DCIT, Circle, Parwanoo V. M/s Yash International, Baddi

ITA 1347/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5365 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 08-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH ABROL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES 'B', CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER& DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.L347/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13 THE DY.CIT, VS. M/S YASH INTERNATIONAL, CIRCLE, PARWANOO PLOT NO. 3, BEHINE COCA COLA FACTORY, BADDI SOLAN(H.P.) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. ASHISH ABROL, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 10.01.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.01.2018 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE RE VENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17/07/2017 OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'CIT(A)' ], SHIMLA, H.P. RELATING TO THE CANCELLATION OF PENALTY LEVIED BY ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271(L)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 1961 ( IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 2. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE IN THE AB OVE APPEAL IS THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT @100% ON ACCOUNT OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION OF THE UNIT. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, DENIED THE CLAIM OBSERVING THAT A SSESSEE ONCE HAD AVAILED THE DEDUCTION U/S 801C AT THE TIME OF ESTABLISHMENT OF UNIT AND THUS WAS NOT ENTITLED TO 100% DEDUCTION SUBSEQUENTLY ON ACCOUNT OF SUBSTANTIAL EX PANSION. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO INITIATED PENALTY PR OCEEDINGS AND LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT ON ACCO UNT OF WRONGFUL CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ON THIS ISSUE. 3. THE LD. C1T(A), HOWEVER, DELETED THE PENALTY OBSERV ING THAT IT WAS NOT A CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ON CONCEALMENT OF INCOME WHICH IS THE PRE - CONDITION FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C) OF TH E ACT. THE REVENUE IS, THUS, IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGITATING THE ABOVE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE IMPUGNED PENALTY. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF T HE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISS IONS, AND IT MAY BE OBSERVED THAT THE ISSUE ON MERITS REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT @ 100% ON ACCOUNT OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION OF THE UNIT HAS BEEN SETTLED BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VIDE THEIR ORDER DATED 28.11.2017 IN THE GROUP OF CASES WITH THE HEAD CASE TITLED AS M/S STO VEKRAFT INDIA VS, CIT, ITA NO.20 OF 2015 WHEREIN THE HON'BL E HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE PROVISI ONS OF THE ACT IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 801C OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION OF THE UNIT. E VEN OTHERWISE, WE DO NOT FIND THAT THIS IS A CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE BONAF IDE BELIEF CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. 6. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE AFORESAID PENALTY IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE REV ENUE AND THE SAME IS HEREBY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT SD/- SD/- (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR