In this case, appeal of assessee was decided by Hon ble Tribunal Delhi Bench B , New Delhi on 5th Dec., 2002. assessee moved Miscellaneous Application (MA) in respect of that order, which was disposed of vide order dt. 28th Feb., 2006. As per para 3 of that order, ground Nos. 4 and 5 of appeal were recalled for adjudication, as no order thereon was passed. That is how, this appeal before us. Ground Nos. 4 and 5 are reproduced below for sake of ready reference: "4. That learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding exclusion made by DCIT (Assessment) of exchange rate fluctuation proceeds amounting to Rs. 3,89,964 from total turnover, whereas same was received by assessee within period stipulated under sub-s. (2)(a) of s. 80HHC of IT Act, 1961. That learned CIT(A) has erred in not directing deletion of interest under ss. 234B and 234C of IT Act." assessee claimed deduction under s. 80HHC on sum of Rs. 3,89,964, representing extra sale proceeds of export turnover of last year received in this year, due to fluctuation in rate of foreign exchange. In this connection, learned CIT(A) pointed out that impugned receipt relates to exports made in previous year relevant to asst. yr. 1991-92. Therefore, impugned amount was not turnover of assessment year under consideration. Before us, learned counsel for assessee pointed out that provisions of sub-s. (2) of s. 80HHC were amended by Finance Act, 1990, w.e.f. 1st April, 1991, by which word "receivable" was replaced by words "received in, or brought into, India". Therefore, his case was that since portion of export sales proceeds of last year was received in or brought into India in this year, assessee was entitled to get deduction on this amount in this year. For this purpose, he relied on para 25 of Explanatory Notes to Finance Act, 1990. In this paragraph, it has been clarified that one of conditions for allowing of deduction under s. 80HHC and under s. 80HHD is that receipts should be in convertible foreign exchange. However, deduction is allowable even if foreign exchange is not brought into India. In absence of such condition, one of main purposes of allowing such concession, namely, to augment foreign exchange earnings of country is being defeated. It has, therefore, been proposed that for obtaining deduction under these sections, taxpayer will be required to bring into India sale proceeds within period of six months from end of previous year or within such extended period as Chief CIT may allow on being satisfied with taxpayer and was prevented from complying with this requirement for reasons beyond his control. learned counsel further pointed out that books of account were maintained taking into account r. 115 of IT Rules, 1962, which provides that rate of foreign exchange for calculation of value in rupees of any income accruing or arising or deemed to accrue or arise to assessee in foreign currency received or deemed to be received by him on his behalf in foreign currency shall be made at telegraphic transfer buying rate of such currency as on specified date. He was of view that if there is some conflict between this rule and sub- s. (2) of s. 80HHC, then, interpretation beneficial to assessee should be adopted. It was also agitated that law should ignore trifles. Thus, it was agitated that assessee is entitled to deduction on extra receipt arising in this year on account of realization of export proceeds of last year due to fluctuation in rate of foreign exchange. On other hand, leaned Departmental Representative dealt at length o n issue of interpretation of statutes, and in this connection, he made three prepositions, namely, (i) If there is some wilful omission in statute, Court cannot supply words to fill omission, (ii) If there is loop-hole in statute, it is for legislature to plug that loop-hole, and (iii) If language of statute is unambiguous, then, Courts cannot be supply any words for interpreting statute. In case of CIT vs. Madan Parnami Family Trust (2004) 189 CTR (Jp) 340: (2004) 269 ITR 16 (Jp), Hon ble Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, held that golden rule of interpretation of statute is to go by plain language if there is no ambiguity in language. In case of CIT vs. A.K. Ghosh & Ors. (2003) 184 CTR (MP) 420: (2003) 263 ITR 536 (MP), Hon ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, at page 550, pointed out that taxing statute has to be construed stricto sensu. concept of pragmatism or any kind of expediency is, in our considered view, alien to it. To import said conceptions would not only pave path of uncertainty but also create atmosphere of incurable anomaly. We have considered facts of case and rival submissions. Sub-s. (2) contains conditions precedent for grant of deduction under s. 80HHC. Two preconditions have been described, namely, that (i) section applies to all goods and merchandise other than those specified in cl. (b) of sub-section, and (ii) sale proceeds of such goods or merchandise exported out of India are received in, or brought into India, by assessee within six months from end of previous year or within such further period as may be allowed by competent authority in this behalf. This sub-section does not deal with quantification of deduction to be allowed under s. 80HHC, which is also clear from para 25 of Explanatory Notes of Finance Act, relied upon by learned counsel, in which it was stated that purpose of amendment was to ensure avowed objective behind section, namely, that it should achieve purpose of augmenting foreign exchange earnings of India. quantification of deduction has to be made in accordance with sub-s. (3) or sub- s. (3A), as case may be. Thus, sub-s. (3) deals with computation of profits, derived from business of export of goods or merchandise. It will invariably happen that some amount of export proceeds will remain outstanding at time of close of previous year. Rule 115 of IT Rules, deals with computation of profits in such case for purpose of conversion of outstanding foreign currency receivable into Indian rupees and it has been provided that such conversion shall be made at telegraphic transfer buying rate of foreign currency. Thus, once foreign currency receivable is so converted into Indian rupees for purpose of taxation, nothing further remains to be done, at time of subsequent receipt of currency and actual amount realized in Indian currency in respect thereof. Thus, we are of view that profits from export business had been properly calculated in books for asst. yr. 1990-91 in respect of foreign currency receivable, on which deduction under s. 80HHC had been allowed and therefore, nothing remains to be done in this matter in current assessment year. In result, ground No. 4 of appeal of assessee is dismissed. Ground No. 5 is against finding of learned CIT(A) that interest under ss. 234B and 234C was rightly charged by AO. Before him, it was represented that objection raised for charging of interest was consequential in nature. Therefore, he directed AO to modify amount of interest while giving effect to his order, if so necessitated. Before us, learned counsel referred to decision of Hon ble ITAT, Delhi Bench (Special Bench), in case of Motorola Inc vs. Dy. CIT (2005) 96 TTJ (Del)(SB) 1: (2005) 95 ITD 269 (Del)(SB) Tribunal laid down number of propositions regarding charging of interest under ss. 234A and 234B; (i) interest is mandatory in sense that it cannot be reduced or waived by any IT Authorities, (ii) in case of default attracting aforesaid provisions, assessee becomes automatically liable to pay interest, (iii) if attracting for charging of interest is not mentioned in assessment order, but same is charged under ITNS 150, which is duly signed by AO who signed assessment order, charging of interest is proper, and (iv) interest has to be calculated on basis of regular assessment and not on basis of income declared in return of income. learned Departmental Representative pointed out that ratio of aforesaid case is in favour of Revenue. We have considered facts of case and rival submissions. We find that all facts regarding charging of interest are not mentioned in order of AO or order of learned CIT(A). Therefore, we think it fit to restore this matter to file of AO with direction that he will consider facts of case and decide matter after hearing assessee in light of decision in case of Motorola Inc. (supra). Thus, this ground is treated as allowed for statistical purpose, as indicated above. In result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed. In result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed. *** FABINDIA OVERSEAS LTD v. DEPTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX