M/s ASA Biotech, Baddi V. DCIT, Circle , Parwanoo

ITA 1192/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6641 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 02-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVIENDER KUMAR SHARMA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1192/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 2013-14 M/S ASA BIOTECH, VS. THE DCIT, PLOT NO. 124, HPSIDC, CIRCLE, INDL. AREA, BADDI, PARWANOO. DISTT. SOLAN (HP). PAN : AAMFA3779Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAVIENDER KUMAR SHARMA RESPONDENT BY : SMT. CHANDER KANTA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 01.11.2017 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 CIT(A) SHIMLA PERTAINING TO 2013-14 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE INSTANT YEAR AS THE 3 TH YEARS OF ITS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 AND THEREBY ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION @25% ONLY TO THE TUNE OF RS 1121132/- AND DISALLOWING THE REMAINING DEDUCTION CLAIMED TO THE TUNE OF RS 336S399/-. FACT OF THE MA TTER IS THAT AFTER SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11 THIS IS THE 3RD YEAR OF THE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND AS SUCH 100% OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. AS THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE ANALOGOUS TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE DECIDED BY THE ITAT, CHANDIGARH NAMELY M/S INDO FARM EQUIPMENT LIMITED. 2. IT WAS COMMON STAND OF THE PARTIES BEFORE THE BENCH THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS IT IS THE 8 TH YEAR OF THE PRODUCTION OF THE FIRM WHERE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION HAS BEEN CLAIMED IN FINANCIA L YEAR 2010- 11. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IT MAY NOT BE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN GIVEN UP BY THE ASSESSEE AS ASSESSEE WOULD CARRY THE ISSUE FURTHER TO THE HIGH COURT. THE LD. SR.DR RELIES UPON THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE FIRM DERIVES INCOME FROM MANUFACTURING OF PHARMA PRODUCTS AT BADDI. 1 00% CLAIM OF ELIGIBLE PROFITS AS DEDUCTION U/S 80IC WAS CLAIMED. THE CLAIM W AS RESTRICTED TO 25% OF THE ELIGIBLE PROFIT AS 100% DEDUCTION O F ELIGIBLE PROFITS FOR FIVE YEARS FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 TO 2010-11 STOOD ALREADY ITA-1192/CHD//2017 A.Y 2013-14 PAGE 2 O F 2 CLAIMED AND ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE CLAIM WAS RESTR ICTED RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF HYCRON ELECT RONICS V ITO, ITA 798/CHD/2012 DATED 27.05.2015. THERE BEING NO CHANGE IN FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND POSITION OF LAW, I FIND NO GOOD REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDING ARRIVED AT IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES BEFORE THE BENCH. 4. IN THE RESULT, 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.