M/s G.C. Fibres Ltd., Solan V. DCIT, Parwanoo

ITA 130/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6574 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

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. 130/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 M/S G.C. FIBRES LTD, VS. THE DCIT, VILLAGE SALLEWAL, TEHSIL NALAGRH CIRCLE PARWANOO, H.P. DISTT. SOLAN, H.P. PAN NO. AABCG9898G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. MANOJ KUMAR RESPONDENT BY : SMT. CHANDERKANTA DATE OF HEARING : 27.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.11.2017 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 (APPEALS), [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)], FARIDABAD DATED 01.11.2016 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, BOTH THE LD. R EPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES HAVE FAIRLY AGREED THAT THE ISSUE AD DRESSED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO WHAT HAS BEEN DECIDE D BY THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO. 798/CHD/2012 IN THE CASE OF HYCRON ELECTRONICS VS ITO. 2 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY DERIVES INCOME FROM MANUFACTURING OF LIQUID DETERGE NT. THE ASSESSEE FIRM STARTED ITS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY ON 5.12.200 4 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 2005-06. THE ASSESSEE UNDERTOOK SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IN THE FIN ANCIAL YEAR 2006- 07 AND TREATED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AS INITIAL Y EAR OF CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT TO THE EXTE NT OF 100% ELIGIBLE PROFIT FOR NEXT FIVE YEARS PERIOD FROM ASS ESSMENT YEARS 2007- 08 TO 2011-12. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, HELD THAT THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FIFTH YEAR OF DEDUCTION AND HENCE THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF TREATING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION I.E. 2009-10 AS 3 RD YEAR WAS WRONG. RELYING UPON THE AFORESAID DECISI ON OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF HYCRON ELECTRONICS (SUPRA), T HE CLAIM WAS ALSO REJECTED BY THE CIT(A). IN THE AFOREMENTIONED PECU LIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, SINCE THE ISSUE ON FACTS AND LAW IS IDENTICAL AND IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HYCRON ELECTRONICS VS. ITO (SUPRA), WE FIND THE SUBMISSIO NS TO BE CORRECT; ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.11.2017 SD/- SD/- (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 27.11.2017 RKK 3 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR