Flexfit Industries, Ludhiana V. ACIT Circle-V, Ludhiana

ITA 436/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 77031 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 22-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Depreciation; Wrong claim; Difference of opinion; Reason to believe; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 80HHC; 80IB; 147; 148; 6; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.436/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 FLEXFIT INDUSTRIES, VS. THE A.C.I.T., B-XXIX/1063, CIRCLE-V, INDUSTRIAL AREA C, LUDHIANA. DHANDARI KALAN, LUDHIANA. PAN: AAAFF2966 L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 10.03.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.04.2014 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M. : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, LUDHIANA D ATED 18.02.2013 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF IN COME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN INITIATING RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING T HE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ALLOWING DEDUCTI ON OF RS.35,85,593/- U/S 80HHC IN RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS AGAINST DEDUCTION OF RS.40,57,270/- ORIGINALLY ALLO WED IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. 3. THAT THE DEDUCTION OF RS.35,85,593/- U/S 80HHC A S AGAINST DEDUCTION OF RS.40,51,270/- HAS BEEN WRONGL Y 2 UPHELD BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND OUR SUBMISSION HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED PROPERLY. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEAR D OR DISPOSED OFF. 3. THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINS T RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE ACT. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD FURNISHED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS.25,63,400. THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT AT RS.38,34,833/- THEREAFTER REASONS WERE RECORDED FOR REOPENING OF A SSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AND NOTICE WAS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT REQUISITIONING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH RETURN O F INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WITHIN 30 DAYS. IN PURSUANCE T O THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE FILED RET URN IN PROTEST DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.38,34,833/-. THE ASSE SSEE FIRM WAS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING, TRADING AND EXPORT OF CYCLE P ARTS, MOTORS, AUTO PARTS AND HARDWARE ITEMS. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIONS 80IB AND 80HHC OF THE ACT. THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT WAS CLAIMED WITHOUT REDUCING AMOUN T OF DEDUCTION ALREADY CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT. AS THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIONS 80IB AND 80HHC OF THE ACT OUT OF 100% OF PROFITS UNDER BOTH THE SECTIONS, THE ASSESS EE WAS FOUND TO HAVE VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(13) R.W.S. 80IA(9) OF THE ACT. THE DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT WAS THUS RECOMPUTED RESULTING IN ADDITION OF RS.4,65,677/-. 5. THE CIT (APPEALS) UPHELD THE REOPENING OF ASSESS MENT IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN KING EXPORTS VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.1005/CHD/2011 ORDER DA TED 4.1.2012. 3 6. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF T HE CIT (APPEALS). THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143( 3) OF THE ACT, THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT WAS CLAIME D AND ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND NO QUERY WAS RAISED UNDER SECTION 80IA (9) OF THE ACT. IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED A.R. FO R THE ASSESSEE THAT THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE PRESENT CASE HAVE BEEN INITIATED BEYOND FOUR YEARS ON A DEBATABLE ISSUE AND AS THERE IS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE, THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT WAS BAD I N LAW. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS: 1) CARLTON OVERSEAS (P) LTD. VS. ITO [318 ITR 295 (DEL)] 2) PURITY TECH TEXTILE (P) LTD. VS. ACIT 35 DTR (BOM) 257 3) CIT VS. INDIAN SUGAR & GEN. IND. EX 303 ITR 155 (DEL) 4) ICICI BANK LTD. VS. K.J. RAO VS. DCIT 268 ITR 203(BOM) 7. IT WAS FAIRLY POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED A.R. FO R THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CIT (APPEALS) HAD IN TURN RELIED UPON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN KING EXPORTS VS . ACIT (SUPRA). 8. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THA T THE FACTS IN THE CASE WERE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN KING EXPORTS VS . ACIT (SUPRA) AND THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN THE CASE WERE VIOLATED IN LAW. 9. IT WAS FAIRLY POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED A.R. FO R THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ISSUE ON MERITS WAS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSE E IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COUR T IN FRIENDS CASTING P. LTD. VS. CIT [340 ITR 305 (P&H)]. 4 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE ARISING VIDE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 IS AGAINST INITIATION OF RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 R.W.S. 148 OF THE ACT. THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 21.3.2006. THEREAFTER NOT ICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 20.3.2009. THE FIRST OBJE CTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT BEYOND FOUR YEARS ON A DEBATABLE ISSUE, WHERE THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE. SECTION 147 OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT IF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT F OR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, THEN SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 148 TO 153 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY ASSESS OR RE-ASSES SUCH INCOM E AND ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX, WHICH HAD ESCAPED ASSESSM ENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF P ROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTION. THE SECTION ALSO EMPOWERS THE ASSESSING O FFICER TO RECOMPUTE THE LOSSES OR THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE OR ANY OTH ER ALLOWANCE AS THE CASE MAY BE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR CONCERNED. THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT WHERE ANY ASSESSMENT U NDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT HAD BEEN MADE IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THEN NO ACTION SHALL BE TAKEN UNDER THIS SECTION, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNLESS ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR BY REASON OF THE FAILURE ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A RETURN UN DER SECTION 139 OF THE ACT IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OR T O SECTION 148 OR TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSA RY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT, FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR . SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT FURTHER PROVIDES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY ASS ESS OR RE-ASSESS SUCH INCOME, OTHER THAN THE INCOME INVOLVING MATTERS WHI CH ARE SUBJECT MATTERS OF APPEAL OF ANY APPEAL, REFERENCE OR REVIS ION, WHICH IS 5 CHARGEABLE TO TAX AND WHICH ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. TH E EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT THE PRODUCTION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF ACCOUNT BOOKS OR OTHER EVIDENCE FROM WHI CH MATERIAL EVIDENCE COULD WITH DUE DILIGENCE HAD BEEN DISCOVERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL NOT NECESSARILY AMOUNT TO FULL DISCLOSURE WITH IN THE MEANING OF FOREGOING PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. 11. IN OTHER WORDS, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 O F THE ACT ARE CLEAR IN RESPECT OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN CASES WHERE ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN COM PLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE PROVISO TO SECTION 1 47 OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT NO ACTION WOULD BE TAKEN AGAINST THE PERSON, B EYOND THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNLESS ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, FO R THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS, ON THE FAILURE ON PART OF THE ASS ESSEE TO MAKE THE RETURN UNDER SECTION 139 OR SECTION 142(1) OF THE A CT OR TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSE SSMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SE CTION 143(3) OF THE ACT HAD RECORDED THE REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSE SSMENT AND THE SAID REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE PLACE D AT PAGE 4 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND READ AS UNDER: : BRIEF REASONS'FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 147/148: ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS COMPLETED U/S 143{3) VIDE ORDER DATED 21.3.2006 AT AN INCOME OF RS. 38,34,830/- AGAINST RETURNED INCOME O F RS. 25.63.400/-. 2. LATER ON IT WAS NOTICED THAT DEDUCTION ALLOWED U/S 80HHC WAS ON HIGHER SIDE AS THE SAME WAS NOT CURTAILED AS PER PROVISION S OF SECTION 80IA(9). AS PER THIS SECTION, DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC WAS TO BE COMPUTED AFT ER REDUCING THE DEDUCTION OF RS. RS. 9,57,925/- U/S 80IB. THIS RESULTED INTO IRR EGULAR/DOUBLE DEDUCTION OF RS. 439094/- U/S 80HHC. THEREFORE, THERE IS FAILURE ON PART OF A SSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ITS ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 BY CLAIMING EXCESS DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC. 6 3. I HAVE, THEREFORE, REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT INCO ME CHARGEABLE TO TAX OF MORE THAN RS. 1 LAC HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. TO ASSESS THE INCOME SO ESCAPED, IN MY OPINION, PROCEEDINGS U/S 1 47 NEEDS TO BE INITIATED. 12. THE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDLY DURING THE YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION HAD FILED THE AUDIT REPORT CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SEC TIONS 80IB AND 80HHC OF THE ACT ON 100% PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS UN DER BOTH THE SECTIONS. HOWEVER, SECTION 80IB(13) R.W.S. 80IA(9) OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT WHERE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT HAS BEEN PROVIDED ON THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS THEN ANY FURTHER DEDUCT ION IS TO BE ALLOWED ON THE BALANCE AMOUNT ON PROFITS OF BUSINESS. THE AS SESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT HAD FAILED TO TA KE NOTE OF THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION BOTH UNDER SECTIONS 80IB AND 80HHC OF THE ACT ON 100% OF PROFI TS UNDER EACH OF THE SECTIONS. THE SAID ASPECT WAS NOT LOOKED INTO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT AND HENCE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IN THE FIRST ROUND RESULTED IN ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME BECAUSE OF E XCESS ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT ON 100% OF THE PROFITS ON WHICH DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT WAS A LSO CLAIMED AND ALLOWED. IN THE ABOVE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAD RECORDED REASONS FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/.S 1 47 OF THE ACT AND ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. SUCH R ECORDING OF REASONS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THERE WAS ESCAPEMENT OF IN COME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON EXCESS ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT, AGAINST EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, WAS ON ACCOUNT OF WRONG CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND ON CONTRAVENTION OF THE EXPRESS PROVISION OF THE ACT. IN SAID CIRCUMSTANCES, THE VALIDITY OF ISSUE OF 7 NOTICE UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT R.W..S. 148 OF THE ACT WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. 13. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL IN KING EXPORTS VS. ACIT (SUPRA) AND VIDE PARA 5 IT WAS HEL D THAT WHERE THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80HHC OF T HE ACT OF 100% OF THE PROFITS IGNORING THAT DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 8 0IB OF THE ACT IS ALSO ALLOWED ON SUCH PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS, WAS A CAS E WHERE THERE IS EXISTED LIVE NEXUS BETWEEN REASONS RECORDED AND ESC APEMENT OF INCOME. IT WAS FURTHER HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE IMPUG NED CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CONTRARY TO THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IA(9)/80IB(13) R.W.S.80AB OF THE ACT. IN SUCH CI RCUMSTANCES, IT WAS HELD THAT THERE WAS MATERIAL ON RECORD FOR THE FORM ATION OF REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME AS THE C LAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BOTH INCORRECT AND IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER HELD THAT IT WAS NOT A C ASE OF CHANGE OF OPINION AS THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A WRONG CLAIM IN C ONTRAVENTION OF THE EXPRESS PROVISION OF THE ACT AND UNDER SUCH CIRCUMS TANCES, THE RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 147/ 148 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN CORRECTLY INITIATED. 14. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAD PLACED RELIANCE ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE DELH I HIGH COURT IN CARLTON OVERSEAS (P) LTD. VS. ITO (SUPRA) WHEREIN T HE ISSUE WAS THAT RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED ON THE GROUND THAT AS PER REVENUE AUDIT THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT WAS ALLOWABLE ONLY AFTER REDUCING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTI ON 80IB OF THE ACT. IT WAS HELD BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT THAT RE VENUE AUDIT MERELY GAVE AN OPINION AND IN THE ABSENCE OF NEW OR FRESH MATERIAL BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER MERE CHANGE OF OPINION COULD NOT BE FORM THE BASIS FOR 8 REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE FACTS OF THE PRES ENT CASE ARE AT VARIANCE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE THE HON'BL E DELHI HIGH COURT AS IN THE FACTS BEFORE US THE REOP ENING OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMS ELF AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS THAT DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 80HH C OF THE ACT WAS AGAINST THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND HENCE MERITED RECOMPUTATION. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, IT TRANSPIRES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED REQUISITE PARTICULARS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND IN SUCH CASES IT WAS HELD THAT RE-A SSESSMENT WAS NOT VALID AS FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE WAS MADE BY THE A SSESSEE IN THE FIRST ROUND OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER , AS POINTED OUT BY US IN THE PARAS HEREINABOVE, THE ASSESSEE IN THE PR ESENT APPEAL BEFORE US HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIONS 80HHC AND 80IB OF THE ACT AGAINST EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THERE WAS NO DISCLOSURE OF PRIMARY FACTS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 15. THE NEXT RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE LEARNED A.R . FOR THE ASSESSEE ON CIT VS. INDIAN SUGAR & GEN.IND. EX.(SUPRA), WHER EIN IT IS A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORIGINAL ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS HAD APPLIED HIS MIND WHILE ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SEC TION 80HHC OF THE ACT AND THE SUCCESSOR ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MERELY STATED THAT IT HAS WRONGLY ALLOWED AND WAS HELD TO BE CHANGE OF OPINIO N AND NO RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE POSSIBLE. 16. SIMILAR RATIO WAS LAID DOWN UPON ICICI BANK LTD . VS. K.J. RAO DCIT (SUPRA) WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD THOUGH CLAIMED HIGHER DEPRECIATION BUT FURNISHED ALL MATERIAL FACTS ON RECORD CAN NOT ESTABLISH THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THERE WAS FAILURE ON THE PART OF T HE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH COMPLETE RECORDS. THE SAID RATIOS ARE NOT APPLICABL E TO THE ISSUE BEFORE US. 9 17. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES, WE UPHOLD THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASS ESSEE UNDER SECTION 147 R.W.S. 148 OF THE ACT WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXCESS DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT IN COMPLET E DISREGARD OF THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(13) R.W.S.80IA(9 ) AND SECTION 80AB OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD RE-ASSESSMENT I NITIATED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AND ALSO UPHOLD THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS THUS DISMISSED. 18. THE ISSUE IN GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ADMITTEDLY AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN FRIENDS CASTING P. LTD. (SU PRA) AND BY THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN KING EXPORTS VS . ACIT. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN KING EXPORTS V S. ACIT HAD BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE CIT (APPEALS) UNDER PARA 4.3 AND WE DO NOT REPRODUCE THE SAME FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. THE GROUND OF AP PEAL NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS DISMISSED. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 16 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2014. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 16 TH APRIL, 2014 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 10