M/s Iskon Remedies, Sirmour V. DCIT, Circle, Shimla

ITA 1149/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5345 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 17-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGHSR
• Section: 10B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO 1149/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 M/S ISKON REMEDIES, VS. THE DCIT, VILLAGE OGLI, KALA AMB, CIRCLE, DISTT. SIRMOUR (HP). SHIMLA (HP). PAN NO. AABFI9476R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ATUL GOYAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH,SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 14.12.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.01.2018 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSA ILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 24/05/2017 OF CIT-A SH IMLA PERTAINING TO 2013 14 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER UPHELD BY THE WORTHY CIT(A) IS BEING CHALLENGED ON THE GROUND OF IT BEIN G ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY & HAVING BEEN PASSED IN HASTE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE JUDICIAL PR ONOUNCEMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPELLANT PROCEE DINGS. 2. THAT THE ORDER OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER UPHELD BY T HE WORTHY CIT(A) ERRED IN FACTS & IN LAW IN NOT CONSIDERING THE AY 2 013-14 AS 2 ND ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/ S 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON THE BASIS OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION CARRIED OUT IN AY 2012-13 & THEREFORE THE SAID ORDER DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE. 3. THAT THE WORTHY CIT(A) ERRED IN FACTS & IN LAW IN U PHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT U/ S 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 & THEREFORE THE SAID ORDER DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE. 2. IT WAS A COMMON STAND OF THE PARTIES BEFORE THE BEN CH THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT DATED 28/11/2017 IN THE CASE OF M/S STOVE C RAFT INDIA VERSUS CIT-V AND OTHERS IN ITA 20 TO 24/2015. ACCORDINGLY THE ISSUE MAY BE REMANDED TO THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO GRANT NECESSARY RELIEF IN TERMS OF THE DIRECTION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT CONSIDERING THE PE CULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASS ESSEE IN THE FACTS OF ITA-1149-2017 A.Y. 2013-14 PAGE 2 OF 3 THE PRESENT CASE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFAC TURING ACTIVITY OF PRODUCTS; I) DRY INJECTION, II) LIQUID INJECTION AND: III) EYEDROPS AT VILLAGE OGLI, KALA AMB DISTT. SIRMOUR. ON THE SAID ACTIVITY 80IC DEDUC TION HAD BEEN CLAIMED AND ALLOWED @ 100% OF THE ELIGIBLE PROFITS FOR TH E INITIAL 5 YEARS. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED SUBSTANTIAL EXPA NSION ON 17.03.2012. THE SAID CLAIM FOR GRANT OF DEDUCTION @ 100% WA S NOT ACCEPTED AS THE PRESENT YEAR BEING THE 7 TH YEAR, DEDUCTION WAS RESTRICTED TO 25% BY THE AO WHICH ORDER WAS UPHELD BY THE CAT(A) SINC E THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE AFORESAID DECISION CONSIDER ED THE FACTS OF THE SPECIFIC CASE IN PARA 51 AND CONSIDERING THE SAM E CAME TO THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSION:- 55. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THESE APPEAL S ARE ALLOWED AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSMENT OFFICER AS WELL AS THE APP ELLATE AUTHORITY AND THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF EACH ONE OF THE ASSESSEES, ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE, HOLDING AS UNDER: (A) SUCH OF THOSE UNDERTAKINGS OR ENTERPRISES WHICH WER E ESTABLISHED, BECAME OPERATIONAL AND FUNCTIONAL PRIOR TO 07/01/2003 AND HAVE UNDERTAKEN SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION BETWEEN 07/01/2003 UPTO 01/04/2012, SHOUL D BE ENTITLED TO BENEFIT OF SECTION 80-IC OF THE ACT, FOR THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THEY WERE NOT ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB. (B) SUCH OF THOSE UNITS WHICH HAVE COMMENCED PRODUCTION AFTER 07/01/2003 AND CARRIED OUT SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION PRIOR TO 01/04/20 12, WOULD ALSO BE ENTITLED TO BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION AT DIFFERENT RATES OF PERCENTA GE STIPULATED UNDER SECTION 80- IC. (C) SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION CANNOT BE CONFINED TO ONE EXP ANSION. AS LONG AS REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 80-IC (8) (IX) IS MET, THERE CAN BE NUMBER OF MULTIPLE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSIONS. (D) CORRESPONDINGLY, THERE CAN BE MORE THAN ONE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEARS. (E) WITHIN THE WINDOW PERIOD OF 07/01/2013 UPTO 01/04/2 012, AN UNDERTAKING OR AN ENTERPRISE CAN BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION @100% FO R A PERIOD OF MORE THAN FIVE YEARS. (F) ALL THIS, OF COURSE, IS SUBJECT TO A CAP OF TEN YEARS. [SECTION 80-IC(6)]. (G) UNITS CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IC SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER ANY OTHER SECTION, CONTAINED IN CHAPTER VI-A OR SECTION 10A OR 10B OF THE ACT [SECTION 80-IB(5)]. 4. IT IS SEEN THAT THE FACTS OF THE SAID CASE WERE NOT IN DISPUTE AS THE FACT OF EXPANSION HAVING BEEN CARRIED OUT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE. SINCE ADMITTEDLY THE FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE P ARTIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. ACCORDINGLY IN T ERMS OF THE PRAYER OF THE PARTIES WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDE R IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUN ITY OF BEING HEARD. ITA-1149-2017 A.Y. 2013-14 PAGE 3 OF 3 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04.01.2018. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT CHANDIGARH |