M/s Sagar Enterprises, Baddi V. DCIT, Parwanoo

ITA 1005/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8936 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 21-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1005/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 M/S SAGAR ENTERPRISES, VS THE DCIT, VILLAGE KATHA, CIRCLE PARWANOO, BEHIND COCA COLA FACTORY, (H.P.). BADDI, DISTT. SOLAN (HP). PAN: ABFFS6537E & ITA NO. 1006/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 M/S AEROWIN INTERNATIONAL, VS THE DCIT, VILLAGE KATHA, CIRCLE PARWANOO, BEHIND COCA COLA FACTORY, (H.P.). BADDI (HP). PAN: AAIFA8458N & ITA NO. 1007 & 1008/CHD/2016 A.Y.: 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S SANSUI ELECTRONICS, VS THE DCIT, PLOT NO. 10A, CIRCLE PARWANOO, SECTOR 1, PARWANOO, (H.P.). DISTT. SOLAN (HP). PAN: AAXFS7773F & ITA NO. 1009/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 M/S K.T. INC, VS THE DCIT, VILLAGE GUMMA, CIRCLE ,PARWANOO, DISTT. SOLAN(HP). (H.P.). BADDI (HP). PAN: AAHFK9210H ITA NO. 1010/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 M/S STOVEKRAFT INDIA, VS THE DCIT, 307/2, VILLAGE BURANWALA, CIRCLE ,PARWANOO, BAROTIWALA,BADDI, (H.P.). DISTT. SOLAN (HP). PAN: AAZFS6497G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) 2 APPELLANT BY : SHRI MANOJ KUMAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 14.12.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.12.2016 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS ORDER SHALL DISPOSE OFF ALL THE ABOVE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF LD. CIT(APPEALS), SHIMLA FOR ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 2. IN ALL THE APPEALS, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ORDE RS OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN CONFIRMING THE DEDUCTION UND ER SECTION 80IC OF INCOME TAX ACT ONLY TO THE EXTENT O F 25% AS AGAINST 100% BY HOLDING THAT BENEFIT OF SUBSTANT IAL EXPANSIONS ALLOWABLE ONLY TO THE UNDERTAKINGS WHICH WERE EXISTING AS ON 07.01.2003. 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEES HAVE CLAIMED DEDUCTIONS UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE A CT TO THE EXTENT OF 100% ELIGIBLE PROFIT FOR THE FIRST FIVE YEARS. HOWEVER, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEES H AVE ALSO CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTION AGAINST THE ELIGIBLE PR OFIT EVEN AFTER FIVE YEARS PERIOD. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER AFTER DISCUSSING ISSUE AT LENGTH HELD THAT ASSESSEES ARE ENTITLED FOR 25% OF THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I C OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER AP PEAL BECAUSE THE SAME ARE BEYOND FIVE YEARS PERIOD AND ACCORDINGLY, RESTRICTED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDE R 3 SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF 25% AS AGA INST 100% CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEES. 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE SAID ISSUE H AS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED UPON BY JURISDICTIONAL ITA T CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRON ICS VS ITO ( REPORTED IN 41 ITR (CHD) 486 IN WHICH IT W AS HELD THAT, ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO ONLY 25% OF THE DEDUCTION DURING THE PRESENT YEAR BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY AVAILED THE PERIOD OF FULL DEDUCTION @ 100% IN EARLIER FIVE YEARS I.E. FROM ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004- 05 TO 2008-09. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) REPRODUCED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS AND DISMISSED T HE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE APPEARING FOR ASSESSEES HAS ADMITTED THAT ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINS T THE ASSESSEES BY ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS (SUPRA). 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES , WE ARE OF THE VIEW NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE MATTER. THE ASSESSEES HAVE ALREADY CLAIMED DEDUCTI ON UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF 100% IN FIRST FIVE YEARS. THEREFORE, FOR THE REMAINING PER IOD, ASSESSEES WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SEC TION 80IC TO THE EXTENT OF 25% ONLY AS AGAINST CLAIM OF 100% DEDUCTION. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THEREFORE, RIGHTLY FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE 4 OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS (SUPRA). NO INFIRMITY HA S BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS FOR FOLLOWI NG THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. NO INTERFERENCE IS, THE REFORE, CALLED FOR. THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE NO MER IT. SAME ARE, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF DIFFERENT ASSE SSEES ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- ( ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (BHAVNESH SAINI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 14 TH DECEMBER, 2016. POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT/CHD