Parvinder Singh Sahni, Chandigarh V. ACIT, Chandigarh

ITA 386/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6676 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.386/CHD/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14) PARWINDER SINGH SAHNI, VS. THE A.C.I.T., H.NO.2082, SEC.44C, CIRCLE 5(1), CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: ACEPS9705L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE (ADJ.APPLICATION) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 12.10.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.10.2017 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS )-2, CHANDIGARH (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(APPEALS )) DATED 16.1.2017 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14.. 2. AT THE OUTSET IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT AN APPL ICATION DATED 9.10.2017 REQUESTING FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE C ASE HAS BEEN FILED ON BEHALF OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATI VE OF THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT DUE TO LAST DATE OF FILING IN COME TAX RETURN, TAX AUDIT REPORTS, TDS RETURNS, GST FORMALI TIES ETC. I.E. ON 31.10.2017, THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CA SE MAY BE ADJOURNED TO SOME OTHER DATE. SINCE NO PLAUSIBLE R EASON WAS GIVEN FOR ADJOURNING THE CASE AND FURTHER IT WA S FOUND THAT ON EARLIER OCCASION ALSO, ADJOURNMENT HAD BEEN SOUGHT 2 BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE, I T APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE AP PEAL AND, THEREFORE, ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED AND WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE C ASE ON MERITS. 3. COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE ADDRESSED IN THE PRESENT A PPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO WHAT HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE CO-ORD INATE BENCH IN ITA NO. 798/CHD/2012 IN THE CASE OF HYCRON ELECTRONICS VS ITO. 4. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS THE PROPRIETOR OF WINDSOR INDUSTRIES WHICH IS ENGAG ED IN THE BUSINESS MANUFACTURING AND TRADING IN EPS THERMOCOLE MOULDED PACKAGING DISPOSAL GLASS AND BOP P TAPES AT BADDI SINCE 29.6.2004 AND THE INITIAL ASSE SSMENT YEAR FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) WAS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY CLAIMED DEDUCTION UND ER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF 100% ELIGI BLE PROFIT FOR FIVE YEARS PERIOD FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 TO 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE HAD AGAIN CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTION AGAINST ELIGIBLE PROFIT IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, WHICH WAS 9 TH YEAR OF PRODUCTION BY CLAIMING SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION OF THE UNIT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. RELYING UPON THE AFORE SAID DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF HYCRON ELECTRON ICS (SUPRA), THE CLAIM WAS REJECTED BY THE LOWER AUTHOR ITIES. IN THE AFOREMENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES, 3 SINCE THE ISSUE ON FACTS AND LAW IS IDENTICAL AND W E FIND THE SUBMISSIONS TO BE CORRECT; ACCORDINGLY, RESPECT FULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12.10.2017. SD/- SD/- (B.R.R. KUMAR) (SANJAY GA RG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 12 TH OCTOBER, 2017 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH