M/s Shrishti Technology, Solan V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Parwanoo

ITA 568/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5097 (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: 2014-2015
• 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. 568/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 14-15 M/S SHRISHTI TECHNOLOGY, VS. THE DCIT, PLOT NO. 123, CIRCLE, EPIP JHARMAJRI, PARWANOO. PHASE-1, SOLAN. PAN NO. ABAFS7394P (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 WHER EIN THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2017 OF CIT (APPEALS ), SHIMLA PERTAINING TO 2014-15 ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS BEEN ASSAILED ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1 . THE ID. CIT(A) IS WRONG IN DISALLOWING THE BENEFI T OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION U/S 80IC(2) AND CONFIRMING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IC ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF 25% AS AGAINST 100% BY HOLDING THAT BENEFIT OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSI ON IS ALLOWABLE ONLY TO THE UNDERTAKING WHICH WERE EXISTING PRIOR TO 07/01/2003 . 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF 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 SUB MITTED THAT THE ISSUE ADDRESSED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO WHAT HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO. 798/CHD/2012 IN THE CASE OF HYCRON ELECTRONICS VS ITO. THE CIT(A) IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESET CASE HAS RELIED UPON THE SAID DECISION. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE FIRM WAS RUNNING TWO UNITS. THE ASSESSEE FIRM DERIVED INCOME FROM M ANUFACTURING 2 OF ELECTRIC FANS VIZ WALL FANS AND TABLE FANS. THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS RUNNING TWO UNITS NAMELY M/S SHRISHTI TECHNOLOGIES, UNIT-1 PLOT NO. 123, EPIP, PHASE-1, JHARMAJRI WHICH WAS STARTED ON 21.01.2005. THE ASSESSES FIRM DERIVED INCOME FROM MANUFACTURING OF FANS IN B OTH THE UNITS. THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSES WAS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTIO N U/S 80IC. HOWEVER, IT WAS. NOTICED THAT IN RESPECT OF UNIT NO .1, THE COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION W.E.F. 21.01.2005, DURING THE F.Y. 2004- 05, THE ASSESSES FIRM MADE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION DURING THE F.Y. 2009-10 B Y WAY OF ADDITION TO THE PLANT & MACHINERY BY MORE THAN THE PRESCRIBED L IMIT OF 50% OF THE BOOK VALUE, TREATING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AS INIT IAL ASSESSMENT YEAR IN RESPECT OF UNIT-1. THE ASSESSEE CONTINUED CLAIMI NG 100% DEDUCTION U/S 801C. AFTER DETAILED DISCUSSIONS MADE IN THE BO DY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IN PARA NOS. 2 TO 3.5, THE A.O. HELD THAT TH IS BEING THE 10 TH YEAR OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC, THE APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION @25% INSTEAD OF 100%. HE, THEREFORE, DISALLOWED A S UM RS.34,62,984/- AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE. 3.1 THE CIT(A) REFERRING TO THE AFORESAID DECISION IN PARA 5.1.1 UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. IN THE FACTS AS THEY STAND, T HE ASSESSEE ALSO HAS ALREADY CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT T O THE EXTENT OF 100% OF THE ELIGIBLE PROFIT FOR FIVE YEARS PERIOD FROM 2005-06 TO 2009-10 ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN THE AFOREMENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, SINCE THE ISSUE ON FACTS AND LAW IS SEEN TO BE IDENTICAL TO WHAT WAS CONSIDERED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH. ACCORDINGLY, RELYING UPON THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE ITAT, THE GROUND IS REJECTED AN D THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED ON TH E DATE OF HEARING ITSELF IN THE OPEN COURT 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.