Smt. Bhupinder Kaur Purewal, Dharampur V. DCIT, Parwanoo

ITA 33/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0072 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-05-2016
• 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
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Section: 143(3); 147

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L. KARWA, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.33/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SMT. BHUPINDER KAUR PUREWAL VS. THE DCIT C/O P.A. PINIONS, KASAULI ROAD, PARWANOO, (H.P.) DHARAMPUR (H.P.) PAN NO. AASP4053G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. NEERAJ JAIN RESPONDENT BY : SH. S.K. MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 22/03/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04/05/2016 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), SHIMLA DATED 15/12/2015. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL : 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRM ING THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 143(3)/ 147 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WHICH IS BAD IN L AW AND INVALID. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S . 143(3) BE QUASHED. 2. A) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONF IRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IC OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AMOUNTING TO RS. 80,80,278/-. B) THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE APPELLANT DISPUTES THE QUANTUM OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IC. 3. GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST T HE VALIDITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT. BEFORE US LD. AR AD MITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND NOT U/S 1 47 AND THEREFORE THE GROUND DOES NOT ARISE OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW. LD. AR THEREFORE 2 DID NOT PRESS THE GROUND RAISED. IN VIEW OF THE SAM E, THIS GROUND IS BEING TREATED AS DISMISSED. 4. GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST T HE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT AMOUNTING T O RS. 80,80,278/-. 5. BRIEFLY STATED THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT AND HAD CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTION OF ITS PR OFITS FOR FIVE YEARS FROM A.Y. 2005-06 TO A.Y. 2009-10. IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR I.E. A.Y. 2012-13 WHICH WAS THE EIGHT YEAR OF THE PRODUCTION, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAI MED DEDUCTION U/S 80IC @ 100% OF THE PROFITS ON THE BASIS THAT IT HAD UNDERT AKEN SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION OF ITS UNDERTAKING IN F.Y. 2010-11 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 20 11-12 AND THEREFORE A.Y. 2011-12 WAS TO BE TREATED AS ITS INITIAL YEAR FOR THE PUR POSE OF SECTION 80IC. THE A.O. REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION AND REDUCED THE D EDUCTION TO 25% OF THE ELIGIBLE PROFITS OF THE UNDERTAKING. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE A.O. RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 798/CHD/2015 DT. 27/05/2015. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE PR ESENT GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. BEFORE US LD. AR CONCEDED THAT THIS GROUND WAS C OVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HYCRON ELECTRONICS (SUPRA). FURTHER LD. AR ADMITTED THAT THE HONBLE T RIBUNAL HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRECEDING YEAR I.E., A. Y. 2011-12 FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HYCRON ELEC TRONICS (SUPRA). 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDEN TICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRE CEDING YEAR BY THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 308/CHD /2015 DATED 18/08/2015 3 WHEREIN RELYING UPON THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE C ASE OF HYCRON ELECTRONICS, IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD CLAIM ONLY ONE IN ITIAL YEAR UNDER SECTION 80IC AND THAT AS A CONSEQUENCE ELIGIBLE UNITS IN THE STA TE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & UTTARANCHAL WERE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION OF 100% OF T HE PROFITS FOR FIRST FIVE YEARS ONLY AND THEREAFTER THE DEDUCTION WAS TO BE RESTRIC TED TO 25% / 30% FOR THE BALANCE FIVE YEARS. SINCE THE IMPUGNED YEAR IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THE EIGHT YEAR SINCE THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 CLAIMED AS INITIAL YEAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 80IC, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) RESTRICTING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC TO 25% OF ELI GIBLE PROFITS. 9. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. 10. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04/05/2016. SD/- SD/- (H.L. KARWA) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 04/05/2016 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR