M/s Mahabir Industries, Baddi V. ITO, Parwanoo

ITA 125/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8265 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Section: 80IB; 2

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 124/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S MAHABIR INDUSTRIES, VS. THE ITO, BADDI, (H.P. ) BADDI (H.P.) & ITA NO. 125/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 M/S MAHABIR INDUSTRIES, VS. THE ITO, PARWANOO, (H .P.) BADDI (H.P.) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 07.03.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.03.2017 ORDER BOTH THE APPEALS BY THE SAME ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A), FARIDABAD DATED 02 .11.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AND ORDER OF CIT(A), SHIMLA DATED 24.1 1.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. IN BOTH THE APPEALS THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTI ON U/S 80IC OF THE I.T. ACT. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS ARE THAT LD. CIT(A) I N ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 NOTED THAT ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME AND CLAI MED DEDUCTION U/S 80IC 2 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE STARTED ITS BUSINESS FROM 18.5.1997. THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS BEEN CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IA AND 80IB OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 RIGHT FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 WHICH W AS BEING ALLOWED BY VARIOUS ASSESSING OFFICERS. HOWEVER, DURING THE FI NANCIAL YEAR 2005-06, THE FIRM MADE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION AS PER THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT AND CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTION. DURING THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WAS AR GUED THAT ASSESSEE CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTION FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 TO 2000-01 AND AGAIN 100% DEDUCTION FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 T O 2002-03. THE 100% DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED FOR THE FIRST FIVE ASSES SMENT YEARS. SUBSEQUENTLY, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80 I A / 80IB, 25% DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED US 80IB FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE ARS 2003-04 TO 2005- 06. THIS SHOWS THAT DEDUCTION U/S 80IA / 80-IB WAS CLAIMED FOR EIGHT ASSESSMENT YEARS. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE MADE SUB STANTIAL EXPANSION FOR THE PURCHASE OF MACHINERY DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 200 5-06 AND CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTION U/S 80IC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD BEEN CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB FROM 1998-99 TO 2005-06 (8 YEARS) AND DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80IC WAS ALSO CLAIMED FOR ASS ESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2007-08. IT WAS HELD BY HIM THAT SINCE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY AVAILED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB / 80IC FOR TEN ASSESSMENT YEARS AND AS SUCH, NO DEDUCTION WAS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE BEYOND 10 A SSESSMENT YEARS I.E. AY 2008-09 ONWARDS. HE ACCORDINGLY REJECTED ASSESS EEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT DURING ASSESSMENT YEA R UNDER APPEAL. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER NOTI CED THAT PRESENT YEAR IS THE 13 TH YEAR OF THE OPERATION OF THE UNIT AND, THEREFORE, NO DEDUCTION IS 3 ALLOWABLE U/S 80IC IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 80IC(6) AND ACCORDINGLY DENIED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT DEDUCTION IS AVAILABLE FOR 10 YEARS ONLY. IT IS ALS O NOTED THAT THE SAID ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IN APPEAL HAD ALREADY BEEN ADJU DICATED UPON IN ITA NO. 1217/CHD/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND I TA NO. 791/CHD/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IN ASSESSE ES OWN CASE VIDE ORDER DATED 3.7.2015 WHEREIN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS VS. ITO REPORTED IN 41 ITR (TRIB .) 486 (CHANDIGARH). THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS REPRODUCED IN THE IMPU GNED ORDER. THE LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE ORDER THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE (SUPRA) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AND LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 WAS MUCH BEYOND 10 ASSE SSMENT YEARS. 5. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE THE RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE OF HEARING BY ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. DR, I A M OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. LD. DR CONTENDED THAT ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR PRECEDING YEARS I.E. 2008-09 AND 2009-10 IN WHICH THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE SIMILAR CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRON ICS VS. ITO (SUPRA). 4 THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS ALREADY REPRODUCED IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT ISSUES HAVE ALR EADY BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESSE E ITSELF AS WELL IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS VS. ITO (SUPRA). THE RE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). I, THEREFORE, DISMISS BOT H THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH MARCH 2017. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 16-03-2017 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR