M/s GMH Organics, Panchkula V. DCIT, Panchkula

ITA 299/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5226 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 13-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SSH B M MONGA

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 299/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 M/S GMH ORGANICS, VS. THE DCIT, PANCHKULA CIRCLE , PANCHKULA PANCHKULA PAN NO. AAGFG9690N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : S/SH. B.M. MONGA & ROHIT KAURA RESPONDENT BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 11.04.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11. 04.2017 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2016 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)], PANCHKULA. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOW ING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A), IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT AL LOWING THE 100% DEDUCTION BY NOT ACCEPTING THE YEAR OF 'SUBSTA NTIAL EXPANSION' AS 'INITIAL YEAR' THUS NOT INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80-IC IN ITS TRUE AND LIBERAL SPIRIT 2 BEING AN INCENTIVE PROVISION. 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A), IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MISCON STRUING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80-IC OF THE INCOME TAX A CT BY NOT FOLLOWING OR DISTINGUISHING THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF TIRUPATI LPG INDUSTRIES LTD. NEW DELHI VS. DCIT, DEHRADUN. 3. THAT LEARNED CIT(A) IS UNJUSTIFIED BY NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD., [1973] 88 ITR 192 (SC) THAT 'IF TWO REASONABLE CONSTRUCTIONS OF A TA XING PROVISION ARE POSSIBLE, THAT CONSTRUCTION WHICH FAVOURS THE ASSESSEE MUST BE ADOPTED'. 4. THAT LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A) ARE UNJUS TIFIED BY NOT GIVING THE BENEFIT OF DOCTRINE OF 'PROMISSOR Y ESTOPPEL' ENSHRINED UNDER THE 'CONSTITUTION OF INDI A' AS WORTHY CIT, SHIMLA HAD MADE A CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL PROMISE AND/OR ASSURANCE OF 100% DEDUCT ION FOR FURTHER 5 YEARS AFTER 'SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION' I N THE CASE OF OTHER SIMILAR ASSESSEE AS THERE IS NO BAR FOR RE FIXING THE 'INITIAL YEAR' IN THE STATUE. 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT ISSUE R AISED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING CLAIM OF DEDUCTION @ 100% OF PROFIT U/S 8 0IC OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION IS SQUARELY COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WITH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HYCRON ELECTRONICS VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 798/CHD/2012 AND O THERS. HE HAS FURTHER INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 6.12 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHEREIN THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE SAID ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID PARA 6.12 OF THE I MPUGNED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 3 6.12 FURTHER, THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL I S IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE WHICH HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE HON' BLE JURISDICTIONAL ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE O F HYCRON ELECTRONICS V ITO IN ITA NO. 798/CHD/20-12 AND 374/CHD/2014 AND OTHERS WHEREIN THE HON'BLE TRIBUNA L HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 49. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DETAILED DISCUSSION WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US I.E M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS IN ITA NO. 798/CHD/2012 IS ENTITLED TO ONLY 25% OF DEDUCTION DURING THE PRESENT YEAR BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY AVAILED THE PERIOD OF FULL DEDUCTION @ 100% IN THE EARLIER FIVE YEAR I.E FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 TO 2008-09. IN THIS BACKGROUND, WE FIND NOTHING WRONG WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND WE UPHOLD THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED 4. THE LD. AR HAS NOT BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE ANY CONTRADICTORY ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL OR OF THE HIGH COURT. THIS ISSUE IS, THUS, SECURELY COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WITH THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BE NCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11.04.2017. SD/- SD/- (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 12 TH APRIL, 2017 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR 4