M/s Sigma Print, Baddi V. DCIT, Circle , Parwanoo

ITA 1701/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8286 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 10B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1701/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 M/S SIGMA PRINT, VS THE DCIT, VPO MANPURA, CIRCLE, TEHSIL-BADDI, PARWANOO. DISTT. SOLAN (HP). PAN : ABKFS6440B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 24.01.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.02.2018 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH,JM T HE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS SAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 24/10/2017 OF CIT(A) SHIMLA (HP) PERTAI NING TO 201415 ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER. DESPITE THAT THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEA L BY THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, IT WAS CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE TO PROCEED WITH THE PRESENT APPEAL EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT ON MERIT S AFTER HEARING THE LD. SR.DR. 3. THE SOLE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRE SENT APPEAL BY THE GROUND WOULD SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE RESTRICT ION OF HIS CLAIM UNDER SECTION 80IC TO 25% AS OPPOSED TO CLAIM OF 100% OF ELIGIBLE PROFITS FROM MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. 4. THE LD. SR. DR HAS BEEN HEARD. 5. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THE ASSESSEE AS PER RECORD WAS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF PRINTED FILM AND HIPS TRAY FROM BA DDI IN H.P. THE CLAIM OF 80IC DEDUCTION @ 100% OF ELIGIBLE PROFITS WAS RESTRICTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO 25% ON THE REASONING THAT THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS THE 6 TH YEAR OF PRODUCTION. THE CLAIM OF HAVING CARRIED OUT SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IN 20 09 10 ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS REJECTED, THE SAID ORDER WAS CONFIRMED IN APPEAL BY THE CIT(A). I T IS SEEN THAT THE SAID ISSUE IS NO LONGER ITA 1701/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2014-15 PAGE 2 OF 2 RES INTEGRA AS THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WHILE DECIDING AN IDENTICAL CLAIM IN THE CASE OF M/S STOVE CRAFT & OTHERS HAS CONSIDERED THE ISSUE I N THE FOLLOWING MANNER: 55. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THESE APPEAL S ARE ALLOWED AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSMENT OFFICER AS WELL AS THE APP ELLATE AUTHORITY AND THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF EACH ONE OF THE ASSESSEES, ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE, HOLDING AS UNDER: (A) SUCH OF THOSE UNDERTAKINGS OR ENTERPRISES WHICH WER E ESTABLISHED, BECAME OPERATIONAL AND FUNCTIONAL PRIOR TO 07/01/2003 AND HAVE UNDERTAKEN SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION BETWEEN 07/01/2003 UPTO 01/04 /2012, SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO BENEFIT OF SECTION 80-IC OF THE ACT, FOR THE PER IOD FOR WHICH THEY WERE NOT ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB. (B) SUCH OF THOSE UNITS WHICH HAVE COMMENCED PRODUCTION AFTER 07/01/2003 AND CARRIED OUT SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION PRIOR TO 01/04/20 12, WOULD ALSO BE ENTITLED TO BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION AT DIFFERENT RATES OF PERCE NTAGE STIPULATED UNDER SECTION 80-IC. (C) SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION CANNOT BE CONFINED TO ONE EXP ANSION. AS LONG AS REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 80-IC (8) (IX) IS MET, THERE CAN BE NUMBER OF MULTIPLE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSIONS. (D) CORRESPONDINGLY, THERE CAN BE MORE THAN ONE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEARS. (E) WITHIN THE WINDOW PERIOD OF 07/01/2013 UPTO 01/04/2 012, AN UNDERTAKING OR AN ENTERPRISE CAN BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION @100% FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN FIVE YEARS. (F) ALL THIS, OF COURSE, IS SUBJECT TO A CAP OF TEN YEARS. [SECTION 80-IC(6)]. (G) UNITS CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IC SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER ANY OTHER SECTION, CONTAINED IN CHAPTER VI-A OR SECTION 10A OR 10B OF THE ACT [SECTION 80-IB(5)]. 5.1. IT IS SEEN THAT THE FACTUM OF CARRYING OUT SUB STANTIAL EXPANSION WAS ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE IN THE FACTS OF THE SAID CASE. THESE FACTS NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE AO IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE AFORESAID DECISION. A CCORDINGLY, IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE RESTORE THE I SSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO GRANT NECESSARY RELIEF IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. S AID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND FEB.,2018. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (DIVA SINGH) 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.