Hycron Electronics, Solan V. DCIT, Parwanoo

ITA 108/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6874 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 12-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G K DHALL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.108/CHD/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14) HYCRON ELECTRONICS, VS. THE D.C.I.T., PLOT NO.35, EPIP-II, CIRCLE PARWANOO. VILLAGE THANA, BADDI, SOLAN. HIMACHAL PRADESH. PAN: AADFH1249K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE (APPLICATION) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G.K. DHALL, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 26.09.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.09.2017 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 28.10.2016 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14.. 2. AT THE OUTSET IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT AN APPL ICATION FOR SEEKING ADJOURNMENT OF THE CASE HAS BEEN FILED ON BEHALF OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE ST ATING THAT THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE WAS NOT AVAILABLE ON T HE FIXED DATE OF HEARING IN THE MATTER. HOWEVER, NONE HAS C OME PRESENT TO ATTEND TO THE PROCEEDINGS. SINCE NO PLAU SIBLE REASON WAS GIVEN FOR ADJOURNING THE CASE AND FURTHE R IT WAS FOUND THAT ON EARLIER OCCASION ALSO, ADJOURNMENT HA D BEEN SOUGHT BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSE SSEE, IT 2 APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUIN G THE APPEAL AND, THEREFORE, ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION FILE D ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED AND WE PROCEED T O DECIDE THE CASE ON MERITS. 3. COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE ADDRESSED IN THE PRESENT A PPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO WHAT HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE CO-ORD INATE BENCH IN ITA NO. 798/CHD/2012 IN THE CASE OF HYCRON ELECTRONICS VS ITO. 4. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF ASSEMBLIES & SUB ASSEMBLIES FOR ELECTRONIC ENERGY METERS AND ALLIED PRODUCTS W.E.F. 17.1.2004 AND THE INITIAL ASSESSMEN T YEAR FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) WAS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004- 05. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SE CTION 80IC OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF 100% ELIGIBLE PROF IT FOR FIVE YEARS PERIOD FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 TO 2008- 09. THE ASSESSEE HAD AGAIN CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTION AGAINST ELIGIBLE PROFIT IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, WHICH WAS 10 TH YEAR OF PRODUCTION BY CLAIMING SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION OF THE UNIT IN ASSESSMENT YEA R 2009-10. RELYING UPON THE AFORESAID DECISION OF TH E ITAT IN THE CASE OF HYCRON ELECTRONICS (SUPRA), THE CLAI M WAS REJECTED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IN THE AFOREMEN TIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, SINCE THE ISSUE O N FACTS AND LAW IS IDENTICAL AND WE FIND THE SUBMISSIONS TO BE 3 CORRECT; ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PR ECEDENT, 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 26.09.2017. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 26 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH