Sh.Atul Gupta, Baddi V. Income Tax Officer, Solan

ITA 567/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5095 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 03-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 567/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SHRI ATUL GUPTA, VS. THE ITO, PROP. RISHABH PLASTIC INDUSTRIES, WARD 6(2), PLOT NO. 31, DIC INDUSTRIAL AREA, MOHALI. BADDI. PAN NO. ABXPG0207F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 09.05.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.06.2017 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHERE IN THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 16.01.2017 OF CIT (APPEALS ), FARIDABAD PERTAINING TO 2010-11 ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS BEEN ASSAILED ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : THE ID. CIT(A) IS WRONG IN DISALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION U/S 80IC AND CONFIRMING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IC ONLY TO THE EXTEN T OF 25% AS AGAINST 100% BY HOLDING THAT BENEFIT OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IS ALLOWABLE ONLY TO THE UNDERTAKING WHICH WERE EXISTING AS ON 07.01.2003. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER. IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE WAS PRESENT NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. THE LD. SR.DR INVITING ATTENTION TO THE RECORD SUBMITTED THAT T HE ISSUE ADDRESSED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO WHAT HAS BEEN DECIDE D BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO. 798/CHD/2012 IN THE CASE OF HYCRON ELEC TRONICS VS ITO. THE CIT(A) IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE HAS RELIED UPON THE SAID DECIS ION. 2 3. I HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRE SENT CASE IS PROPRIETOR OF TWO CONCERNS I.E. M/S SHIVALIK INDUSTRY AND M/S RISHAB PLAS TIC INDUSTRY AND IS FOUND TO HAVE CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTION FOR THE FIRST FIVE Y EARS AND THEREAFTER ANOTHER ROUND OF 100% DEDUCTION FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS ON ACCOUNT OF CLAIM OF EXPANSION AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE FOLLOWING EXTRACT FROM T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER : AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE ASSES SEE HAD ALREADY CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT AT THE RATE OF 100% F OR FIVE YEARS UPTO THE ASSTT. YEAR 2008-09 FROM THE DATE OF ITS SETTING UP OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AND IT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION @ 100% FOR T HE ASST. YEAR 2004-05 TO 2008-09 AND FOR THE REMAINING FIVE YEARS OUT OF TEN YEARS I.E. FROM ASSTT. YEAR 2009-10 TO 2013-14 @ 25% OF ITS ELIGIBLE BUSINESS P ROFITS. 3.1 ACCORDINGLY, CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS, THE EXEMPTION W AS RESTRICTED TO 25%. THE CIT(A) IN APPEAL RELYING UPON THE AFORESAID ORDER AS DISCUSSED IN PARA 6, UPHELD THE ADDITION. THUS, I FIND ON CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID DECISION THAT ON FACTS WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY CLAIMED DE DUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF 100% ELIGIBLE PROFIT FOR FIVE YEARS, THE CLAIM OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IN 2009-10 ASSESSMENT YEAR ALREADY STANDS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED IN THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE ITAT, THE RE JECTION OF ASSESSEE'S CLAIM IS UPHELD. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH JUNE,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.