M/s Rubykon Manufacturing Co., Kala Amb V. DCIT, Circle , Shimla

ITA 1077/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6660 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 27-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1077/CHD/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14) M/S RUBYKON MANUFACTURING CO., VS. THE D.C.I.T., OGLI, KALA AMB, DISTT. SIRMOUR, SHIMLA. DISTT. NAHAN. PAN: AAJFR0316D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SIGH, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 15.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.11.2017 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS )-, SHIMLA (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)) DATED 26.4.2017 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING TODAY I.E. ON 15.11.2017 FOR WHICH DATE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ON THE APPOINT ED DATE OF HEARING NONE HAS COME PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE A SSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION HAS BEEN MOVED FOR ADJOURNMENT. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PUR SUING THE APPEAL. HENCE, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR. 2 3. COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, BOTH THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES HAVE FAIRLY AGREED T HAT THE ISSUE ADDRESSED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO WHAT HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO . 798/CHD/2012 IN THE CASE OF HYCRON ELECTRONICS VS I TO. 4. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE FIRM WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING O F CORRUGATION BOXES USED IN PACKAGING. THE ASSESSEE F IRM STARTED ITS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY ON 8.4.2006 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 CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF 100% ELIGIBLE PROFIT FOR FIVE YEARS PERI OD FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 TO 2011-12. THE ASSESSEE H AD AGAIN CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTION AGAINST ELIGIBLE PROFI T IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, WHICH WAS 7 TH YEAR OF PRODUCTION BY CLAIMING SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION OF THE UNIT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. RELYING UPON THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF HYCRO N ELECTRONICS (SUPRA), THE CLAIM WAS REJECTED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IN THE AFOREMENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, SINCE THE ISSUE ON FACTS AND LAW IS IDENTICAL AND WE FIND THE SUBMISSIONS TO BE CORRECT ; ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 3 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15.11.2017. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GA RG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 15 TH NOVEMBER, 2017 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH