ITO, Panchkula V. M/s Surya Telecom Pvt. Ltd., Panchkula

ITA 1021/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86160 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1021/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 THE ITO, VS M/S SURYA TELECOM P.LTD., WARD 4, SCO 36, SECTOR 3, PANCHKULA. PANCHKULA. PAN: AAHCS3041F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AJAY JAGGA DATE OF HEARING : 05.02.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.02.2015 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDE R OF LD. CIT(APPEALS), PANCHKULA DATED 29.09.2014 FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2011-12, CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF ASSESSEE'S CLAIM UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 28,38,884/-. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE IS HAVING TWO UNITS, ONE AT PAN CHKULA WHICH HAS TAXABLE INCOME AND OTHER AT PARWANOO IN H IMACHAL PRADESH FOR WHICH DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF T HE ACT HAS BEEN CLAIMED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT DUR ING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSE SSEE WERE CONSIDERED IN DETAIL AND ON THE BASIS OF FINDINGS G IVEN, 2 ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE UN DER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ITAT CHANDI GARH BENCH HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE ON THE SAME ISSUE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED APPEAL IN THE HIGH COURT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, TO KEEP THE CONSISTENCY OF THIS ISSUE AND KEEPING WITH THE STAN D OF THE DEPARTMENT REGARDING NON ALLOWABILITY OF THE DEDUCT ION UNDER SECTION 80IC, DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE UNDE R SECTION 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFOR E LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07, 2005 -06 AND 2004-05, THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS LD. CIT(APPEALS) H AS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOLLOWING HIS ORDER FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 DATED 30.11.2009 ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITION. 4. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL. THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IN ITA NO. 182/2010 IN WHICH DEPARTMEN TAL APPEAL ON THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DISMISSED VI DE ORDER DATED 30.08.2010 AND THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEA LS) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 DATED 30.11.2009 IS MAINTAI NED. SAME VIEW IS TAKEN IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS 20 05-06 AND 2004-05. COPIES OF THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE FILED ON RECORD. IT APPEARS THAT ASSESSING OFFICER, ON THE BASIS OF THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN EARLIER YEAR HAS MADE THE SIMILAR ADDITION IN ORDER TO TAKE A CONSISTENT VIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT. NO FRESH 3 MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD AGAINST THE ASS ESSEE. SINCE THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN EAR LIER YEAR, THEREFORE, MERELY BECAUSE FILE IS PENDING IN HON'BL E HIGH COURT, IS NO GROUND TO REVERSE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEAL S). WE, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE ORDERS FOR THE PRECEDING A SSESSMENT YEARS, DISMISS THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL. 5. IN THE RESULT, DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH FEBRUARY,2015. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 10 TH FEBRUARY,2015. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH