J.M. Remedies, Solan V. DCIT, Circle , Parwanoo

ITA 1172/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6583 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 25-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ARSH KAUSHAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1172/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S J.M. REMEDIES, VS. THE DCIT, MOMOOR COMPLEX, CIRCLE PARWANOO DISTT.SOLAN PAN NO. AABCT6450F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. ARSH KAUSHAL RESPONDENT BY : SMT. CHANDERKANTA DATE OF HEARING : 21.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.11.2017 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S), [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)], SHIMLA DATED 08.11.2015 RE LATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE APPEAL IS BARRED BY LIMITATION WITH A DELAY OF 199 DAYS. NO APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY HAS BEEN FILED ALONGWITH THE APPEAL. EVEN A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ALSO ISSUED T O THE ASSESSEE BY THE REGISTRY AS TO WHY THE APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE DIS MISSED AS TIME BARRED. HOWEVER, AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN MOVED 2 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT REGISTRY HAS POI NTED OUT DEFECTS WHICH HAVE BEEN INFORMED TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THE PA RTNER MR. SANDEEP SHARMA, WHO HAD TO SIGN THE REQUIRED DOCUME NTS WAS NOT AVAILABLE DUE TO SOME PERSONAL FAMILY ENGAGEMENTS. WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION IN THE SAID APPLICATION. THE APPL ICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY WAS SUPPOSED TO BE FILED ALONG WITH THE APPEAL STATING THEREIN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE REASONS B ECAUSE OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE APPEAL IN TIME. DES PITE A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE GIVEN BY THE REGISTRY, NO APPLICATION FOR CO NDONATION OF DELAY HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASONS TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND THE APPEA L IS, THUS, DISMISSED BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION. 3. EVEN ON MERITS OF THE CASE, BOTH THE LD. REPRESE NTATIVES OF THE PARTIES HAVE FAIRLY AGREED THAT 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 ITO. 4. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE FIRM IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS . THE ASSESSEE FIRM STARTED ITS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY ON 25.05.20 06 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 SECTIO N 80IC OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF 100% ELIGIBLE PROFIT FOR FIVE YEAR S PERIOD FROM ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2011-12. THE ASSESSEE HAD AGAIN CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTION AGAINST ELIGIBLE PROFIT IN T HE RELEVANT 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, WHICH WAS 6 TH YEAR OF PRODUCTION BY CLAIMING SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION OF THE UNIT IN ASSES SMENT YEAR 2010- 11. RELYING UPON THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE ITA T IN THE CASE OF HYCRON 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 W E FIND THE SUBMISSIONS TO BE CORRECT; ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULL Y FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, 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 23.11.2017 SD//- SD/- (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 23 .11.2017 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR