1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.361/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 JCIT, RANGE-1, KANPUR, VS M/S CALICO TRENDS, 60-A, 150 FT. ROAD JAJMAU, KANPUR PAN AABFC 1787 H (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI RAKESH GARG , ADVOCATE APPELLANT BY SMT. SWATI RATNA , DR RESPONDENT BY 9/09/2015 DATE OF HEARING 06/10/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER OF LD. CIT (A)-I, KANPUR DATED 16.03.2015 FOR THE AY 2011-12. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 01. BECAUSE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) DATED 13.08.2013 IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION, BAD IN LAW, IN AS MUCH AS NO NOTICE U/S 143(2) HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE JCIT-I, KA NPUR TO WHOM THE CASE WAS ASSIGNED ON 04.12.2012, AND IN AN Y CASE THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 142(1) DATED 06.12.2012 BEING BEY OND THE STATUTORY PERIOD, THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED IS BAD IN L AW AND BE QUASHED. 02. BECAUSE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF 2 RS.31,09,991/- U/S 80-IB OF I.T.ACT, 1961 AGAINST T HE BUSINESS PROFITS OF BANTHER UNIT.. 3. REGARDING GROUND NO.1, LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE R EITERATED THE SAME CONTENTIONS, WHICH WERE RAISED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A ). REGARDING GROUND NO.2, HE FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF LIBE RTY INDIA VS. CIT REPORTED IN 317 ITR 218 (SC). LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE O RDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION. WE FIND THAT AN ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO.1 HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS BASIS THAT THE CASE WAS ASSIGNED TO THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX-1, KANPUR ON DATED 04.12.2012 AS PER PASSED U/S 120(4)(B) OF THE ACT A ND AS PER CBDT INSTRUCTION, ADDITIONAL/JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ALSO HO LD CONCURRENT JURISDICTION. THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE AO U/S 143(2) WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE E IS THAT NO NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE JCIT-1, KANPUR TO WHOM THE CASE WAS ASSIGNED ON 04.12.2012. HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THIS CONTE NTION OF LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSMENT WAS NOT VALID BECAUSE NO NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY JCIT-1, KANPUR BECAUSE IT IS NOTED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER THAT NOTICE U/S 143(2)/142(1) WERE ISSUED AND DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AND THI S IS NOT SHOWN BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS OBSERVATION OF THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT CORRECT. HENCE, GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 5. REGARDING GROUND NO.2, WE FIND THAT THIS IS ADMI TTED POSITION THAT ISSUE REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB OF TH E ACT IN RESPECT OF DUTY DRAW BACK AMOUNT IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE J UDGMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA VS. CIT (SUPRA) AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT, GROUND NO.2 IS ALSO REJECTED. 3 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R DATED: 06/10/2015 AKS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1.THE APPELLANT 2.THE RESPONDENT. 3.CONCERNED CIT 4.THE CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGI STRAR