M/s Micro Turners, Chandigarh V. ACIT, Chandigarh

ITA 1380/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6785 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 15-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 14-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1380/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 M/S MICRO TURNERS, VS THE ACIT, SCO 80-81, CIRCLE 2(1), SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN NO. AABFM5301M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE (APPLICATION REJECTED) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 02.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.10.2017 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH,JM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILIN G THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 05.10.2016 OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-2 AMR ITSAR CAMP AT CHANDIGARH PERTAINING TO 2012-13 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THAT THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A) IS BAD, AGAINST T HE FACTS AND LAW. 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY UPHELD THE REJE CTION OF CLAIM U/S 80IC OF THE APPELLANT UPTO 100% OF ELIGIBLE PROFIT AND INST EAD ALLOWED DEDUCTION UPTO 25% OF ELIGIBLE PROFIT. 3. THAT THE LEARNED AO WRONGLY REJECTED CLAIM U/S 80IC AMOUNTING TO RS. 85,84,467/- 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS MOVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. SR.DR MR. MANJIT SINGH, INVITING ATTENTION TO THE RECORD SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE DISMISSED IN TERMS OF THE DECISION OF THE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN T HE CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS ORDER DATED 08.10.2015 IN ITA 798/CHD/2012 FOLLOWED BY THE CIT(A). THE PERSON PRESENT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICAT ION WAS GIVEN TIME TO SEEK INSTRUCTIONS AND/OR FAMILIARIZE HIMSELF WITH THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE, ACCORDINGLY A PASS OVER WAS GIVEN. HOWEVER, AT THE EN D OF THE BOARD, WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING, NOTHING CONTRARY TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. SR.DR WAS MADE BY THE PERSON PRESENT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION ITA 1380/CHD/2016 A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE 2 OF 2 DID NOT ADDRESS ANY REASON FOR SEEKING TIME. THE LD. SR.D R INVITING ATTENTION TO THE GROUNDS RAISED AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER PAGE 2 P ARA 6 SUBMITTED THAT THE 100% DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80IC HAS BEEN CLAIMED IN R EGARD TO ASSESSEE'S TRACTORS PART DIVISION (TDP) MANUFACTURING UNI T AT PLOT NO. 31, SECTOR 5, PARWANOO. THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF OPER ATION/ACTIVITY BY THE UNDERTAKING IS 04.09.2006 AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE ST ARTED CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IC FROM A Y 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE H AD CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTION U/S 80IC FOR FIVE YEARS ON THIS UNIT AND TO AGAIN CLAIM 100% DEDUCTION U/S 80IC DURING THE SIXTH YEAR I.E. A Y 2 012-13, IT WAS SUBMITTED, WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THE CLAIM OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IN THE F Y 2011-12 WAS DISMISSED BY THE CIT (A) HOLDING AS UNDER : IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IT IS HELD THAT TH E APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED' TO ONLY 25% OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 12-13 BECAUSE THE APPELLANT HAD ALREADY AVAILED THE PERIOD OF FULL DE DUCTION @ 100% IN THE EARLIER FIVE YEARS I.E. FROM A Y 2007-08 TO A Y 2011-12. AC CORDINGLY THE ACTION OF THE AO IN RESTRICTING THE DEDUCTION U/S 801C ON TDP UNIT TO 2 5% INSTEAD OF 100% CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CONFIRMED. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO, 2 & 3 ARE DISMISSED. THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCHES A AND B IN THE CASES OF 20 APPEALS INCLUDING THE APPEAL IN THE CASE OF HYCRON ELECTRONIC, BADDI SOLAN VS ITO IN ITA NO. 798/CHD/2012 IS RELIED UPON. 2.1. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS HIS PRAYER THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE DISMISSED. 3. WE HAVE HEARD SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL A VAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE FACE OF THE ADMITTED FACTS OF RECORD, WE FIN D NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED. THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION, ACCORDINGLY, WAS REJ ECTED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE CIT(A) ALSO, IS DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH OCT., 2017. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (DIVA S INGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT,CHANDIGARH.