Shri Bhavesh T Prasana, Parwanoo V. DCIT, Circle , Parwanoo

ITA 1039/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6572 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1039/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 SH. BHAVESH T PRASANA, VS. THE DCIT, PARWANOO, H.P. CIRLCE- PARWANOO, H.P. PAN NO. AJSPP0728K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. MANOJ KUMAR RESPONDENT BY : SMT. CHANDERKANTA DATE OF HEARING : 27.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.11.2017 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S), [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)], SHIMLA DATED 25.04.2017 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. BOTH THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES HAVE FAIRLY AGREED THAT THE ISSUE ADDRESSED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS I DENTICAL TO WHAT HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO. 79 8/CHD/2012 IN THE CASE OF HYCRON ELECTRONICS VS ITO. 2 4. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE FIRM IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF LIQUID DETERGENT AND IS PROPRIETOR OF SATOL CHEMICALS. THE ASSESSEE FIRM STARTED ITS MAN UFACTURING ACTIVITY ON 23.11.2006 AND THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) WAS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY C LAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF 100% ELIGIBLE PROFIT FOR FIVE YEARS PERIOD FROM ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2011-12. THE ASSESSEE HAD AGAIN CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTION AGAINST E LIGIBLE PROFIT IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, WHICH WAS 7 TH YEAR OF PRODUCTION BY CLAIMING SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION OF THE UNIT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. RELYING UPON THE AFORESAI D DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF HYCRON ELECTRONICS (SUPRA), THE CLAIM WAS REJECTED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IN THE AFOREMEN TIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, SINCE THE ISSUE ON FACTS A ND LAW IS IDENTICAL AND WE FIND THE SUBMISSIONS TO BE CORRECT; ACCORDIN GLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.11.2017 SD/- SD/- (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 27.11.2017 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR 3