M/s Aditya Industries, Sirmour V. JCIT, Solan

ITA 198/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8203 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 31-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 198/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 M/S ADITYA INDUSTRIES, VS JCIT, SOLAN RANGE, VILLAGE RAMPUR JATTAN, SOLAN. NAHAN ROAD, KALA AMB, TEH. NAHAN, DISTT. SIRMOUR. PAN: AAKFA1378H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S.K. MITTAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 21.03.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.03.2017 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS), SHIMLA DATED 30.11.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I. THAT THE LD. COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE REDUCTION OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE AC T TO 25% AS AGAINST 100% CLAIMED RESULTING IN A DISALLOW ANCE OF RS. 29,29,231/- AS THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTEDLY CARRIED OUT SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION WHICH MAKES THE U NIT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION @ 100% AND AS SUCH NON ALLOW ANCE OF DEDUCTION AT 100% IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNJU STIFIED. II. THAT THE LD. COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO CONSTRUE THE BENEVOLENT PROVISIONS AS ENA CTED IN CHAPTER VI OF THE ACT IN A HARMONIOUS AND LIBERAL M ANNER ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE ARE DECISIONS OF VARIOUS COUR TS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AS SUCH UPHOLDING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. III. THAT THE LD. COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS, ARBITRARY, OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS OF T HE CASE AND IS, THUS, UNTENABLE. 2. I HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES BOTH THE PARTIE S AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 3 ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING NIL I NCOME ON 26.09.2011 AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 8 0IC 2 AMOUNTING TO RS. 43,58,038/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTE D FOR SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS. THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF M.S. INGOTS, M.S. BARS, M.S. PATTI , M.S. ANGLES & M.S. CHANNELS ETC. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICED BY ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE STAR TED ITS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES W.E.F. 05/09/2005 I.E. DUR ING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 AND HAD BEEN CLAIMING DEDUCT ION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE IT ACT, 1961 FROM A.Y. 2006-07 WHICH WAS THE FIRST YEAR OF CLAIMING OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 8 0IC OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTION UNDER SECTI ON 80IC UPTO THE ASSESSEE YEAR 2010-11. IN THE F.Y. 2010-11 , RELEVANT FOR A.Y. 2011-12, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE SUBSTANTIAL EXP ANSION IN THE PLANT AND MACHINERY AND STARTED CLAIMING 100% D EDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC, TREATING THE A.Y. 2011-12 AS IN ITIAL YEAR AGAIN AND TREATING IT AS 1 ST YEAR OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, FOR THE DETAILED REASONS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IC ONLY @25% AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF 100% MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED IN THE ORDER THAT ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY ORDER OF ITAT, CHANDIGARH B ENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS VS ITO (41 ITR 486). THE LD. CIT(A) REPRODUCED THIS ORDER IN HIS FINDINGS AND FO LLOWING THE SAME DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE UPHOLDING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC @ 25% ONLY. 6. LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF BOTH THE PARTIES SUBMITTED THAT ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY ORDER OF ITAT, C HANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS VS ITO (41 ITR 486). NO INFIRMITY HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN 3 FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCRON EL ECTRONICS VS ITO (41 ITR 486). THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NO MERIT. THE SAME IS DISMISSED. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 21 ST MARCH,2017. *SANJEEV* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT/CHD