Ruby Singla, Solan V. DCIT, Circle, Parwanoo

ITA 1084/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6640 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 28-06-2017
• 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.1084/CHD/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14) RUBY SINGLA VS. THE D.C.I.T., C/O IMPERIAL HOME APPLIANCES, CIRCLE- PARWANOO, VILLAGE KOTLI, P.O. JABLI, PARWANOO. TEHSIL KASAULI, DISTT. SOLAN H.P. PAN: ACBPS1626F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SURINDER BABBAR, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SIGH, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 16.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.11.2017 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 27.4.2017 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. 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. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS SOLE PROPRIETOR OF M/S IMPERIAL HOME APPLIANCES AND ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF ELECTRIC/GA S GEYSERS, LPG, GAS STOVES ETC. THE ASSESSEE FIRM ST ARTED ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITY/OPERATION ON 24.9.2007 AND TH E 2 INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) WAS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 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 2008-09 TO 2012-13. THE ASSESSEE H AD AGAIN CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTION AGAINST ELIGIBLE PROFI T IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, WHICH WAS 6 TH YEAR OF PRODUCTION BY CLAIMING SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION OF THE UNIT IN RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. RELYING UPON THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF H YCRON 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. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.11.2017. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GA RG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 16 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 3