M/s. Anand Food & Dairy Products, Anand V. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Anand Circle, Anand

ITA 2185/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8508 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 22-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANTOSH KARNANI

Judgement Text

, - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2185/AHD/2016 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2012-13 M/S.ANAND FOOD & DIARY PRODUCTS CHIKHODRA SARSA ROAD CHIKHODRA 388320 PAN : AAEFA 0212 E VS. DCIT, ANAND CIRCLE ANAND. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASEEM THAKKAR, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI SANTOSH KARNANI, SR.DR ! / DATE OF HEARING : 17/04/2018 '#$ ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 19/04/2018 %& / O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST O RDER OF LD.CIT(A)-4, VADODARA DATED 11.4.2016 PASSED FOR AS STT.YEAR 2012-13. 2. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THREE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, ITS SOLE GRIEVANCE REVOLVES AROUND A SINGLE ISSUE VIZ. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ACTION OF THE AO IN DENYING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(11A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OF RS.8,43,280/-. ITA NO.2185/AHD/2016 2 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE-FIR M IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF FOOD PROCESSING, PRESERVATION AN D PACKING OF VEGETABLES AND FRUITS. IT HAS FILED IS RETURN OF I NCOME ON 20.9.2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.33,59,880/- AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF RS.8,43,280/- UNDER SECTION 80IB(11A) O F THE ACT. CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSE SSMENT. DURING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, IT WAS NOTICED BY T HE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(11 A) OF THE ACT OF RS.8,43,280/- BEING 25% OF THE PROFITS AND G AINS DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE WAS A SKED TO JUSTIFY THIS CLAIM. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGN ED CLAIM WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS CLAIMING FOR MANY YEARS. IN SUPPORT, THE ASSES SEE FURNISHED CERTIFICATE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, AUDIT REPORT A ND FORM NO.10CCB. HOWEVER, THE LD.AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE REP LY OF THE ASSESSEE AND REJECTED THE CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT DEDUCTION AT THE RATE OF 100% FOR THE FIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS WOUL D BE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FROM THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR AS DEFINED IN THE PROVISIONS BEGINNING FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEV ANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE BUSINESS WAS COMMENCED, AND THEREAFTER AT THE RATE OF 25% OF PROFITS & GAINS FR OM THE OPERATION OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IN A MANNER THAT THE T OTAL PERIOD OF DEDUCTION DOES NOT EXCEED TEN CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMEN T YEARS. THE ASSESSEE COMMENCED ITS BUSINESS W.E.F. 2.6.2001 AND FIRST YEAR OF AVAILMENT OF BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 80IB(11A) WAS FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. AO OBSERVED THAT IN THE PR ESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION AT THE RATE OF 100% UPTO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND THEREAFTER AT RATE OF 25% UPTO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. THE IMPUGNED CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ITA NO.2185/AHD/2016 3 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 FALLS BEYOND ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011- 12, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE BE NEFIT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(11A) OF THE ACT. THIS FINDING OF THE LD.AO WAS UPHELD BY THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORIT Y. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE IS NOW BEFORE TRIBUNAL. 4. BEFORE US, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITER ATED THEIR SUBMISSIONS WHICH WERE MADE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTH ORITIES, WHILE THE LD.DR SUPPORTED ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUT HORITIES. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE TH ROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. AS PER THE DEFINITION OF INITIA L ASSESSMENT YEAR PROVIDED IN SECTION 80IB(14)(C) OF THE ACT FOR UNDER TAKING ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROCESSING, PRESERVATION AND PACKAGING OF FRUITS OR VEGETABLES MEANS THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE UNDERTAK ING BEGINS SUCH BUSINESS. ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS STARTED ITS BUSINESS FROM JUNE, 2001 AND THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2002-03. AS PER THE SCHEME OF SECTION 80IB(11A) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR 100% DEDUCTION OF PROFITS FROM ITS ACT IVITIES FOR FIVE YEARS BEGINNING FROM THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR, I .E. A.Y.2002-03 AND THEREAFTER UPTO FIVE YEARS I.E. UPTO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AT THE RATE 25% OF ITS PROFIT. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASSESSEE WILL GET BENEFIT OF THE DEDUCTION UNDER THIS PROVISION FOR A TOTAL PERIOD OF TEN CONSECUTIVE YEARS STARTING FROM RELEVANT ASSESS MENT YEAR IN WHICH ASSESSEE HAS COMMENCED ITS BUSINESS. NO DOUBT , THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 FALLS BEYOND THE AS SESSMENT YEARS 2011-12, AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS CEASE D TO GET ANY BENEFIT UNDER THIS PROVISION FROM THE ASSESSMENT UN DER CONSIDERATION. FURTHER, THE LD.CIT(A) IN ITS ORDER WHILE CONFIRMING ITA NO.2185/AHD/2016 4 THE FINDING OF THE LD.AO OBSERVED THAT HONBLE GUJA RAT HIGH COURT HAS UPHELD DECISION OF ITAT, AHMEDABAD IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE IN ITA NO.174 OF 2016 VIDE ORDER DATED 30.3.2016 ON TH E ISSUE OF ELIGIBILITY OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(11A) OF THE ACT. BEFORE US, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO ADVANCE A BETTER DEFENCE THAN WHAT WERE TAKEN BY THEM BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO SUPPORT THEIR CASE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, AND REJECT THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 19 TH APRIL, 2018. SD/- SD/- (N.K. BILLAIYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 19/04/2018