M/s Jindal Plast (India), Solan V. DCIT, Parwanoo

ITA 1071/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8994 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 10-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1071/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S JINDAL PLAST (INDIA), VS THE DCIT, VILLAGE DASSOMAJRA, CIRCLE, BHUD, BADDI, PARWANOO. DISTT. - SOLAN. PAN: AAFFJ5193E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ARMAAN, PROXY C OUNSEL FOR SHRI RAKESH CAJLA. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 15.11.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.11.2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS), SHIMLA DATED 04.08.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN DENYING DEDUCTION UNDER SEC TION 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE FIRM DERIVES INCOME FROM MANUFACTURING OF PLASTIC ARTICL ES. AS PER INFORMATION GIVEN IN FORM NO. 10CCB, THE ASSESS EE STARTED ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITY/OPERATION ON 12.02.20 07 AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDE R 2 SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT WAS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 . THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIO N 80IC OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF 100% ELIGIBLE PROFIT FO R FIVE YEAR PERIOD OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 TO ASSESSMENT YEA R 2011-12. HOWEVER, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAD AGAIN CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTION AGAINST ELIGIBLE P ROFITS IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 WHICH IS 6 TH YEAR OF PRODUCTION OF THE FIRM. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC UPTO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, THE ASSESSEE MADE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IN THE PLANT AND MACHINERY AN D STARTED CLAIMING 100% DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT TREATING ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL AGAIN AS INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT SINCE ASSESSE E CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE AC T FOR FIRST FIVE YEARS FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 TO 20 11-12, IT WAS ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIO N 80-IC @ 25% FOR SIXTH YEAR TO 10 TH YEAR I.E. 2012-13 TO 2016-17. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER DETAILED DISCUSSION IN ASSESSMENT ORDER, RESTRICTED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT AT 25% AS AGAINST 100% CLAI MED BY ASSESSEE. 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) NOTED THAT THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED UPON BY THE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS VS ITO IN ITA 798/CHD/2012 AND OTHER RE LATED 3 CASES ( REPORTED IN 41 ITR (TRIBUNAL)(CHD) 486 ). THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) REPRODUCED THIS ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGA RH BENCH IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN WHICH IT WAS HELD TH AT ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO ONLY 25% OF THE DEDUCTION D URING THE PRESENT YEAR BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY A VAILED THE PERIOD OF FULL DEDUCTION @ 100% IN EARLIER FIVE YEARS I.E. FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 TO 2008-09. THE APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE WAS, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 5. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE CONS IDERING IT COVERED MATTER AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE ASSESSEE'S COUNSEL SHRI RAKESH CAJLA, ADVOCA TE FORWARDED WRITTEN REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT ON THE RE ASON THAT DUE TO PERSONAL ENGAGEMENT, HE COULD NOT APPEA R ON THE DATE OF HEARING. NO POWER OF ATTORNEY HAS BEEN FILED. IT IS NOTED THAT DESPITE THE ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, INSTEAD OF MAKING GENERAL STATEMENT IN THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICA TION, COULD HAVE GRACEFULLY STATED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVE RED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY ORDER OF DIVISION BENCH OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF HYCRON ELECTRONICS (SUPRA). THE REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT IS UNNECESSAR Y, SAME IS ACCORDINGLY, REJECTED. 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS AND SUBMIS SION OF THE LD. DR, I FIND THAT ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY ORDER OF DIVISION BENCH OF ITAT CHANDIG ARH 4 BENCH IN THE CASE OF HYCRON ELECTRONICS (SUPRA). T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, THUS, HAS NO MERIT. SAME I S ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 15 TH NOVEMBER,2016. POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH