N. Kumar, J.:— As common questions are involved in ail these appeals, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed of by this common order.
2. The assessee ISRO Satellite Centre, Government of India, Department of Space is in the business of manufacture of satellites called INSAT 3A-3E. To place these satellites in Geostationary Transfer Orbit in the space, it required the services of Arianespace, a French company. Accordingly, on 30th Nov., 2000, an agreement was entered into between the assessee and the French company. The service, rendered by the French company is with reference to “Launch Service Agreement for the launching into the-Geostationary Transfer Orbit of the INSAT 3A-3E satellites.” The remuneration payable to the French company was with reference with the launch of INSAT 3A-3E satellites. The assessee was required to cany the satellites to the location of the launch pad/launch vehicle of the French company. Arianespace had proposed to launch the satellite into geostationary transfer orbit on a shared Ariane launch where the launcher's payload is made up of the assessee's Spacecraft and a spacecraft of a third party customer of Arianespace. Arianespace, on its part, was to notify the assessee customer the type of launch vehicle chosen for the launch of the two satellites. The agreement states “Launch services, except for post-launch services, shall be deemed to be completed by Arianespace when the launch has taken place.” In terms of the agreement, Arianespace rendered several services as set out in the agreement to the assessee. Arianespace “also provides certain general range support like transportation, payload, preparation analysis and operations for pre-launch and various miscellaneous activities. All the activities are highly sophisticated and involve a complex nature of technologies. Therefore, the assessing authority held that the payments received by M/s. Arianespace from the assessee are clearly fees for technical services as per the definition in s. 9(1)(vii) of the IT Act (for short hereinafter referred to as the Act). The assessing authority also referred to the DTAA between India and France, fees for technical services, where fees for technical services is defined as under:
“The term ‘fees for technical services’ as used in the article means payment of any kind to any person, other than payments to an employee of the person making the payments and to any individual for independent personal services mentioned in art. 15, in consideration for services of a managerial, technical or consultancy nature.”
3. In view of the aforesaid clause, the assessing authority was of the view that the services rendered by Arianespace clearly fall within the aforesaid definition of technical services. Accordingly, payment made by the assessee to Arainespace and M/s. Intelsat is fee for technical services/fees for ancillary services which is chargeable to Indian income-tax as income of the recipient. Thus, the Indian payee/the assessee should have deducted taxes at the appropriate rate in terms of the respective DTAAs, s. 115A r/w s. 195 of the Act, which has not been done. Similarly, the assessee has also entered into an agreement with Intelsat, an American company for the purpose of tracking, telemetry and command support charges for satellites launched by the assessee. It is also a highly sophisticated technical work, which is being carried out by the American company. The technical input which is being made available by M/s. Intelsat to the assessee is used by the assessee to control the movements and other functions of the satellite. These are also the technical services and it would squarely fall within the definition given in s. 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The relevant clause in the DTAA with USA reads as under:
“(a) Payments of any kind to any person in consideration for the rendering of any technical or consultancy services (including through the provision of services of technical or other personnel).
(b) make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, or process, or consist of the development and transfer of a technical plan or technical design”
4. Interpreting the aforesaid clause, the assessing authority held that Intelsat has made available technical knowledge/know-how/skill/experience to the assessee in respect of tracking, telemetry and command support of the satellites launched by the assessee. Hence, such services would squarely fall within the definition of ancillary services as defined in the DTAA between India and USA
5. As the assessee had not deducted the taxes at the appropriate rates, the assessee was held to be an assessee in default as per the provisions of s. 201(1) of the Act for not deducting the taxes from remittance made abroad. Thereafter, he calculated the tax payable, interest chargeable for non-payment of tax and levied the tax and interest on the assessee. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) on reappreciation of the entire material on record and also taking note of the circulars held that the assessee in its letter dt. 28th June, 2001 has clearly admitted the impugned payments to be in the nature of technical services. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that it was not a case of rendering technical services was rejected. Therefore, he upheld the order passed by the assessing authority. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal on a consideration of the entire material on record held that Arianespace was to provide a launching medium for launching the satellites produced by the Indian assessee. This launching medium has no other activity other than helping the satellites' movement into and towards space. The satellites have their own management power, engines, fuel etc. and all that it is required to push itself into space was a launching medium. This activity could be compared with a ship hired for movement of goods from one port to another. Because the goods have to be transported through water, the ship becomes the medium for movement of goods from one place to another. In order that the goods may be loaded and unloaded, the ship may offer various facilities of crane and loaders and so on, but these activities of the shipping company are something that are connected with their business activity and has got nothing to do with the assessee, who owns the goods. All that the owner of the goods is interested in, is his goods to be safely placed in the ship, carried and delivered to the destination. Likewise, the launch vehicle or the launch pad or the launch medium is dump crane like equipment to house the space satellite in a position to release all its points that were hitherto used to hold the satellite in its own place so that the power generated by the engine of the space satellite allows it to glide through the launch medium and out of it into the space. That is why the agreement very clearly provides the limited role of Arianespace, which is with reference to hiring of their launch pad and time, which is similar to hiring of a transport medium. Further, since the assessee was required to provide the satellite at the site from where it could be launched with the aid of a launch medium, it is nothing but hire of a launch medium. Arianespace on its own may be well equipped and has been undertaking providing of its launch medium for placing in orbit several satellites. For the purpose of a successful launch, it may need to keep itself abreast of the technical advancements. All these activities that are necessary are related only to use of the launch medium and with these activities, the assessee is not concerned with. The assessee is concerned with the use of launch medium for the launch and all those activities that are associated with the use of the launch medium is part of the hire of launch medium only. Therefore, it held it is not in the nature of technical services and therefore, the provisions of tax deduction at source do not apply. Insofar as Intelsat is concerned, all that it provides is tracking the movement of the satellite in space till it is taken over by the Indian Company. It is nothing but providing information to the assessee about the movement of the satellite in the space and therefore, the provision of such information does not amount to providing any technical services and therefore allowed the appeal. The impugned orders were set aside and it was held that the assessee was not liable to deduct any tax at source. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue has preferred the appeals in IT Appeal No. 532 of 2008 and connected matters.
6. After the Tribunal set aside the order passed by the CIT(A) as well as the assessing authority and held that there was no liability to pay tax consequent to that order, the request for refund was not considered on the ground that there is no direction to that effect in the order of Tribunal. Therefore, the assessee filed an application before the Tribunal which was numbered as Misc. Petn. Nos. 90-99 of 2008 with a request to clarify and direct the Revenue to refund the interest as the Tribunal held that there is no liability to pay tax at all. Accepting their case, the Tribunal directed for refund of interest levied on the assessee as the interest is payable for non-payment of tax in time, if there is no liability to pay tax, there is no liability to pay interest and the interest paid is required to be refunded. Aggrieved by the said order, the Department has preferred these appeals in IT Appeal No. 152 of-2009 and connected matters.
7. When the appeal preferred by the assessee before the CIT(A) was dismissed, the assessee paid the entire sum due as per demand notice dt. 13th July, 2001. Thereafter, the AO charged interest under s. 201(1A) from 1st July, 2001 to 8th Feb., 2002 by issuing a demand notice on 22nd Feb., 2002, which was served on the assessee in March, 2002. Though the assessee challenged the main order of the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal affirming the order of the assessing authority, the assessee had not preferred appeals against this demand for levy of interest for the period upto the date of payment and also levy of interest under s. 220(2) of the Act. He filed appeals after a lapse of five years with an application for condonation of delay before the CIT(A). Similarly the AO levied interest in respect of the order passed on 13th July, 2001. The assessee for these years also filed appeal along the condonation of delay. The CIT(A) and Tribunal declined to condone the delay and to entertain the appeal and it dismissed all the six appeals. Aggrieved by the said order refusing to condone the delay and consequently dismissing the appeals, the assessee has preferred these appeals which are six and numbered as IT Appeal Nos. 416 of 2010, 417 of 2010, 418 of 2010, 422 of 2010, 423 of 2010 and 424 of 2010. Insofar as the balance eight appeals of the assessee are concerned they are for different periods though the issue involved is the same. The appeals are also on condonation of delay. These appeals are numbered as IT Appeal Nos. 419 of 2010, 420 of 2010, 421 of 2010, 425 of 2010, 426 of 2010, 427 of 2010, 428 of 2010 and 429 of 2010. These appeals are filed by assessee for period other than the period covered by the Revenue appeals.
8. The learned counsel for the Revenue assailing the impugned order contended that though no part of service is rendered in India by the nonresident assessee, in view of the Explanation to s. 9 by Finance Act, 2010 giving a retrospective effect from 1st June, 1976, whether a non-resident rendered services in India or not, the income by way of technical services payable to a non-resident, the payee i.e, the assessee should have deducted tax at source. The Tribunal was in error in holding that the service rendered is not a technical service but it is only hire charge which is contrary to the terms of the contract and material on record and therefore, he submits that the said order requires to be set aside.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that in the first place the services rendered by a non-resident Indian do not fall within the mischief of the words “technical services”. Even otherwise, as understood prior to the aforesaid amendment, unless the said service is rendered in India, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax from the income paid to the non-resident. That apart, in view of the agreement between India and other countries of the world, when the words technical service as defined in the said covenant, have been given a restricted meaning to the effect that only in the event of make available or transfer of the technology used for rendering technical service, the said income is regarded as fee for technical service and chargeable to tax in India. If there is no liability to pay tax under law, there is no obligation to deduct tax at source as is clear from the wordings of s. 195(1) of the IT Act and therefore, he submits that the ultimate finding recorded by the Tribunal that there is no liability to pay tax cannot be found fault with. It was also submitted that the orders have been passed after 10 years, in some cases i.e, for 1988-89 to 1999-2000 on 28th Feb., 2006 and also hit by limitation.
10. In the light of the aforesaid facts and the rival contentions, the questions of law that arise for our consideration are:
(a) Whether the service rendered by a non-resident is a technical service?
(b) Whether the remuneration paid in lieu of technical service is liable to tax under the Act and if so, whether the assessee is liable to deduct tax under s. 195(1) of the Act?
11. The entire claim is based on s. 9(1)(vii) of the Act, which reads as under:
“9.(1) The following incomes shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India : (vii) income by way of fees for technical services payable by—
(a) the Government; or
(b) a person who is a resident, except where the fees are payable in respect of services utilised in a business or profession carried on by such person outside India or for the purposes of making or earning any income from any source outside India; or
(c) a person who is a non-resident, where the fees are payable in respect of services utilised in a business or profession carried on by such person in India or for the purposes of making or earning any income from any source in India:
Provided that nothing contained in this clause shall apply in relation to any income by way of fees for technical services payable in pursuance of an agreement made before the 1st day of April, 1976, and approved by the Central Government.
Explanation 1.— For the purposes of the foregoing proviso, an agreement made on or after the 1st day of April, 1976, shall be deemed to have been made before that date if the agreement is made in accordance with proposals approved by the Central Government before that date.
Explanation 2.— For the purposes of this clause, “fees for technical services” means any consideration (including any lump sum consideration) for the rendering of any managerial, technical or consultancy services (including the provision of services of technical or other personnel) but does not include consideration for any construction assembly, mining or like project undertaken by the recipient or consideration which would be income of the recipient chargeable under the head “Salaries”.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-s. (1), any pension payable outside India to a person residing permanently outside India shall not be deemed to accrue or arise in India, if the pension is payable to a person referred to in art. 314 of the Constitution or to a person who, having been appointed before the 15th day of August, 1947, to be a Judge of the Federal Court or of a High Court within the meaning of the Government of India Act, 1935, continues to serve on or after the commencement of the Constitution as a Judge in India.
Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this section, income of a non-resident shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India under cl. (v) or cl. (vi) or cl. (vii) of sub-s. (1) and shall be included in the total income of the non-resident, whether or not,—
(i) the non-resident has a residence or place of business or business connection in India; or
(ii) the non-resident has rendered services in India.”
12. The DTAA with the French Republic dt. 7th Sept., 1994 defines technical service at cl. 4 of art. 13 as under:
“4. The term ‘fees for technical services’ as used in this article means payments of any kind to any person, other than payments to an employee of the person making the payments and to any individual for independent personal services mentioned in art. 15, in consideration for services of a managerial, technical or consultancy nature.”
13. The Protocol which is annexed at the end of the said agreement makes it clear that at the time of proceeding to the signature of the Convention between France and India for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income and on capital, the undersigned agreed on the provisions which form an integral part of the Convention. Clause 7 reads as under:
“7. In respect of articles 11 (Dividends), 12 (Interest) and 13 (Royalties, fees for technical services and payments for the use of equipment), if under any Convention, Agreement or Protocol signed after 1st Sept., 1989, between India and a third State which is a members of the OECD, India limits its taxation at source on dividends, interest, royalties, fees for technical services or payments for the use of equipment to a rate lower or a scope more restricted than the rate of scope provided for in this Convention on the said items of income, the same rate or scope as provided for in that Convention, Agreement or Protocol on the said items income shall also apply under this Convention, with effect from the date on which the present Convention or the relevant Indian Convention, Agreement or protocol enters into force, whichever enters into force later.”
14. The DTAA with USA at cl. 4 of art. 12 reads as under:
“4. For purposes of this article, ‘fees for included services’ means payments of any kind to any person in consideration for the rendering of any technical or consultancy services (including through the provision of services of technical or other personnel) if such services:
(a) are ancillary and subsidiary to the application or enjoyment of the right, property or information for which a payment described in para 3 is received; or
(b) make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, or, processes, or consist of the development and transfer of a technical plan or technical design.”
15. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance has issued a Memorandum of Understanding concerning fees for included services in art. 12 between India and USA. The relevant para reads as under:
“Paragraph 4(b) of art. 12 refers to technical or consultancy services that make available to the person acquiring the service technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, or processes, or consist of the development and transfer of a technical-plan or technical design to such person. (For this purpose, the person acquiring the service shall be deemed to include an agent, nominee, or transferee of such person). This category is narrower than the category described in para 4(a) because it excludes any service that does not make technology available to the person acquiring the service. Generally speaking, technology will be considered ‘made available’ when the person acquiring the service is enabled to apply the technology. The fact that the provision of the service may require technical input by the person providing the service does not per se mean that technical knowledge, skills, etc., are made available to the person purchasing the service, within the meaning of para 4(b). Similarly, the use of a product which embodies technology shall not per se be considered to make the technology available.”
16. The contract entered into between the assessee and the French company, which also provides for the nature of assistance rendered, makes it very clear that it is not a case of mere transporting the satellite from the earth to the orbit. It is certainly not hiring the facilities to the assessee. Once the assessee delivers the satellites for launching the same into the orbit, as is clear from the terms of the agreement, a series of complex technical operations have to be conducted by the French company which also includes launching the satellite into orbit. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the remuneration paid by the assessee to Arianespace is in the nature of hire charges, on the face of it, cannot be accepted. The remuneration paid is for technical services rendered by the Arianespace to the assessee for launching the satellite to the orbit. It squarely falls within the definition of technical services as defined under the Act.
17. Explanation 2 to cl. (vii) of s. 9(1) makes it clear that fees for technical services means any consideration including a lump sum consideration for rendering of any managerial, technical or consultancy services (including the provision of services of technical or other personnel) but does not include consideration for any construction assembly, mining or like project undertaken by the recipient. Admittedly, the services rendered by the non-resident do not involve any assembly, mining or like work. The services rendered are purely technical in nature. Therefore, the income by way of fees for technical services payable by a person who is a resident is fees for technical services unless the fees are payable in respect of services utilised in a business or profession carried on by such person outside India or for the purpose of making or earning any income from any source outside India as per s. 9(1)(vii)(b). In view of the decisions rendered by the Courts holding that to attract the aforesaid provision, the technical services should have been rendered in India, the Parliament inserted an Explanation making its intention clear. The Explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 2010 in substitution of the provision inserted by Finance Act, 2007 makes it very clear. The said provision reads as under:
“Explanation.— For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this section, income of a non-resident shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India under cl. (y) or Cl. (vi) or cl. (vii) of sub-s. (1) and shall be included in the total income of the non-resident, whether or not,—
(i) the non-resident has a residence or place of business or business connection in India; or
(ii) the non-resident has rendered services in India.”
18. In the light of the aforesaid Explanation irrespective of the fact whether the non-resident has rendered any service in India or not, the income accrued to such non-resident falls within the aforesaid definition. However, as the contract in question is between the Indian company and the foreign company, s. 90 of the Act comes into operation.
19. Chapter IX deals with Double Taxation Reliefs. Sec. 90 provides for granting relief in respect of the income which has been paid both under the Act as well as in the country to which the non-resident belongs to and the said provision gives an overriding effect to the provisions of the Act. The apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan, (2003) 184 CTR (SC) 450 : (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) dealing with this provision has held as under:
“Taxation of foreign companies and other non-resident taxpayers:
43. Tax tr eaties generally contain a provision to the effect that the laws of the two Contracting States will govern the taxation of income in the respective State cxcept when express provision to the contrary is made in the treaty. It may so happen that the tax treaty with a foreign country may contain a provision giving concessional treatment to any income as compared to the position under the Indian law existing-at that point of time. However, the Indian law may subsequently be amended, reducing the incidence of tax to a level lower than what has been provided in the tax treaty.
43.1 Since the tax treaties are intended to grant tax relief and not put residents of a contracting country at a disadvantage vis-a-vis other taxpayers, s. 90 of the IT Act has been amended to clarify that any beneficial provision in the law will not be denied to a resident of a contracting country merely because the corresponding provision in the tax treaty is less beneficial.
The provisions of ss. 4 and 5 of the Act are expressly made “subject to the provisions of this Act”, which would include s. 90 of the Act. As to what would happen in the event of a conflict between the provision of the IT Act and a notification issued under s. 90, is no longer res Integra.
A survey of the aforesaid cases makes it clear that the judicial consensus in India has been that s. 90 is specifically intended to enable and empower the Central Government to issue a notification for implementation of the terms of a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. When that happens, the provisions of such an agreement, with respect to cases to which where they apply, would operate even if inconsistent with, the provisions of the IT Act. We approve of the reasoning in the decisions which we have noticed. If it was not the intention of the legislature to make a departure from the general principles of chargeability to tax under s. 4 and the general principle of ascertainment of total income under s. 5 of the Act, then there was no purpose in making those sections “subject to the provisions” of the Act. The very object of grafting the said two sections with the said clause is to enable the Central Government to issue a notification under s. 90 towards implementation of the terms of the DTAs which would automatically override the provisions of the IT Act in the matter of ascertainment of chargeability to income-tax and ascertainment of total income, to the extent of inconsistency with the terms of the DTAC…………
Sec. 90, as we have already noticed (including its precursor under the 1922 Act), was brought on the statute book precisely to enable the executive to negotiate a DTAC and quickly implement it. Even accepting the contention of the respondents that the powers exercised by the Central Government under s. 90 are delegated powers of legislation, we are unable to see as to why a delegatee of legislative power in all cases has no power to grant exemption. There are provisions galore in statutes made by Parliament and the State legislatures wherein the power of conditional or unconditional exemption from the provisions of the statutes are expressly delegated to the executive. For example, even in fiscal legislation like the Central Excise Act and Sales-tax Act, there are provisions for exemption from the levy of tax [see s. 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and s. 8(5) of the. Central Sales-tax Act, 1956). Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention that the delegate of a legislative power cannot exercise the power of exemption in a fiscal statute.”
20. In the light of the aforesaid judgment of the apex Court, we have to see whether there is any inconsistency in the definitions of technical service in the Act and that in the DTAA.
21. In the DTAA read with Protocol as per art. 12 which deals with royalty and technical services, etc., the services are called FTS only if such services make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, or processes or consists of development and transfer of technical plan or a technical design. Therefore, a non-resident could be charged only if the technical service rendered by him includes making available the technical knowledge or transferring such technical knowledge to a recipient. Therefore, unless this condition is fulfilled, the income derived by the non-resident is not chargeable to tax. It is because cl. 7 of the Protocol referred to supra makes it clear that in respect of any agreement entered into after 1st Sept., 1989 between India and a third State, which is a member of the OECD, India limits its taxation at source of fees for technical services to a rate lower or a scope more restricted than the rate of scope provided for in the Convention on the said items of income. Whatever benefit conferred on a third State under an agreement which comes into force later, the said benefit is extended to third State in respect of an agreement entered into earlier though such a favourable clause is not there in the earlier agreement. Therefore, by virtue of cl. 7 of the Protocol, even though such a benefit is not available under DTAA with France the beneficial clause in the DTAA entered into by India with the USA applies in respect to the DTAA with France. Therefore, unless the technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes are transferred to the assessee, the liability to tax does not arise. The said favourable clauses in the DTAA read with protocol override the provisions of the IT Act in the matter of ascertainment of chargeability to income-tax and ascertainment of total income to the extent of inconsistency with the terms of DTAC.
22. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the remuneration is only for the services rendered on a foreign soil. In lieu of consideration paid, the foreign company has not made available any technical knowledge to the assessee nor any technical knowledge is transferred to the assessee and therefore, the income derived out of rendering technical services is not liable to tax. If there is no liability to pay tax by a non-resident, there is no obligation-cast on the assessee to deduct tax at source.
23. The Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. v. CIT, (2010) 234 CTR (SC) 153 : (2010) 44 DTR (SC) 201 : (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC), held as under:
“Sec. 195(1). uses the expression ‘sum chargeable under the provisions Of the Act.’ We need to give weightage to those words. Further, s. 195 uses; the word ‘payer’ and not the word ‘assessee’. The payer is not an assessee. The payer becomes an assessee-in-default only when he, fails to fulfil the statutory obligation under s. 195(1). If the payment does not contain the element of income the payer cannot be made liable. He cannot be declared to be an assessee-in-default.”
24. Similarly even in respect of the services which is rendered by the American Company, there is no transfer of technology or making available the technology which was used by them in detecting the satellite before it is brought under the control of the assessee.
25. In that view of the matter, we are satisfied that the technical services rendered by these two foreign companies to the assessee do not satisfy the definition of the technical services as prescribed in the DTAA. As such it is not liable to tax. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order passed by the CIT(A) and the assessing authority though, not for the reasons stated by them, but for the reasons we have given in these appeals. When once there is no liability to pay tax, the question of charging interest would not arise. As interest was pharged, it was paid. When the tax is ordered to be refunded, even the interest also requires to be refunded.
26. The order passed by the Tribunal setting aside the order of the CIT(A) is confirmed. The order of the Tribunal directing the Revenue to refund the interest collected is also confirmed. Thus, all the Revenue appeals, in view of the reasoning above, are dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
27. Insofar as the assessees' appeals are concerned, the CIT(A) committed a serious error in dismissing six of the appeals filed by the assessee on the ground of delay of five years ignoring the fact that the appeal filed by the assessee challenging the liability itself was set aside. As these pertain to additional levy of interest in respect of the orders passed which are subject-matter of Revenue appeal in this batch. In view of finding in the Revenue appeal the additional levy of interest will not survive and the appeals are accordingly allowed. In respect of eight other appeals, the issue is only the condonation of delay and the orders are for different periods (other than the period covered by the Revenue appeals). In these eight appeals we are satisfied with the cause shown and we condone the delay and remit the matter back to the CIT(A) who shall pass orders in accordance with the directions contained in the connected appeals disposed of above
28. In view of the above, we pass the following order:
(a) The appeals filed by the Revenue in IT Appeal Nos. 532 of 2008, 533 of 2008, 534 of 2008, 1114 of 2008 to 1123 of 2008, 152 of 2009 to 161 of 2009 are dismissed.
(b) The appeals in IT Appeal Nos. 416 of 2010, 417 of 2010, 418 of 2010, 422 of 2010, 423 of 2010 and 424 of 2010 are allowed and the interest levied are deleted.
(c) The appeals in IT Appeal Nos. 419 of 2010, 420 of 2010, 421 of 2010, 425 of 2010, 426 of 2010, 427 of 2010, 428 of 2010 and 429 of 2010 are remanded to the file of the CIT(A) by condoning the delay in filing (the appeals. The CIT(A) shall dispose of the appeals within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.