Light Engineering Corporation, Parwanoo V. ITO, Ward, Parwanoo

ITA 1206/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6639 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 07-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1206/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 M/S LIGHT ENGINEERING CORP., VS. THE ITO, VILLAGE KAMLI,KHADEEN, WARD-PARWANOO, PARWANOO, DISTT. SOLAN. PARWANOO. PAN NO. AACFL2644R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. CHANDER KANTA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 02.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.11. 2017 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSA ILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 30.05.2017 OF LD. CIT (APP EALS) SHIMLA PERTAINING TO 2012-13 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. A.O. AND THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONCURRENCE WITH THAT OF THE LD. A.O. IS WRONG, AGAINST FACTS AND LAW. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), SHIMLA, HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONCURRENCE WITH THE LD. A.O. IN NOT ALLOWING 100% DEDUCTION UNDER S. 80IC AFTER THE FIRST SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE BY TREATING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS THE 9 TH YEAR OF SUCH CLAIM AND ALLOWING 25% DEDUCTION ON THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAK ING RESULTING IN A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,34,320/-. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), SHIMLA, HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONCURRENCE WITH THE LD. A.O. IN INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION AND DEFINING TH E INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER S. 80IC OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER. IN THE PASS OVE R ALSO, THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED. THE LD. SR.DR INVITING ATTENTION TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DREW SPECIFIC ATTENTION TO PARA 14 OF THE ORDER SO AS TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY DECISION OF THE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS VS ITO, BADD I ITA NO. 326/CHD/2015. ACCORDINGLY, IN VIEW OF THE AFOREMENTIONED LEG AL POSITION, IT WAS DEEMED APPROPRIATE TO PROCEED WITH THE PRESENT AP PEAL EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT ON MERITS. ITA-1206-2017 A.Y.2012-13 PAGE 2 OF 2 3. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE STARTED ITS MA NUFACTURING ACTIVITIES W.E.F. 24.09.2003 AND THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR CLAIM OF DE DUCTION U/S 80IC WAS 2004-05. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY CLAIMED DE DUCTION U/S 80IC TO THE EXTENT OF 100% OF ITS ELIGIBLE PROFIT FOR FIVE YEARS FROM 20 04-05 TO 2008-09 ASSESSMENT YEARS. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT 100% DEDUC TION AGAINST ELIGIBLE PROFITS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH IS THE 9 TH YEAR OF PRODUCTION FOR THE FIRM HAD BEEN CLAIMED ON THE BASIS OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPE NSES CARRIED OUT IN 2009-10 ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION TO THE EXTENT OF 25%. THE TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE FOLLOWED ORDE R OF THE AFOREMENTIONED ORDER OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCR ON ELECTRONICS (SUPRA). IN THE FACTS AS THEY STAND, I FIND NO INFIRMITY IN TH E ORDER. THE ASSESSEE'S GROUNDS, ACCORDINGLY ARE REJECTED. 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.