M/s Shrishti Technologies, Baddi V. JCIT, Range, Solan

ITA 1163/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6637 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 21-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO 1163/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 M/S SHRISHTI TECHNOLOGIES, VS. THE JOINT CIT, PLOT NO. 123, EPIP PHASE-1, RANGE-SOLAN. JHARMAJRI, BADDI, DISTT. SOLAN (HP). PAN NO. ABAFS7294P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MANOJ KUMAR, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 30.10.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.11.2017 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASS AILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 20.05.2017 OF LD. CIT (APP EALS) SHIMLA PERTAINING TO 2011-12 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE ID. CIT(A) IS WRONG IN DISALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION U/S 80IC(2) IN RESPECT TO UNIT-I BY HOLDING THAT BENEFI T OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IS ALLOWABLE ONLY TO THE UNDERTAKING WHICH WERE EXISTI NG AS ON 07.01.2003. 2. THE ID. CIT(A) IS WRONG IN DISALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION U/S 80IC(2) IN RESPECT TO UNIT-II BY HOLDING THAT BENEF IT OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IS ALLOWABLE ONLY TO THE UNDERTAKING WHICH WERE EXISTI NG AS ON 07.01.2003. 2. THE LD. AR INVITING ATTENTION TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER AN D THE ORDER OF THE AO SUBMITTED THAT ON FACTS, THERE IS NO DISPUTE IN AS MUCH AS DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF 100% HAS BEEN RESTRICTED TO 25%. THE ASSES SEE WHO IS MANUFACTURING ELECTRIC FANS I.E WALL FANS AND TABLE FANS WHEREIN UNIT-1 IS SHOWING A LOSS AND UNIT-2 IS SHOWING A PROFIT. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT CLAIM OF 100% DEDUCTION WAS MADE IN THE 7 TH YEAR OF PRODUCTION, FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRO NICS V ITO DATED 27.05.2015 IN ITA 798/CHD/2012, THE CLAIM WAS RESTRICTED TO 25%. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THOUGH THE ISSUE IS BEFORE THE HON'B LE HIGH COURT, HOWEVER, AS FAR AS THE PRESENT FORUM IS CONCERNED, THE A PPEAL MAY BE DISMISSED FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT. AT THE SAME TIME, IT MAY BE NOTED THAT ITA 1163/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 2 OF 2 THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN UP THE ISSUE AND WOULD BE C ONTESTING THE ISSUE FURTHER. 3. THE LD. SR.DR CONSIDERING THE ABOVE MENTIONED REQUEST, AGREED THAT THE APPEAL HAS TO BE DISMISSED . IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBM ISSIONS OF THE PARTIES BEFORE THE BENCH, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. IT IS A COMMON STAND OF THE PARTIES THAT ISSUE IS COVERED BY T HE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS V ITO (SUPRA). WH ILE SO HOLDING, IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CONTESTING THE ISSUE AT THE HIGHER FORUM. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.11. 2017. 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.