M/s Om Plastics, Solan V. ITO, Baddi

ITA 1335/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8379 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 09-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1335/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S OM PLASTICS, VS THE ITO, VILLAGE SWARAJ MAJRA, BADDI (HP). NEAR CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD., BADDI, DISTT. SOLAN (HP). PAN: AABFO4821C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 17.01.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.01.2017 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) FARIDABAD DATED 13.10 .2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN DISALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF SUBSTANT IAL EXPANSION UNDER SECTION 80IC(2) AND CONFIRMING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF INCOME TAX ACT ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF 25% AS AGAINST 100% CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED RS. 13,13,294/- BY RESTRICTING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF 25% AS AGAINST 100% CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE EVEN THOUGH THE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION WAS CARRIED OUT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL BEING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL IS SIXTH YEA R OF THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT. 3. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BE NCH IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS V ITO ( REPOR TED IN 41 ITR/CHD/486) IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT, ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO 25% OF THE DEDUCTION DURING THE PRESENT YEAR BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY AVAILED BENEFIT OF FULL DEDUCTION @ 100% IN EARLIER FIVE YEARS I.E. FROM ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2008-09. 4. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE NOTIFYING THE DATE OF HEARING. THE LD. DR CONTENDE D THAT ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY ORDER OF I TAT CHD BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS (SUPRA). 5. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF SUBMISSION OF LD. DR, I FIND THAT ISSUE IS COVER ED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BE NCH IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS (SUPRA). THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE JUDGEMENT HAS ALREADY BEEN 3 REPRODUCED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. NO INFIRMITY HAV E BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) I N FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NO MERIT, SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSE D. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 17 TH JANUARY,2017. POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH