Jagmohan Gurbakshish Singh, V. DCIT, Parwanoo

ITA 29/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8336 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 20-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS.RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 29/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 SHRI JAGMOHAN GURBAKSHISH SINGH, VS THE DCIT, PROP. BUDGET SIGNS, CIRCLE, PLOT NO. 76, EPIP, PHASE II, PARWANOO. VILLAGE THANA, BADDI (HP). PAN: AKNPS4042H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PARIKSHIT AGGARWAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANOJ MISHRA DATE OF HEARING : 30.03.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.03.2016 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 17.12.2015 F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : I. AFFIRMING THE ORDER OF DCIT , CIRCLE PARWANOO, PARWA NOO (H.P.) IN RESTRICTING THE CLAIM OF APPELLANT OF DEDUCTION U/S 80-IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AT 25 % INSTEAD OF 100% CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE EIGTH YEAR OF OPERATION OF INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING OF THE A PPELLANT WHEREIN SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION WAS CARRIED OUT IN SUCH INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING BY THE APPELLANT. II. MISINTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80-IC OF THE ACT WHICH PROVIDES FOR SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION TO BE UNDERTAKEN DURING THE PERIOD BEGINNING ON 7TH JANUA RY 2003 AND ENDING BEFORE 1ST APRIL 2012 AND ERRONEOUSLY UPHOLDING THAT THE BENEFIT OF 100% DEDUCTI ON U/S 80-IC OF THE ACT FOR FIRST FIVE YEARS IN CASE OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IS AVAILABLE ONLY TO THE UNITS THA T EXISTED AND WERE OPERATIONAL AS ON 01.01.2003 AND SUCH BENEFIT IS NOT AT ALL MEANT FOR THE UNITS THAT CAME INTO BEING ON OR AFTER THE INTRODUCTION OF THE SCHEME OF SUCH DEDUCTION. III. UPHOLDING THAT ONCE AN 'INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR' I S 2 DETERMINED IN CASE OF AN UNDERTAKING CLAIMING BENEFIT U/S 80-IC OF THE ACT IT CANNOT BE CHANGED EV EN IF SUCH UNDERTAKING COMPLETES SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION AND AGAIN QUALIFIES FOR DEDUCTION UNDER THE SAID SEC TION ON THE BASIS OF 'QUALIFYING EXPANSION'. IV. MAKING A NARROW INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 80-IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WHICH WAS INTRODUCED AS A WELFARE LEGISLATION FOR PROVIDIN G STIMULUS TO THE ECONOMY OF INDUSTRIALLY BACKWARD STATES SUCH AS HIMACHAL PRADESH. V. THE APPELLATE CRAVES TO ADD TO ALTER OR AMEND ANY GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS PROPRIETOR OF M/S BUDGET SIGNS WHICH IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF ILLUMINATED SIGNAGE LIKE LED PANEL S, FLAT PANEL DISPLAY ETC. THE ASSESSEE HAS THREE MANUFACTURING UNITS AT BADDI AND AT MUMBAI. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC ON ACCOUNT OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSE E HAS CLAIMED EXCESSIVE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF T HE ACT. THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WAS, HOWEVER, DISALLOWED . THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE ISSUE HAS ALREA DY BEEN ADJUDICATED BY ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CA SE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS VS ITO ETC. IN ITA 798/CHD/2012 AND REPRODUCED THE ENTIRE ORDER IN THE APPELLATE ORDER AND FOLLOWING THE SAME ORDER, DISMI SSED APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY O RDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS VS ITO AND OTHERS (SUPRA). 3 4. SINCE IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BE NCH IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS (SUPRA) AND N O INFIRMITY HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THEREFORE, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NO MERIT. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (RANO JAIN) (BHAVN ESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 30 TH MARCH,2016. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT/CHD