ORDER
Shri Sikander Khan, Accountant Member
1. This is an appeal by the assessee which is a Firm deriving income from commission as Agent of M/s. G. Premjee Ltd. and M/s. Stemcor UK Ltd., Hongkong.
2. Search and seizure operation under section 132 of the IT Act was conducted in the case on 8-12-1995. In response to notice under section 158BC the assessee filed return on 19-7-1996 for the block period of 1-4-1985 to 8-12-1995. It had filed return of income for the first time on 31-1-1995 for the assessment year 1994-95. It had stated that the business was started from 2-3-1993 and the firm decided to close the accounts for its first year business on 31-3-1994 as it would not have been feasible to prepare the accounts for 28 days only, i.e., 2-3-1993 to 31-3-1993. It received commission of Rs. 23,46,650, Rs. 13,27,769 and Rs. 4,15,411 during the period relevant to the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97. It claimed deduction 50% of the aforesaid commission under section 80-O of the IT Act. From the balance commission it claimed deduction of expenses and finally declared the taxable income at Rs. 92,030, Rs. 12,610 and Rs. 1,37,417 for the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 respectively.
3. The Assessing Officer passed the order in the case under section 143(3)/158BC on 27-12-1996. He disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80-O of the IT Act. He computed the total concealed income under section 158BC of the IT Act at Rs. 13,63,759, Rs. 6,76,500 and Rs. 2,07,706 for the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 (broken period), i.e., the total concealed income for the block period under section 158BC was worked out at Rs. 22,47,965.
4. While computing the concealed income the Assessing Officer allowed deductions for expenses as per the accounts. He also allowed deduction of income shown by the assessee in the regular return filed for the assessment year 1994-95 prior to the date of the search. Deduction was also allowed for the income shown as per return for the block period from the income for the assessment year 1996-97 (broken period). Deduction for the income shown in the regular return for the assessment year 1995-96 filed on 25-1-1996 was not allowed because the return was filed after the due date and also after the date of the search. In the assessment year 1994-95 the Assessing Officer also disallowed Rs. 1,90,433 being expenses on travelling and telephone of prior period.
5. In the appeal under consideration the assessee has objected to the impugned order on the grounds of lack of reasonable opportunity of hearing by the CIT before according approval to the impugned order; disallowance of the claim of deduction under section 80-O, treating the matter of disallowance of the claim under section 80-O and disallowance of other expenses under Chapter XIVB of the IT Act, disallowance of Rs. 1,90,433 on the ground of expenses of prior period in the assessment year 1994-95. The non-inclusion of the income of Rs. 1,09,060 for March 1993 in the income for the assessment year 1994-95 as submitted and inclusion of the income of Rs. 2,07,706 as undisclosed income for the broken period of 1996-97 for which the return was not due under section 139(1) are also disputed.
6. Besides the above major issues raised in the grounds of appeal, the assessee has also prayed for directing the Assessing Officer to compute the income-tax and allow credit for the tax paid. It has also prayed for the stay of recovery of the taxes.
7. The first objection raised by the assessee in the present appeal is that it was not provided reasonable opportunity of hearing by the CIT before according approval to the assessment order. The matter was not seriously contested by the learned counsel for the assessee in course of hearing of the appeal before us. Section 158BG of the IT Act provides that the order of assessment for the block period shall be passed by an Assessing Officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner or an Assistant Director as the case may be; Provided that no such order shall be passed without the previous approval of the Commissioner or Director as the case may be in respect of search initiated under section 132 or the books of account or other documents or assets requisitioned under section 132A after the 30th day of June, 1995 but before the 1st day of January, 1997.
7.1 The Assessing Officer in this case had passed the impugned order after obtaining the previous approval of the CIT. There is no provision for giving opportunity of hearing by the CIT before according approval to the assessment order. Therefore, the impugned order is held to be proper and valid on this ground.
8. The next major ground raised in the appeal is against the disallowance of the claim of deduction under section 80-O of the IT Act. In support of the claim the assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer that it provided technical, commercial and industrial knowledge and information to the said 2 foreign companies, M/s. Stemcor U.K. Ltd., Hongkong and M/s. G. Premjee Ltd. Bangkok. It stated that one of the partners of the assessee-firm, Mr. Girish Kapila, is a Metallurgist having working experience of 14 years of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL). He had substantial knowledge of physical and chemical properties, types and grades of steel etc. The assessee used to supply information regarding the physical and chemical properties and any other characteristics of steel to the principal foreign companies. On the basis of the information furnished the foreign companies used to decide about their purchases from M/s. TISCO Limited and M/s. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd., Vishakhapatnam. It was, therefore, contended before the Assessing Officer that the claim under section 80-O was proper and allowable.
8.1 The Assessing Officer required the assessee to furnish the details regarding the methods and the manner in which the physical and chemical properties of steel were examined, dates and places of examination, instrument used, relevant correspondences with TISCO Ltd. and Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited, evidences of supplying information regarding industrial and commercial knowledge and skill to the foreign companies, agreements with the principal foreign companies, etc. He also required the assessee to explain as to why the services rendered by it should not be treated as rendered in India and hence not allowable as per Explanation (iii) below section 80-O. He also required the assessee to show cause why the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of J.K. (Bombay) Ltd. v. CBDT [1979] 118 ITR 313, should not be treated as applicable to the facts of its case.
8.2 In reply, the assessee submitted that the nature of supply of information to the foreign companies pertained to the availability of steel, grading of steel, chemical properties, mode of finance and transportation. It was claimed that the aforesaid services rendered were in the nature of technical and professional services received by the foreign companies outside India and used by them to procure steel from India for manufacturing or selling outside India. The assessee relied on the CBDT Circular No. 700 dated 23-3-1995 in support of its claim that it rendered technical and professional services from India and these services were received by the foreign companies outside India. It was, therefore, contended that the deduction under section 80-O could not be denied under Explanation (iii) to section 80-O. The assessee, however, conceded that it did not test the chemical and physical properties of steel as the complete specification including such properties were supplied by the seller companies only.
8.3 In the meantime, the Assessing Officer wrote to M/s. TISCO Limited and M/s. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited. In reply, M/s. TISCO Limited informed the Assessing Officer that M/s. KAMKAP (India), i.e., the assessee had been accredited Agent of M/s. G. Premjee and their involvement had been to the extent of negotiating all the commercial and technical terms and follow up the above orders. Regarding inspection TISCO informed that they have well equipped quality assurance measures and their Scientific Services Divn. issued test certificates for both physical and chemical properties of the products being despatched. Such test certificates were handed over to the customer or their accredited agent for their further end.
8.4 It appears that on similar lines reply was received from Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited, Vishakhapatnam.
8.5 The Assessing Officer apprised the assessee with the replies received from M/s. TISCO Limited and M/s. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited and asked it to explain why its claim of imparting technical services to the foreign buyers should not be treated as factually incorrect. In this connection, he also referred to the Debit Note raised by the assessee dated 2-12-1993 against M/s. G. Premjee & Co. Limited in which it was mentioned that the amounts due were against commission payable for steel shipment effected from M/s. Vizag Steel Plant and TISCO Ltd.
8.6 In reply, the assessee submitted that on receipt of the physical and chemical properties of the products from the seller companies it was the duty of the assessee firm to verify and match them with the specification and requirement received from the principal companies. Thereafter it negotiated commercial terms under despatch arrangements. It was further submitted that the words ‘technical services’ had been substituted by ‘technical or professional services’ in section 80-O vide Finance Act (2) of 1991. The assessee further submitted that ‘technical’ means a person having specialised knowledge and experience in
(a) construction, manufacturing operation, mining ….;
(b) agricultural, animal husbandry ….;
(c) public administration, industrial or business management …….;
(d) accounting;
(e) in the field of natural or applied science or social science.
8.7 In its reply to the Assessing Officer the assessee also relied on the various judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts, mainly on Continental Construction Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 195 ITR 81/60 Taxman 429 (SC).
8.8 The assessee submitted to the Assessing Officer that it supplied the information regarding the availability of steel, grading of steel, chemical properties, mode of finance and transportation. These services were of the nature of technical and professional services. It was, therefore, contended that the assessee fulfilled all the requisite conditions for allowance under section 80-O of the IT Act.
8.9 The Assessing Officer examined the assessee’s explanations; submissions, replies and letters of TISCO and Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited. He held that the services rendered by the assessee could not be accepted as technical or professional services. He added that the assessee did not impart any special knowledge and experience in the construction, manufacturing, agricultural and animal husbandry, public administration, accounting or applied science. It simply discussed the commercial terms with the seller companies. These services did not come within the purview of any of the clauses of the definition of the word ‘technical’ as narrated by the assessee itself mentioned above. He relied on the Delhi High Court decision in the case of J.K. (Bombay) Ltd. (supra) in which it was held that the technical services in section 80-O would not include commercial services or managerial services. He quoted the following portion of the judgment :
“The second question that also arises in the construction of section 80-O is the difference between the mere communication of information and the rendering of technical services. The information may be industrial, commercial or scientific, while the services must be technical and would not, therefore, include commercial services.”
8.10 He observed that the aforesaid judgment completely negates the claim of the assessee. What the assessee had done in this case ? At the most, he conceded sending of commercial information and thereafter negotiating commercial terms and conditions for effecting the transaction of purchase and also helping in the shipment of the goods. It was definitely not rendering technical services and so as per the above judgment of the Delhi High Court the assessee was not entitled to deduction under section 80-O.
8.11 The Assessing Officer also observed that the assessee had rendered the services only in India and not from India and, therefore, the claim of deduction under section 80-O was not tenable as per the Explanation (iii) of section 80-O. The assessee-firm was engaged by the principal foreign companies for assisting them in the transaction of purchase of certain steel items in India. The assessee did so. The transaction of such purchases finalised fully in India only which was not a case at all that the services were rendered from India and were received by foreign enterprises outside India. Here the services were rendered in India and they were received by the foreign enterprises in India only. As the services came to an end as soon as the transactions of purchases were finalised and the goods were loaded on ship. He further observed that the law provided that the services should be received outside India and so the receipt of goods despatched by the assessee from India was not material for the purpose of Explanation (iii). He added that the reliance placed by the assessee on the CBDT Circular No. 700 dated 23-3-1995 and No. 731 dated 20-12-1995 in support of its claim, was completely misplaced. He added that the Circulars also clarified that the services might be rendered from India but it had to be received by the foreign enterprises outside India.
8.12 The Assessing Officer further observed that the claim of deduction under section 80-O @ 50 per cent of the gross commission was not correct. The expenses incurred relating thereto had to be adjusted from the gross commission received and the deduction could be allowable @ 50 per cent of such net income on account of commission received as per provision of section 80-O read with section 80AB of the IT Act.
8.13 Aggrieved, the assessee has come up in the first appeal before this Tribunal as provided in section 253(1)(b).
8.14 The learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the various submissions made in course of the assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer as mentioned above. He contended that the assessee had received the payments from the foreign enterprise in consideration for use outside India of information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific knowledge, experience or skill made available to the foreign enterprises by the assessee. He further submitted that the payments were received from the foreign enterprises also in consideration of technical or professional services rendered outside India to such enterprises by the assessee. He stated that the payments had been received in convertible foreign exchange outside India and the same was brought into India. He, therefore, contended that the conditions laid down in section 80-O were fully complied with by the assessee and, as such, it was entitled to deduction under section 80-O. He relied on the ITAT, Calcutta, ‘A’ Bench order in the case of M. N. Dastur & Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [1992] 42 TTJ (Cal.) 231 and Supreme Court’s order in the case of Continental Construction Ltd. (supra). He also relied on the decision reported in (SIC) 121 ITR 117. The ld. counsel further submitted that the claim of the assessee for deduction of 50 per cent of the gross commission before deduction of expenses was also proper and justified. He contended that the provisions of section 80B were not applicable to the computation of the admissible deduction under section 80-O.
8.15 The learned counsel further submitted that the Assessing Officer was wrong in applying the provisions of section 158BC in respect of the claim under section 80-O. He contended that the disallowance of the claim under section 80-O could not be covered under the provisions of section 158BC of the IT Act. He stated that the assessee had filed its return for the assessment year 1994-95 on 31-1-1995, i.e., before the date of the search and seizure operation under section 132 in which it had furnished the particular of the commission received from the foreign enterprises. He contended that the disallowance of the claim under section 80-O could not be treated as detection of concealed income. He added that the matters concerning the disallowance of deduction claimed were the subject matters of regular assessments and not of the provisions of Chapter XIV-B of the IT Act. In this connection, he referred to the definition of ‘undisclosed income’ given in section 158B of the IT Act and contended that such disallowance did not fall within the definition of “undisclosed income”.
8.16 The learned counsel further submitted that the assessee had filed return for the assessment year 1995-96 on 25-1-1996 in which the particulars of commission received from the foreign principals had been duly shown. He added that though the return was filed after the due date and the search and seizure operation, the same had been filed before completion of the block assessment on 27-12-1996. He, therefore, contended that there was no justification for including the income of assessment year 1995-96 in the impugned block assessment under section 158BC. The same did not fall within the purview of undisclosed income as defined under section 158B.
8.17 The learned counsel further submitted that the Assessing Officer was wrong in considering Rs. 2,07,708 as undisclosed income for the broken period of assessment year 1996-97 for which the return was not due under section 139(1) and the total commission received from the foreign principals was duly recorded in the books of account.
8.18 He, therefore, contended that the Assessing Officer was not justified in including the income of the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 in the impugned block assessment under section 158BC without there being any undisclosed income as defined in section 158B. He added that the action of the Assessing Officer was arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law.
8.19 The learned D.R., on the other hand, supported the order of the Assessing Officer. She submitted that the assessee had not provided any industrial, commercial or scientific knowledge, experience or skill or rendered any technical or professional services to the foreign enterprises as required under section 80-O. It had only acted as an agent of the foreign enterprises for the purpose of purchases from the said 2 Indian companies and shipment of the goods to the foreign enterprises. She contended that the nature of the services rendered by the assessee-company to the foreign enterprises did not entitle it to the claim of deduction under section 80-O. She referred to the detailed discussions by the Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment order in this regard. She further submitted that the services were rendered in India and the transactions of purchase and shipment of the goods were completed by the assessee in India. These services were not rendered from India received by the foreign principals outside India. The foreign principals only received the goods shipped by the assessee from India which could not be treated as receipt of services by the foreign principals outside India.
8.20 The learned D.R. submitted that the decisions relied upon by the ld. counsel were not applicable because the facts of the present case were distinguishable from the facts of the cases relied upon. She added that, on the other hand, the decisions reported in Eastman Consultants (P.) Ltd. v. CBDT [1981] 132 ITR 637/7 Taxman 93 (Bom.) and Searle (India) Ltd. v. CBDT [1984] 145 ITR 673/[1983] 12 Taxman 300 (Bom.) supported the revenues stand regarding the claim of deduction under section 80-O by the assessee.
8.21 The learned D.R. further submitted that the provisions of section 80AB were applicable to the computation of admissible deduction under section 80-O. She added that the assessee would not be entitled to the deduction of 50 per cent of the gross commission.
8.22 The learned D.R. further submitted that the Assessing Officer was justified in including the concealed income of the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 in the block assessments made under section 158BC. She contended that the income fell within the meaning of undisclosed income as given in section 158B of the IT Act.
8.23 We have given careful consideration to the facts of the case and the submissions of the rival parties. We have gone through the paper books filed and the relevant provisions of law and the cases relied upon by the rival parties. We are of the view that the assessee is not entitled to the claim of deduction under section 80-O. Section 80-O of the IT Act provides for a deduction of 50 per cent from the income of the assessee by way of royalty, commission, fees or any similar payments from the foreign Government or enterprise (a) in consideration for use outside India of any patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or similar property or information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific knowledge, experience or skill made available or provided or agreed to be made available or provided to such Government or enterprise by the assessee or (b) in consideration of technical or professional services rendered or agreed to be rendered outside India to such Govt. or enterprise by the assessee.
8.24 In either case the requirement is that the income should be convertible in foreign exchange and it is brought into India in convertible foreign exchange.
8.25 There is Explanation attached to section 80-O in which there are 3 clauses. Clause (iii) is relevant and worth noting here. It provides that “services rendered or agreed to be rendered outside India shall include services rendered from India but shall not include services rendered in India.”
8.26 In the impugned order the Assessing Officer has given adverse finding against the assessee that the services rendered by the assessee to the foreign enterprises did not fall either in (a) or (b) above. He held that the assessee had not provided any patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or similar property right or information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific knowledge, experience or skill to the foreign enterprises. He also held that the assessee had neither provided any technical or professional services to the foreign enterprises. The detailed reasons for these findings of the Assessing Officer have been discussed above. We are of the view that these findings of the Assessing Officer are not correct. There is no doubt that the assessee-firm was providing some such services to the foreign enterprises which can be termed as information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific knowledge, experience or skill or technical or professional services. It is an admitted fact that TISCO Limited had confirmed, as mentioned above, that the assessee had been negotiating commercial or technical terms and followed up of above orders as accredited agents of M/s. G. Premjee Limited, Bangkok. Negotiating commercial and technical terms and follow up can be regarded as technical or professional services. The list of technical and professional services has been over expanding in the modern world. Gone are the days when only doctors and lawyers profession was considered as professional work. A large number of items have been added to the list of professional work since then. The services of a Life Insurance Agent are also considered as a professional work in these days. Any service or work which involves special information, knowledge, skill or experience of specific area of work, place or authorities would amount to technical or professional services. The assessee, in this case, besides negotiating commercial and technical terms and follow up of orders had also been engaged in the shipment of the goods to the foreign enterprises. The specialised knowledge of working in this area can also be considered as technical and professional knowledge or skill.
8.27 The Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Continental Construction Ltd. (supra) supports the assessee’s claim that it had rendered technical or professional services to the foreign enterprises. The CBDT Circular No. 731, dated 20th December, 1995 also supports the assessee’s claim that it had rendered technical or professional services to the foreign enterprises. In the said circular cases of Re-insurance Broker operating in India on behalf of the principals abroad have been cited and it has been said that their services would qualify for deduction under section 80-O. If the services of Re-Insurance Brokers are technical or professional services then the assessee’s services rendered to the foreign enterprises would also fall in the category of technical or professional services.
8.28 In the above view of the matter we hold that the assessee had rendered technical or professional services to the foreign enterprises as provided in section 80-O of the IT Act.
8.29 However, the crucial issue in this case is whether these technical or professional services were rendered outside India. Explanation (iii) to section 80-O provides that the services rendered or agreed to be rendered outside India shall include the services rendered from India but shall not include the services rendered in India. There is no doubt that the assessee had not rendered the aforesaid services outside India. As mentioned above, the assessee had been negotiating commercial or technical terms and follow on of orders in India. It had also been shipping the goods to the foreign enterprises. All these activities were performed in India. No activity was done outside India. In this regard, the ld. counsel claimed that the assessee had been supplying information to the foreign enterprises and on the basis of such information the foreign enterprises decided about making the purchase from the Indian company. He, therefore, contended that the services were rendered from India which were utilised by the foreign enterprises outside India for making the transactions in question and, as such, the services rendered qualify for deduction under Explanation (iii) to section 80-O (which provided that the services rendered outside India shall include the services rendered from India. In this connection, the ld. counsel also referred to Board’s Circular No. 691, dated 5th September, 1994, which says that “as long as the technical and professional services are rendered from India and are received by a foreign Govt. or enterprise outside India deduction under section 80-O would be available to the person rendering services even if the foreign recipient of the services untilsed the benefit of such services in India”.
8.30 We have examined carefully the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel, with regard to the provisions of Explanation (iii) to section 80-O but we do not find his contentions correct and acceptable. The assessee had failed to produce any evidence before the Assessing Officer in course of the assessment proceedings that it had in the first instance, provided technical information, details, etc. regarding the materials to the foreign enterprises and that the foreign enterprises had decided about making the purchases from the particular Indian company after due consideration of the information and details supplied by the assessee. The Assessing Officer had specifically asked the assessee to furnish the details, correspondences and evidences in this regard but the assessee had failed to furnish any such fact to support its claim that the decision regarding the purchase of the materials from the particular Indian company was taken by the foreign enterprises on information and details supplied by the assessee. Thus, there was no evidence to show that the assessee had rendered any services from India which were utilised by the foreign enterprise for its benefit in India.
8.31 The language of Explanation (iii) to section 80-O is very clear and specific that the services rendered shall not include services rendered in India. It is a case where all the services had been rendered in India. The assessee’s services had been confined to negotiate the commercial and technical terms with TISCO and take follow on of orders and shipment of goods to the foreign enterprises as accredited agent of the foreign enterprises. All these services were rendered in India. As such, the services rendered by the assessee to the foreign enterprises did not qualify for exemption under section 80-O. Board’s Circular No. 731, dated 20th December, 1995, and Circular No. 691, dated 5th September, 1994, did not help the assessee because these circulars nowhere say that the provisions of Explanation (iii) to section 80-O would not be applicable and even if the services were rendered in India the payments received from the foreign enterprises would qualify for exemption under section 80-O. If the intention of the Legislature had been to provide exemption for all payments received in convertible foreign exchange then they would have provided so in clear and specific terms and not in the language of section 80-O as has actually been provided.
8.32 In the above view of the matter, we hold that the payments received by the assessee from the foreign enterprises were not entitled to exemption under section 80-O.
9. However, the inclusion of the above income in the impugned block assessment under section 158BC, was not proper and justified. The assessee had filed its return for the assessment year 1994-95 on 31-1-1995, i.e., before the date of the search. It had also filed return for the assessment year 1995-96 on 25-1-1996, i.e., before passing of the impugned block assessment order on 27-12-1996, though after the date of the search. For the assessment year 1995-96 also the assessee had furnished the particulars of the commission received from the foreign enterprises. Thus, it was not a case where receipt of commission from the foreign enterprises had been detected as a result of the search and seizure operation. So far as the disallowance of the claim of exemption under section 80-O is concerned, it also cannot be termed as detection as a result of the search and seizure operation. The disallowance is a matter of law in which there can be difference in the stand of the assessee and the revenue. Such disallowance cannot be brought within the purview of Chapter XIVB.
9.1 Section 158B(b) defines “undisclosed income” as under :
“(b) ‘undisclosed income’ includes any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any income based on any entry in the books of account or other documents or transactions, where such money, bullion, jewellery, valuable article, thing, entry in the books of account or other document or transaction represents wholly or partly income or property which has not been or would not have been disclosed for the purposes of this Act.”
It is clear from the above provision that the disallowance of the claim of exemption under section 80-O as in the present assessee’s case would not come within the category of undisclosed income.
10. As regards the assessment year 1996-97 (broken period) section 158BA(3) comes to the help of the assessee. It provides that :
“(3) Where the assessee proves to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that any part of income referred to in sub-section (1) relates to an assessment year for which the previous year has not ended or the date of filing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 for any previous year has not expired, and such income or the transactions relating to such income are recorded on or before the date of the search or requisition in the books of account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating to such previous year, the said income shall not be included in the block period.”
10.1 As the assessee had recorded receipt of gross commission from the foreign enterprises in the books of account and as the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1996-97 had not ended, the commission from the foreign enterprises was not includible in the block period.
10.2 In the above view of the matter, we hold that the Assessing Officer was not justified in including the income of Rs. 22,47,965 pertaining to the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 (broken period) in the impugned block assessment under section 158BC. The income should be considered in the respective assessment under section 143(3) of the IT Act.
11. As regards the disallowance of Rs. 1,90,433 in the assessment year 1994-95 being prior period expenses on Travelling & Telephone we hold that the same was not liable to be included in the impugned block assessment for reasons similar to those given above.
12. As regards the income of Rs. 1,09,960 received in March 1993, we hold that the same was includible in the assessment year 1994-95 as shown by the assessee because the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1994-95 was from 2-3-1993 to 31-3-1994.
13. Other grounds taken in the appeal like prayer for stay of recovery of tax are not relevant to the present appeal. Hence, they are not considered and decided here.
14. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.