e., excise or export duty, was part of dealer's trade or business receipt, even if tax or duty was charged separately or credited to separate account in accounts, while liability to pay tax or duty would be deductible as business expenditure in year when such payment was made or discharged. According to ITO, amount of customs duty realised by assessee on sales was trading receipt of assesses. In circumstances of case, particularly when there was no separate realisation of customs duty, there was no question of charging duty separately from customer as sale was effected at stipulated rate on basis of term of contract. 8. He also pointed out that assesses credited trading account with gross sales proceeds and customs duty paid on export was separately debited in account. He observed that there was no question of payment of any further duty on aforesaid sales and even it was not case of any contingent liability when Egyptian party was bound by rate specified in sales order. ITO considered that deduction cannot be allowed as provision for imaginary claim. assessee drew attention of ITO to provision of section 64A of Sale of Goods Act, 1930 to support claim for deduction. ITO found that that section had no application on terms of contract entered into by assessee and Egyptian party. 9. On point of date of accrual of business profits, ITO referred to Commentary of Kanga and Palkhivala in Law and Practice of Income-tax, Vol. I, p. 171. ITO in circumstances concluded that there was absolutely no case to support claim for reduction of Rs. 7,91,079 from sales account of assessee. 10. assessee took up matter before Commissioner (Appeals) r i s i n g similar contention. Commissioner (Appeals) considered provisions of clause 8 of standard FOB contract form of Calcutta Jute Fabrics Shippers Association (CJFSA) in which it was noted that export duty and Port Commissioner's charges based on rates in effect as bad debt of sales as defined therein and in alteration therein in effect had shipment time or at time of shipment when shipment was delayed for reasons beyond seller's control, to be on buyer's account. 11. Commissioner (Appeals) also took note of clause 17 in which it was stipulated that any claim has to be made within 115 days from landing goods at destination. It was noted that as goods were shipped after 1-6- 1975, limitation period of 115 days ended after 30-9-1975. assessee made such provision for legal liability to export duty refundable as on 30-9- 1975. assessee relied on decisions as in Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC) and Shrikant Textiles v. CIT [1971] 81 ITR 222 (Bom.). 12. Commissioner (Appeals) considered different submissions made before him with which he disagreed. He pointed out that in case of assessee, STC was exporter of Jute goods of Egyptian party and STC purchased goods from assessee as per STC's certificate dated 5- 12-1978. He also mentioned that as per STC's certificate dated 3-3-1980, assessee exported above goods to foreign buyer of STC on behalf of STC and on STC's instruction. 13. Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, did not accept that Egyptian party could raise any claim against assessee as assessee had nothing to do with foreign customers except that assessee shipped goods to that foreigner at direction of STC and as agent of STC. He, therefore, observed that if there was any claim due, foreign party could make such claim from STC alone which was real and legal exporter of jute goods. He referred also to provisions of section 64A, which fixes liability o n seller in respect of any decrees or remission of customs duty which takes effect after making of contract of sale without stipulation as to payment of such customs duty, i.e., buyer may deduct so much of any contract price as will be equivalent to decrees of customs duty or remitted customs duty. He, accordingly wanted to see sale contract between STC and Egyptian party to ascertain stipulation, if any. But such contracts could not be made available to him, nor before ITO. He, therefore, inferred that there was no direct contracts or agreement between assessee and Egyptian party. In circumstances, he held that section 64A cannot affect assessee and no such liability could arise during year to Egyptian party. action of ITO was sustained. Hence, this appeal by assessee. 14. As indicated earlier, appeal by assessee is that Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining disallowance. It is urged by assessee's learned counsel that Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate facts in their proper perspective and he has decided without appreciating terms and conditions of contract under which sale was effected to Egyptian party. At time of hearing, assessee's learned counsel refers to various papers placed in paper book in order to strengthen claim of assessee. various submissions made before authorities below are reiterated before us also. In particular, our attention is drawn to form of contract and intimation of supplies effected by assessee which are at pages 5,6, etc., of paper books. It is submitted that all exports order were governed by CJFSA contract terms and conditions, as confirmed by STC in its certificate dated 5-12-1978 which is page 9. Item 8 of Calcutta Jute Goods Standard FOB contract form as considered by Commissioner (Appeals), is also brought to our notice in order to emphasise that export duty charges, etc., in force on relevant date would be as per conditions defined in that contract and any alteration therein would be on buyer's account. assessee's learned counsel draws our attention also to clause 17 of above terms and conditions in which it has been specified that any claim must be made within 150 days from landing of goods at destination. It is also emphasised by assessee's learned counsel that transaction in question was back to back contracts through STC. It is submitted that Commissioner (Appeals) erred in stating that it was STC which exported goods to foreign buyers and not by assessee. It is also submitted that Commissioner (Appeals) erred in stating that assessee failed to produce contract agreement for examination by Commissioner (Appeals). As such, contract, etc., were not available with assessee and STC authorities declined to part with original contract which they would make available for examination by Commissioner (Appeals) if properly requisitioned. It is, therefore, submitted that Commissioner (Appeals) erred completely in ignoring basic facts of case particularly when liability to foreign buyer in respect of customs duty which was found refundable as result of abolition of customs duty with effect from 1-6-1976. 15. In this connection it is also submitted that for next assessment year, i.e., 1977-78 ITO in assessment order had added same amount as income of assessee on ground that assessee has written back same to profit and loss account for that year. It is also clarified that there was double addition for same amount in two years and that assessee came up before Tribunal being IT Appeal No. 901 (Cal.) of 1983 which was disposed of by Tribunal by its order dated 8-8-1984, by which addition of Rs. 7,91,080 added for assessment year 1977-78 was deleted. It is pointed out by assessee's learned counsel that Tribunal deleted above amount for assessment year 1977-78 as protective measure, as would be apparent also from draft statement of case in Reference Appeal No. 704 (Cal.) of 1984 dated 28-8-1985 (para 4, last line). According to assessee's learned counsel, since liability was ascertained during year under consideration, liability should be allowed as deduction during this year, i.e., 1976-77 and if this contention is accepted for assessment year 1976-77, assessee would undertake that it shall not agitate for deduction for same amount for same assessment year 1977-78 and in such event, Tribunal m y give suitable direction in IT Appeal No. 901 (Cal.) of 1983 for assessment year 1977-78 that amount in question allowed in appeal on protective measure may be withdrawn and addition as made by ITO may be restored for assessment year 1977-78. In fact, assessee has filed this undertaking dated 16-10-1985 which is placed on record. 16. In circumstances, assessee's learned counsel, therefore, contends that appeal by assessee for assessment year 1976-77 may be allowed on facts. 17. learned departmental representative supports order of Commissioner (Appeals), stating that for assessment year under consideration, there was no liability which can be enforced by parties concerned and that in fact, Egyptian party has subsequently confirmed point that they had no claim against assessee relating to export in question. It is emphasised before us that export was done by STC and not by assessee, as mentioned in certificate dated 3-3-1980 issued by STC. It is submitted that these facts established that assessee shipped goods to Egyptian buyer on behalf of STC and, therefore, if there was any liability to refund any amount to foreign buyer, it would liability of STC and not of assessee. It is also submitted that section 69A would have no application to case of assesses. 18. We have heard both sides and have perused orders of authorities below for our consideration. We have also gone through order of Tribunal for subsequent year which has been placed by assessee's learned counsel before us, for our consideration. At outset we have to mention that ITO declined to allow deductions of above amount from total sales account as in his view, amount represented customs duty collected by assessee from buyer as per terms of contract and in meanwhile customs duty on such goods was abolished with effect from 1-6-1975. ITO was of view that like sales tax customs duty was part of dealer's trade or business receipts, even duty was charged separately or credited to separate account in accounts and that liability to pay duty would be deductible as business expenditure in year in which it arises or is discharged depending on dealer's method of accounting. ITO treated customs duty collected by assessee on sales as trading receipts. He noted that in instant case, there was no separate realisation of customs duty from Egyptian party and sale was made at rate stipulated in contract and there was no question of charging duty separately from customer. 19. It is not disputed that assesses collected amount of customs duty from Egyptian party as per terms of contract while supplying said four supply orders. Certain supplies were shipped after 1-6-1975, i.e., after abolition of customs duty on such goods. There is some justification in stand taken by revenue that sale was made by assessee at rates stipulated in contract and there was no question of charging duty separately from customer. customs duty is payable if such goods were to be exported. In case of assesses liability to pay customs duty was with order of assessee. There is similarity between liability of exporter on account of customs duty payable and liability to pay sales tax which is of dealer whether he realises such tax from customers or not. When dealer collects sales tax from his customers, such amount would constitute revenue receipt and as and when amount is paid to Government, dealer can claim such payment as deduction. This was view of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of CIT v. Bird & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1981] 128 ITR 600 in which ratio of decision in case of Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1973] 87 ITR 542 (SC) was followed. 20. There might be circumstances in which certain amounts may be due to t h e third parties, which were not claimed by third parties and if such unclaimed amounts were transferred to profit and loss account, then such amount may constitute income of assessee, as held by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Pioneer Consolidated Co. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 85 ITR 410. But in instant case before us and from materials available, we find that there was no amount due to third party, i.e., Egyptian importer as payable by assessee during year. In fact, period of 115 days was stated to have expired after close of accounting year relevant to assessment year 1976-77. Crediting amount to account ' amount assessment year 1976-77. Crediting amount to account ' amount refundable to parties on account of customs duty reduction ' was unilateral act on part of assessee as we find that there was no claim for refund of amount supposed to have been paid by Egyptian party on account of customs duty. Actually that fact was confirmed by Egyptian authority's letter dated 10-3-1976 which is at page 4 of paper book. 21. If there was any liability by assessee to refund any amount of customs duty to buyer, such liability would not come to end by unilateral act of debtor. There can be cessation of liability by bilateral acts by both creditor and debtor or by refusal of debtor to honour his liability. This is view of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of CIT v. Sugauli Sugar Works (P.) Ltd. [1983] 140 ITR 286. 22. But as indicated earlier, assessee claimed that liability to refund amount of customs duty to Egyptian buyer came to end by expiry of 115 days which fell within assessment year 1977-78 which issue has come up before Tribunal with which we are not concerned. 23. As indicated by us earlier, liability to customs duty is similar to liability to sales tax. contract sale price was stipulated in contract itself which was inclusive of customs duty payable on export of such goods, for which account letter of credit was issued by Egyptian importer in favour of assessee who has collected payments through Bank of Baroda, Calcutta Branch. In our opinion, amount of customs duty collected by assessee on facts of instant case constituted trading receipts of assessee. Deduction on account of such customs duty would be admissible deduction as and when such payment would be made to Government or refunded to customer concerned. But during year under consideration it is noticed that there was no payment of customs duty concerned as same was abolished on 1-6-1975 and there was no refund also of such amount on account of customs duty to foreign customer. It would not be important to refer to decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. v. Asstt. CST 1980 Tax LR 107. Of course, in that decided case issue was under M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. On facts of that decided case, it was held that by reason of provision of Cement Control Order which governed transaction of sale of cement entered into by assessee with purchasers, amount of freight formed part of sale price within meaning of first part of definition of term ' sale price '. From facts available in instant case before us it cannot be said that amount of customs duty payable on goods exported did not form part of sale price as per terms and conditions of supply by assessee to foreign buyer. 24. On facts available before us, there could only be one conclusion that customs duty collected by assessee as exporter formed part of trading or business receipts although assessee credited amount so received under head ' Amount refundable to parties on account of customs duty reduction ' which would make no material difference. nature of amount collected by assessee on account of customs duty in our opinion was trading or business receipt of assessee. As stated earlier, assessee would be entitled to deduction as and when such customs duty is paid to Government. For this proposition, we may refer to another decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P.) Ltd. 25. above amount of Rs. 7,91,080 had not been claimed by assessee as ascertained liability for payment of customs duty in view of that customs duty on that particular type of goods exported by assessee, was abolished with effect from 1-6-1975. 26. As mentioned earlier, assessee's learned counsel submits that Commissioner (Appeals) went wrong in stating that it was STC which exported goods and not assessee and as such liability to Egyptian party would lie with STC and not with assessee. contention of assessee is that it exported goods and as such liability was with assessee for refunding excise and customs duty collected from foreign buyers. It is, however, seen from letters dated 28-2-1975 and 14-3- 1975 appearing at pages 2, 5 and 8 of paper book addressed by assessee to STC that it was assessee who confirmed having sold to STC articles mentioned in those letters. In fact, STC also has given certificate copy of which is at page 9 of paper book that it certified that it placed purchase orders of goods mentioned therein on assessee for export purpose and that by certificate dated 3-3-1980, copy of which appearing at page 10, STC certified that assessee exported goods mentioned therein on behalf of STC against noted orders with foreign buyers in Cairo. Apparently because of this factual information, Commissioner (Appeals) formed opinion that it was STC and not assessee which exported goods to Egyptian buyer. 27. We have given our opinion in preceding paragraph of customs duty collected by assessee from buyers would constitute trading or business receipt during year concerned irrespective of fact whether such amount was credited or not in accounts. In our opinion, ITO was justified on facts of case in not deducting said amount from sale proceed account for year under consideration. In circumstances, as discussed, order of Commissioner (Appeals) sustaining order of assessment cannot be set aside although inclusion made is confirmed by us although on different grounds and reasoning. In this view of matter, we maintain addition. 28. Again as mentioned earlier, assessee claimed above amount as deduction on account of liability. We are of view, on reasons recorded earlier, that customs duty received by assessee in his character as exporter would constitute or form part of its trading or business receipt,. assessee of course could claim deduction of amount as and when same i s paid to Government or refunded to customers concerned. But these two contingencies did not take place during year under consideration. assessee did not pay amount to Government and neither refund to foreign importer. In fact, importer did not file any claim at all. As such unilateral act of assessee would not create liability as accounting system followed by assessee would not be conclusive or decisive keeping in view ratio of decision in case of Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P.) Ltd. 29. In slightly different situation in case of CIT v. Bijli Cotton Mills (P.) Ltd. [1970] 76 ITR 625, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court noted that assessee' collected excise duty in March 1948, which was not paid to Government. Part of excise duty was refunded to customers concerned in year 1950 and credited balance of account collected, to capital reserve account of assessee. It was held on facts of that case that there was force in contention of revenue that receipt in March 1948 was in nature of trading receipt but would not be taxable in year when assessee credited later on balances of unpaid amount to capital reserve account. In this decision Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has also noted provisions of section 64A relied on by assessee in present case before ITO. It was noted in that judgment that seller may add so much to contract price as will be equivalent to amount paid or payable in respect of excise duty on goods, under section 64A(a) of above Act. Thus, in our view on present facts of case, there was no liability of assessee which assessee would be entitled to claim for deduction when such liability was not in existence. On facts available, we noticed that assessee unilaterally made claim, but there was no corresponding claim for refund from foreign importer that amount relatable to customs duty embedded in sale price as per contract was refundable to it subsequent to abolition of export duty on items so exported by assessee. liability to pay customs duty was solely of exporter whether he realised such duty from customers or not, In our opinion, customs duty charged by exporter was in reality part of sales price, as indicated by ITO in assessment order on basis of contract agreement, and as such it would be trading receipt and not liability of year. 30. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected claim of assessee on reasons recorded by him in impugned order which was discussed by us in preceding paragraph. Commissioner (Appeals) apparently came to conclusion that liability to refund customs duty (which had been abolished) to foreign importer was that of STC in view of correspondence between assessee and STC copies of which are at page 5 onwards of paper book in which assessee in its letters to STC confirmed having sold those specific items to STC, of course subject to terms and conditions of CJFSA contracts. STC in its letter dated 5-12- 1978 and 3-3-1980 has confirmed to assessee exported goods to Egyptian importer on behalf of STC against undernoted orders of STC to foreign buyers in Cairo. But claim of assessee that these contracts were made subject to terms and conditions of CJFSA contracts and which were back to back contracts involving export of jute goods, it is urged on behalf of assessee that liability under terms and conditions of contracts, was that of assessee and not of STC as alleged by Commissioner (Appeals). There appears to be some force in this aspect of submissions made on behalf of assessee in view of last paragraph of certificate of STC dated 3-3-1980 copy of which is at page 10 of paper book in which it has been stated that that contracts and sales were governed by terms and conditions of standard contracts of CJFSA and entire claims against foreign party were on account of Duncan International Ltd., i.e., assessee. But as indicated earlier, we are of view that there was no such liability for assessee to meet during year under consideration which would entitle assessee to claim for deduction. 31. At time of hearing it is submitted by assessee's learned counsel that same issue has came up for succeeding assessment year in which Tribunal allowed claim of assessee in respect of deduction of same amount of Rs. 7,91,080 which was added in assessment by ITO. Copy of orders of Tribunal dated 8-8-1984 is placed in our file on facts of case, it is argued by assessee's learned counsel that Tribunal allowed claim of assessee though as matter of fact, it should not have been done as liability to refund amount of customs duty to foreign importer, ceased during subsequent year, i.e., assessment year 1977-78, whereas during year under consideration, i.e., 1976-77, liability on account of customs duty was very much there. It is urged, therefore, that if claim of assessee in respect of same amount is allowed during assessment year 1976-77, presently before us, then assessee would not agitate for deduction of same amount in assessment year 1977-78. To reinforce this submission assessee filed statement dated 16-10-1985 to that effect with request that in such event, suitable direction for assessment year 1977-78 should be given to ITO for restoration of amount of Rs. 7,91,080 deleted by Tribunal by its earlier order as stated above. 32. We have heard both sides and have considered different aspects of arguments keeping in view facts of case. In our opinion in matters of taxation, each year is independent and has to be treated separately. In fact, there is no waiver or estoppel or res judicata in respect of same, as was view of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Pioneer Spring & Steel Concern (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 135 ITR 522. As indicated earlier, Tribunal had disposed of appeal by assesses for assessment year 1977-78 earlier and claim of assessee was allowed. In our opinion, since order has been passed by Tribunal on 8-8-1984 and as order became final as contemplated under section 254(4) of Act, we have in fact become functus officio. In circumstances, we cannot even have power to review or modify any part of such order, this also was view of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Niranjan & Co. Ltd. v. ITAT [1980] 122 ITR 519. Tribunal can rectify any mistake, only when such mistake is apparent from record and that too if brought to notice either by assessee or by revenue only. 33. In view of that we have discussed and dealt with various contentions and submissions made before us on facts available, we are of opinion that stand taken by ITO was justified in not accepting claim for reduction. In such situation, order of Commissioner (Appeals) confirming such assessment order would be justified although Commissioner (Appeals) adopted different reasoning for rejecting claim of assessee. subject-matter before us is same. As such order of Commissioner (Appeals) impugned before us requires to be sustained. 34. As far as decision of Tribunal for assessment year 1977-78 is concerned, we are of view that as stated earlier, such order has become final. In circumstances, we find no justification or material to concede to claim of assessee for year under consideration. 35. next ground of appeal by assessee is that Commissioner (Appeals) erred in directing ITO to allow weighted deduction under section 35B of Act relating to salary of employees engaged entirely on export business to only 75 per cent of such salary. It is also appeal by assessee that Commissioner (Appeals) should have seen that once it is held that these employees were engaged exclusively for export business, there is no ground for restricting relief to 75 per cent only. 36. We have heard both sides and have perused orders of authorities below for our consideration. It is seen that Commissioner (Appeals) noted that proportionate salary for export was shown at Rs. 2,51,958. Commissioner (Appeals) directed ITO to ask assessee to furnish amount of salary of employees exclusively employed for export section and to allow 75 per cent thereof following decision of Tribunal, Special Bench in case of J.H. & Co. v. Second ITO [1982] 1 SOT 150 (Bom.). Having regard to facts of case and conclusion and guidance given by Special Bench, we find no scope to interfere with order of Commissioner (Appeals) on point. This point of appeal by assessee is not accepted. 37. next ground of appeal is that Commissioner (Appeals) erred in directing ITO to determine interest under section 215 of Act after giving effect to appellate order, whereas contention of assessee was that it was not liable to be charged with any interest at all. Commissioner (Appeals) at paragraph 9 of his order noted that assessee disputed imposition of interest and assessee wanted only consequential relief in case assessment was reduced in appeal. Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that assessee would get relief automatically if income is reduced as result of appeal. It was also noted that assessee had already applied to ITO for relief under rule 40 and matter is pending. In appeal before us it has not been shown that statement of Commissioner (Appeals) was wrong in saying that assessee wanted consequential relief only in case assessment is reduced. Be it as it may, since interest chargeable would depend on computation of income as result of appellate orders in quantum of appeals, ITO should work out relief admissible. He should also dispose of application of assessee under rule 40 expeditiously. expeditiously. 38. In result, appeal by assessee is treated as partly allowed. *** DUNCAN INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) LTD. v. INCOME TAX OFFICER