M/s C.R.G. Industries, Solan V. ITO, Baddi

ITA 380/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6768 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDER KANTASR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 380 & 381/CHD/2017 A.YS: 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S C.R.G. INDUSTRIES, VS. THE ITO, 75, HPSIDC, BADDI. INDUSTRIAL AREA, BADDI, DISTT. SOLAN. PAN NO. AAEFC7147E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. CHANDER KANTA,SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 11.07.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.10.2017 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 10.01.2017 OF LD. CIT (APPEALS) FARIDABAD PERTAINING TO 2010-11 AND 2012-13 ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE LD. SR.DR STATED THAT IN BOTH THE APPEALS, FACTS, CIRCUMSTAN CES AND POSITION OF LAW ON THE ISSUES REMAIN IDENTICAL. ON A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, IT IS NOTED THAT IN BOTH THE APPEALS, SAME ISSUE IS AGITATED BY THE ASSESSEE ON IDENTICAL FACTS. ACCORDINGLY, BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE BEING DECIDED BY A COMMON ORDER. 2. BEFORE ADDRESSING THE ISSUES, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO TAKE NOTE OF THE FACT THAT AT THE TIME OF HEARING, AN ADJOURNMENT WAS SOU GHT TO BE MOVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SEEKING TIME ON THE GROUND THA T THE ISSUE WAS BEING HEARD BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. IN SUPPORT OF TH E APPLICATION, A PERSON STATING TO BE ARTICLED ASSISTANT WAS PRESENT. HE WAS REQUIRED TO ELABORATE AS TO ON WHICH DATE HEARING HAS TAKEN PLACE A ND TO INFORM WHETHER THE HEARING HAS CONCLUDED. THE PERSON WAS UNA BLE TO ADDRESS WHETHER THE ENTIRE ISSUE HAS BEEN ARGUED AND CONCLUDED OR FOR THAT MATTER ON WHICH DATE THE HEARING TOOK PLACE. ACCORDINGL Y, A PASS OVER WAS GIVEN. IN THE SECOND ROUND, NO ONE WAS PRESENT. AN OTHER PASS OVER WAS GIVEN. THE PERSON THEREAFTER SUBMITTED THAT HE WAS UNABLE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE. ITA 380 & 381/CHD/2017 AY 2010-11 & 2012-13 PAGE 2 OF 2 3. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SMT. CHANDER KA NTA INVITING ATTENTION TO 2010-11 ASSESSMENT YEAR AND PAGE 3 PARA 6.1 FOR 2012-13 OBJECTED TO THE GRANT OF ADJOURNMENT AND SUBMITTED T HAT THE DECISION OF ITAT ON FACTS HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE FULLY APPLICABLE ON FACTS . ACCORDINGLY, THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED. 4. SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND POSITION OF LAW RE MAIN THE SAME IN THE TWO YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, ACCORDINGLY, FO R READY REFERENCE, GROUND IN ITA 380/CHD/2017 IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) HAS ERRED BY NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION @ 100% OF PROFIT DERIVED FROM MA NUFACTURING ACTIVITIES OF UNIT DESPITE OF FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERTAK EN SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. FURTHER THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY DISALLOWED DEDUCTION AMOUNTING TO RS.1552767/- U/S 80IC OF INC OME TAX ACT. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIA L AVAILABLE ON RECORD. I FIND THAT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80-IC W AS RESTRICTED TO 25% IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THIS WAS SIXTH YEAR OF THE C LAIM ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH FACT, RELYING UPON THE DECISION DATED 08.10.2015 OF TH E ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS, VS ITO, BADDI ITA NO. 326/CHD/2015, THE CLAIM WAS RESTRICTED BY THE AO WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CHANGE IN FACT OR POSITION OF LAW, THE SAID ORDER IS UPHELD. FOR SIMILAR REASONS , RESTRICTION OF THE ASSESSEE'S TO 25% IN 2012-13 ASSESSMENT YEAR, U PHELD BY THE CIT(A) IS ALSO NOT INTERFERED WITH AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE IS DISMISSED. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN CO URT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03.10.2017. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT,CHANDIGARH.