M/s Jain Industries Manufacturing Co., Parwanoo V. DCIT, Parwanoo

ITA 1279/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8219 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 02-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92; 80IC; 80IC

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCHE, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1279/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13) M/S JAIN INDUSTRIES MANUFACTURING CO., NEAR HRTC, KALI MANDIR, SECTOR 1, PARWANOO, (H.P.). PAN-AAFFJ 5907N ( APPELLANT) VS THE D.C.I.T., CIRCLE PARWANOO, H.P. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI MANOJ KUMAR REVENUE BY SHRI MANJIT SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING 27.03.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30.03.2017 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 30.9.2016 OF CIT(APP EALS), SHIMLA PERTAINING TO 2012-13 ASSESSMENT YEAR, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1 . THE ID. CIT(A) IS WRONG IN DISALLOWING THE BENEFI T OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION U/S 801C(2) AND CONFIRMING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IC ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF 25% AS AGAINST 100% BY HOLDING THA T BENEFIT OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IS ALLOWABLE ONLY TO THE UNDE RTAKING WHICH WERE EXISTING AS ON 07.01.2003. 2. IN VIEW OF ABOVE & SUCH OTHER GROUNDS, WHICH M AY BE TAKEN AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE APPEAL MAY PLEASE BE ALLOW ED & JUSTICE RENDERED. 2. IT WAS A COMMON STAND BY THE PARTIES THAT THE IS SUE IS NO LONGER RES INTEGRA AS THE I.T.A.T., CHANDIGARH BENCH IN HYCRON ELECTRONICS VS ITO DATED 27.05.2015 REPORTED IN 41 ITR (TRIB) 486 HAS DISMI SSED IDENTICAL CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEES. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING LPG STOVES AND ITS PARTS IN PARWANOO AND ADMITTEDLY HAD ALREADY CLAIMED 80IC DEDUCTION |@ 100% IN ITS FIRST FIVE YEARS STARTING FROM 2007-08 ASSESSMENT YEAR TO 2011-12 ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE CLAIM OF EXPANSION IN THE 6 TH YEAR ON FACTS WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE DEDUC TION WAS RESTRICTED TO 25% AS THE CLAIM BASED ON REDEFINING OF THE INITIAL YEAR WAS NOT ACCEPTED ON FACTS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE SAID ORDER HAS BEEN UPH ELD BY THE CIT (APPEALS) RELYING UPON THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T. I N THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISTINCTION 2 ON FACTS OR POSITION OF LAW, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T., THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. SAID ORDER WA S PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 30 TH MARCH, 2017 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH