Appeal partially allowed, legal expenses disallowed, interest remanded for review, depreciation rate under examination.

The appeal was allowed in part, with specific issues remanded back to the ITO for further consideration and appropriate action. The disallowance of legal expenses under section 80VV was confirmed, the disallowance of excise duty on polymer chips was upheld, the levy of interest under section 216 was remanded for further review, and the rate of depreciation on machinery and plant for cement manufacturing was also remanded for examination of a higher depreciation rate.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of legal expenses under section 80VV.
2. Disallowance of excise duty on polymer chips.
3. Levy of interest under section 216.
4. Rate of depreciation on machinery and plant for cement manufacturing.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Legal Expenses under Section 80VV:
The core issue was the disallowance of legal expenses amounting to Rs. 1,19,388 by applying the provisions of section 80VV of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee incurred a total of Rs. 1,81,588 under this head, out of which Rs. 1,76,588 was disallowed by the ITO. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced this disallowance to Rs. 1,19,388, accepting that retainers fee paid of Rs. 56,500 should not be disallowed. The assessee contended that section 80VV should be interpreted to allow expenses per proceeding rather than aggregating them. The revenue argued that the section's wording implies that any expenditure exceeding Rs. 5,000 in aggregate for all proceedings in a previous year should be disallowed. The Tribunal concluded that the legislative intent was to limit the total allowable expenditure to Rs. 5,000 per year, regardless of the number of proceedings, thus confirming the disallowance by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. Disallowance of Excise Duty on Polymer Chips:
The dispute concerned the disallowance of excise duty amounting to Rs. 35,80,083, which related to the manufacture of polymer chips during the period 1-7-1967 to 30-6-1968. The ITO disallowed this claim, stating that the liability did not arise in the accounting year. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this disallowance. The assessee argued that a letter from the Central Excise authorities in July 1975, stating that the demand continued to exist, created the liability in the assessment year 1976-77. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that the liability related to earlier years and was not created by the letter. The liability would only crystallize upon the Supreme Court's decision. Hence, the Tribunal confirmed the disallowance by the Commissioner (Appeals).

3. Levy of Interest under Section 216:
The issue involved the levy of interest under section 216 amounting to Rs. 6,76,500, due to the assessee underestimating their advance tax liability. The assessee contended that they were not given an opportunity to explain before the interest was levied and that the estimate was bona fide. The Commissioner (Appeals) found against the assessee, stating that the opportunity was given and the estimate was not bona fide. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments, noting that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not adequately demonstrate that the estimate was untrue or that the assessee had not maintained necessary internal records. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the ITO to give the assessee a proper opportunity to explain and to reconsider the issue in light of the Allahabad High Court's decision in the case of Elgin Mills Co. Ltd.

4. Rate of Depreciation on Machinery and Plant for Cement Manufacturing:
The last issue was regarding the rate of depreciation on machinery and plant used in cement manufacturing. The assessee raised this as an additional ground, arguing that the machinery comes into contact with corrosive chemicals and should, therefore, attract a higher depreciation rate than the 10% allowed by the ITO. The Tribunal admitted this additional ground and remanded the issue back to the ITO for examination, referencing a similar decision for the assessment year 1975-76.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed in part, with specific issues remanded back to the ITO for further consideration and appropriate action.

---