M/s. Anand Food & Dairy Products, Anand V. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Anand Circle, Anand

ITA 1063/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8688 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1063/AHD/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 M/S. ANAND FOOD & DAIRY PRODUCTS, CHIKHODRA-SARSA ROAD, CHIKHODRA-388320 PAN : AAEFA 0212 E VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASEEM THAKKAR, AR REVENUE BY : SMT SMITI SAMANT, SR DR ! / DATE OF HEARING : 08.04.2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.04.2019 / O R D E R PER A.D. JAIN, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013- 14, RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-4, VADODARA, ERRED IN LAW A ND / OR ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT, DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE APPE LLANT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(11A) OF THE ACT. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) - 4, VADODARA, ERRED IN LAW AND / OR ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO TO DENY DEDUCTION U/S 8 0IB(11A) OF RS. 1197817/- TO THE APPELLANT @ 25% OF PROFIT AND GAINS FROM BUS INESS AND PROFESSION. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) - 4, VADODARA, ERRED IN LAW A ND / OR ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE 'INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR' IN CASE OF APPEL LANT WAS A.Y. 2002-03, AS PER SECTION 80IB(14)(C)(IV) I.E. THE YEAR IN WHICH THE APPELLANT COMMENCED BUSINESS, AND NOT A.Y. 2005-06 I.E. THE YEAR IN WHICH DEDUCTI ON WAS FIRST INTRODUCED, AND THEREBY DENYING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(11 A) TO THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. [THE APPELLANT HAD, SINCE AY 2 005-06, BEEN CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB (11 A) @ 100% OF PROFITS FOR FIR ST 5 YEARS AND @ 25% OF THE PROFITS FOR THE REMAINING PERIOD OF 5 YEARS AND THI S BEING THE 9TH YEAR (FROM AY 2005-06), THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION @ 25% . THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE CURRENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION B EING THE 12TH YEAR (I.E. BEGINNING FROM AY 2002-03, BEING YEAR OF COMMENCEME NT OF BUSINESS AND 2 ITA NO. 1063/AHD/2017 M/S. ANAND FOOD & DAIRY PRODUCTS VS. DCIT AY : 2013-14 INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR AS PER SECTION 80IB (14)(C) (IV), AS PER AO), THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE SAID DEDUCTION.] 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INTER ALIA MADE ADDITION OF RS.11,97,817/- ON ACCOUNT OF CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80IB(11A) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT' ) @ 25% OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES O WN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2009-10. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE HAS CONTENDED BEFORE US THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A)-4, VADODARA, ERRED IN LA W AND / OR ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE 'INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR' IN CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS A.Y. 2002-03, AS PER SECTION 80IB(14)(C)(IV) I.E. THE YEAR IN WHI CH THE ASSESSEE COMMENCED BUSINESS, AND NOT A.Y. 2005-06 I.E. THE YEAR IN WHI CH DEDUCTION WAS FIRST INTRODUCED, AND THEREBY DENYING THE DEDUCTION U/S 8 0IB(11 A) TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION; THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD, SINCE AY 2005-06, BEEN CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB (11A) @ 100% OF PR OFITS FOR FIRST 5 YEARS AND @ 25% OF THE PROFITS FOR THE REMAINING PERIOD OF 5 YEARS AND THIS BEING THE 9TH YEAR (FROM AY 2005-06), THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DE DUCTION @ 25%; AND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE C URRENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BEING THE 12TH YEAR (I.E., BEGINNING FROM AY 2002-03, BEING YEAR OF COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR AS PER SECTION 80IB (14)(C)(IV), AS PER AO), THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTIT LED TO THE SAID DEDUCTION. 3. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHE R HAND, HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 4. HEARD. FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2009-10, IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, IN ITA NOS. 1828 & 1829/AHD/2014 AND 1422/AHD/2013, AS REPRODUCED IN PARAGRAPH NO. 3.3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, HAS HELD A S FOLLOWS:- AS PER THE DEFINITION, THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR AN UNDERTAKING ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROCESSING, PRESERVATION AND PACKAG ING OF FRUITS OR VEGETABLES 3 ITA NO. 1063/AHD/2017 M/S. ANAND FOOD & DAIRY PRODUCTS VS. DCIT AY : 2013-14 MEANS THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE UNDERTAKING BEGINS SUCH BUSINESS. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEGUN THE BUSINESS OF PROCESSING, PRESERVATION AND PACKAGING OF FRUITS OR VEGETABLES WITH EFFECT FROM 02.06.2001. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO PREVIOUS YEAR 01.04.2001- 31.03.2002 WOULD BE THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN VIEW OR ABOVE, WE AGREE WITH THE FINDING OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE INITI AL ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE E NTITLED TO 100% DEDUCTION ONLY FOR FIRST FIVE YEARS, INCLUDING INITIAL ASSESS MENT YEAR. THIS WILL LAST UP TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSE E WOULD BE ENTITLED TO 25% DEDUCTION FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE PROVISION OF THE ACT SHOULD BE INTERPRETED IN A MANNER WHICH MAKES THE ASSESSEE ENTITLED FOR THE DEDUCTION FOR FULL TEN YE ARS AS INTENDED BY SECTION 80IB(11A). HOWEVER, IN OUR OPINION, WHEN, THE ACT I TSELF HAS DEFINED THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR, THEN WE CANNOT PUT ANY ARTIFICIAL DEFINITION TO THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR BY HOLDING THAT THE INITIAL ASSESSM ENT YEAR WOULD BE 2005-06, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD COMMENCED THE BUSINESS WITH EFFECT FROM 02.06.2001. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT WHEN THE LANGU AGE OF THE STATUTE IS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS, THEN THERE SHOULD BE LITERAL INTERPRET ATION I.E., AS PER THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE. IN THE CASE UNDER APPEAL B EFORE US, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE PROVISION OF STATUTE IS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGU OUS, THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS BEEN DEFINED IN THE ACT AND THEREFORE, THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(11A) IS TO BE ALLOWED AS PER THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE SECTION AS WELL AS PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE DEFINITION OF 'INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR. FROM T HE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF DEFINITION OF INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR, IT IS EVIDENT THAT INIT IAL ASSESSMENT YEAR WOULD BE 2002-03 AND NOT 2005-06 AS CLAIMED BY LD. COUNSEL. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS SUSTAINED.. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEE'S A PPEALS ARE DISMISSED. 5. THE TRIBUNAL ORDER (SUPRA) IN ASSESSEES OWN CAS E FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2009-10 HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN UPSET ON APPEAL. THE FACTS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION REMAINED EXACTLY T HE SAME AS THOSE PRESENT FOR THOSE YEARS. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTL Y FOLLOWED THE SAID TRIBUNAL ORDER TO DECIDE THE MATTER AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. T HUS, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN THIS REGARD. 6. LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FURTHER HELD THAT THE CHARTER ED ACCOUNTANT HAS WRONGLY ISSUED CERTIFICATE AS A PART OF THE AUDIT R EPORT AND FORM NO. 10CCB HAS TO BE IGNORED AND THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS EL IGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(11A) OF THE ACT @ 100% UPTO ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND 4 ITA NO. 1063/AHD/2017 M/S. ANAND FOOD & DAIRY PRODUCTS VS. DCIT AY : 2013-14 @ 25% UPTO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, NO DEDUCTION UN DER SECTION 80IB(11A) OF THE ACT CAN BE ALLOWED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION. THIS FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOT BEEN REBUTTED BEFORE US ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, FINDINGS IN THE ORDER OF T HE LEARNED CIT(A) ARE FOUND TO BE WELL VERSED AND THE SAME IS HEREBY CONF IRMED. THE GRIEVANCE SOUGHT TO BE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE UNJUSTIFIABLE AND THE SAME IS REJECTED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 8 TH APRIL, 2019 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( WASEEM AHMED ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (A.D. J AIN) VICE-PRESIDENT AHMEDABAD; DATED 08/04/2019 **BT ! &'( )(/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. , / CONCERNED CIT 4. , ) ( / THE CIT(A)- 5. ( && , , /DR,ITAT, AHMEDABAD, 6. 5 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 08.04.2019 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER : .. 08.04.2019 3. OTHER MEMBER08.04.2019.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S08.04.2019. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT08.04.2019. 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S08.04.2019 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK08.0 4.2019 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER