Shri Ram Print and Pack, Solan V. DCIT, Parwanoo

ITA 273/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5178 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 27-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 10-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.273/CHD/2017 ASSESSMEN T YEAR: 2013-14 M/S SHRI RAM PRINT & PACK, VS. THE DCIT, V&PO MANPURA, CIRCLE, TEHSIL NALAGARH, PARWANOO. DISTT. SOLAN (HP). PAN NO. ABFFS4545L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VISHAL MOHAN RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 27.03.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15/05/2017 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 22.11.2016 OF CIT (APPEALS) SHIMLA PERTAINING TO 2013-14 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFED IN UPHOLDING THE ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ,1961 AND THEREBY UPHOLD ING AN ADDITION OF RS 30,06,6697- MADE TO THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE APPEL LANT. FACT OF THE MATER IS THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IC @ 1 00% IN LIGHT OF THE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION UNDERTAKEN IN THE YEAR 2011-12 RELEVANT T O THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT YEAR . 2. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS BAD IN LAW AND FACTS. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE FIRM IS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF PRINTED MONO CARTONS, LABELS, LEAF LETS. ETC. AS PER INFORMATION GIVEN IN FORM NO.IOCCB, THE ASSESSEE STARTED ITS BUSINESS AC TIVITY/OPERATION ON 29.05.2006 AND INITIAL ASST. YEAR FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80-1C OF THE ACT WAS ASST. YEAR 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80-IC TO THE EXTENT OF THE 100% ELIGIBLE PROFIT FOR FIVE YEAR PERIOD OF A.Y. 2007-08 TO A.Y. 2011-1 2. HOWEVER, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAD AGAIN CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTION AGAI NST ELIGIBLE PROFITS IN THE RELEVANT A.Y. 2013-14 WHICH IS 7 TH YEAR OF PRODUCTION FOR THE FIRM BY CLAIMING SUBSTA NTIAL EXPANSION IN F.Y. 2 2011-12. THE SAID CLAIM WAS NOT ALLOWED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. THE CIT (APPEALS), FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF M /S HYCRON ELECTRONICS (SUPRA) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THERE IS NO CHANGE IN FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN TERMS OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS T O BE DISMISSED HOWEVER, IT WAS HIS PRAYER THAT IT MAY BE RECORDED THAT THE ISSUE HAS N OT BEEN GIVEN UP BY THE ASSESSEE AND WOULD BE CHALLENGED BEFORE THE NEXT FORUM. NO ONE W AS PRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE AS SET OUT HEREINABOVE I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE FACTS AS THEY STAND HAS TO BE DISMISSED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDE NT AND TAKING NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CHALLENGING THE ORDER BEFORE HONBLE HI GH COURT. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 3. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH MAY 2017 SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER POONAM / AG COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT,CHANDIGARH