Tejpal Chaudhary, Panchkula V. The Income Tax Officer, Panchkula

ITA 311/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9833 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 16-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGHDR
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.311/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 SHRI TEJPAL CHAUDHARY, VS THE ITO HOUSE NO. 671, WARD 4, SECTOR 4, PANCHKULA. PANCHKULA. PAN: AANPC5039Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH,DR DATE OF HEARING : 04.07.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.07.2016 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-2, GURGAON DATED 15.02.20 16 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THAT ORDER PASSED U/S 250(6) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1 BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PANCHKULA/GUR GAON IS AGAINST LAW AND FACTS ON THE FILE IN AS MUCH AS HE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO ARBITRARILY UPHOLD THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1650828/- AND RESTRIC TING THE CLAIM U/S 80IC OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 TO @25% ONLY INSTEAD O F ASSESSEE'S CLAIM @100% OF PROFITS. 2. THAT HE WAS FURTHER NOT JUSTIFIED TO ARBITRARILY UP HOLD THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.79677/- I.E. 1/5 TH OF VEHICLE RUNNING & MAINTENANCE EXPENSES INCLUDING DEPRECIATION AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES ALTHO UGH THERE WAS NO PROOF REGARDING PERSONAL USE. 2 3. THAT HE WAS FURTHER NOT JUSTIFIED TO NOT ALLOWING D EDUCTION U/S 80IC OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 @25% ON THE INCOME OF RS.79 677/- WHICH INCREASED DUE TO ADHOC DISALLOWANCE. 2. ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING, ON 16.06.2016, THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE TO 04. 07.2016. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON 04.07.2016 TO ARGUE THE A PPEAL ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, HEARD EX- PARTE. 3. I HAVE HEARD LD. DR AND PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. ON GROUND NO. 1, BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE C LAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT @ 100%. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION @ 25% DURING 8 TH YEAR OF COMMENCEMENT OF UNIT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, RESTRICTED THE DE DUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC TO 25% AND DID NOT ALLOW 100% DEDUCTIO N TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH IN THE CASE OF M/S VIRGO INDUSTRIES V ITO IN WHICH THE TRIBUNAL FO LLOWED THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF HYCRON ELECTRONICS IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION ONLY @ 25%. THE LD. DR THEREFORE, RIGHTLY CONTENDED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVE RED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH IN THE CAS E OF HYCRON ELECTRONICS 41 ITR (TRIBUNAL) 486 IN WHICH IT WAS H ELD THAT ASSESSEE AFTER FIVE YEARS WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED FO R DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC @ 100%. GROUND NO. 1 OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 3 5. ON GROUND NO. 2, ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED 1/ 5 TH OF THE EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL USE. THE LD. CI T(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. NO EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL IS PRODUCED BEFORE ME TO TAKE A CONTRARY DECISION IN THE MATTER . THIS GROUND IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 6. GROUND NO. 3 DOES NOT ARISE FROM THE ORDERS OF A UTHORITIES BELOW AND NO DETAILS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED FOR CONSID ERATION OF THE SAME EVEN FOR THE FIRST TIME AT THIS STAGE. TH EREFORE, GROUND NO. 3 OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 5 TH JULY,2016. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH