Usaka Electricals, Parwanoo V. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Parwanoo

ITA 1408/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8353 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• 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 SMC BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1408/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S USAKA ELECTRICALS, VS THE DCIT, PLOT NO. 30, SECTOR-1, CIRCLE PARWANOO, PARWANOO,DISTT. SOLAN, PARWANOO. (H.P.). PAN: AABFU6800B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SURINDER BABB AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 02.02.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.02.2017 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) SHIMLA DATED 27.09.20 16 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF L D. CIT(APPEALS) IN NOT ALLOWING 100% DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF INCOME TAX ACT AFTER THE SUBSTANTIA L EXPANSION UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE BY TREATING TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS THE 8 TH YEAR OF SUCH CLAIM AND ALLOWING 25% DEDUCTION ON THE PROFITS DERIVED F ROM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. 2 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE FIRM DERIVES INCOME FROM MANUFACTURING OF ELECTRICAL GOO DS AND COMPONENTS. THE ASSESSEE STARTED BUSINESS OPERATION ON 16.11.2004 AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT WA S ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF 100% OF THE ELIGIBLE PROFITS FOR FIRST FI VE YEAR PERIOD FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2009-10, HOWEVER, IT WAS NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE FIRM HAD AGAIN CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTION AGAINST ELIGIBLE PROFI TS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL WHICH IS THE EIGHTH YE AR OF THE PRODUCTION OF THE FIRM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER DETAILED DISCUSSION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, RESTRI CTED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE AC T TO 25% AS AGAINST 100% CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) NOTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY ORDER OF ITAT CHAND IGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS VS ITO ( REPORTED IN 41 ITR (CHD) 486 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT, ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO ONLY 25% OF THE DEDUCTION DURING THE PRESENT YEAR BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY AVAIL ED THE PERIOD OF FULL DEDUCTION @ 100% IN EARLIER FIVE YEA RS I.E. FROM ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2008-09. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) REPRODUCED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL I N THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND DISMISSED THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 4. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES STAT ED THAT ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS (SUPRA). THEREFORE, THERE IS NO INFIRM ITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND RESTRICTING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF 25% ONLY. 5. THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 2 ND FEBRUARY,2017. POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH