M/s Stove Kraft India, Solan V. DCIT, Parwanoo

ITA 638/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7020 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUSHIL KUNMAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 638/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 M/S STOVE KRAFT INDIA, VS. THE DCIT, 307/2, VILLAGE - BURANWALA, CIRCLE, BAROTIWALA, DISTT. SOLAN. PARWANOO. PAN NO. AAZFS6497G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MANOJ KUMAR, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUSHIL KUNMAR, CIT-DR DATE OF HEARING : 07.06.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.08.2017 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH,JM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILIN G THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2017 OF CIT(A) SHI MLA PERTAINING TO 2014-15 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE ID. CIT(A) IS WRONG IN DISALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION US 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 AS ON 07.01.2003. 2. IN VIEW OF ALL THESE & SUCH OTHER GROUNDS, WHICH MA Y BE TAKEN AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE APPEAL MAY PLEASE BE ALLOWED & JUSTICE RENDERED . 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT WAS COMMON STAND OF THE P ARTIES BEFORE THE BENCH THAT THE POINT AT ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE AS SESSEE BY VIRTUE OF THE ORDER DATED 27.05.2015 OF THE CHANDIGARH BENCH IN ITA NO . 798/CHD/2012 IN THE CASE OF HYCRON ELECTRONICS VS ITO. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E FIRM IS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF STOVES, IRONS AND OTHER ELECTRICAL APP LIANCES AND TRADING OF CHIMNEYS STARTED ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITY/OPERATION ON 0 6.01.2005. INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 801C OF THE ACT WAS A.Y. 2005-06. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IC TO THE EXTENT OF THE 100% OF ELIGIBLE PROFITS FOR THE FIVE YEAR PERIOD O F A.Y. 2005-06 TO A.Y. 2009-10. HOWEVER, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAD AGAIN CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTION AGAINST ELIGIBLE PROFITS IN THE RELEVANT A.Y. 2014-15 WHICH IS 10 TH ITA 638/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2014-15 PAGE 2 OF 2 YEAR OF PRODUCTION FOR THE FIRM BY CLAIMING TO HAVE CARRIED OUT SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IN F.Y. 2009-10 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2010-11, TREATING THE A.Y. 2010-11 AS INITIAL YEAR AGAIN AND TREATING IT TO BE THE 1 ST YEAR OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 801G OF THE ACT. THE A.O. FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HELD THAT SINCE THE ASS ESSEE HAD ALREADY CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTION U/S 8OLC FOR FIRST 5 YEARS FROM A.Y. 2005-06 TO 2009-10, IT WAS ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC @ 25% FROM THE 6 TH YEAR TO TENTH YEAR I.E. 2010-11 TO 2014-15. AFTER DETAILED DISCUSSION, AO RESTRICTED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC TO 25% A S AGAINST 100% CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN REJECT ING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE RELYING UPON THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE ITAT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE PARTIES. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE FACTS AS THEY STAND, N O INTERFERENCE IS WARRANTED IN THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LD. CIT(A). WHILE DOING SO, WE NOTE THAT THE ISSUE CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN UP BY THE ASSESSEE AND IS BEING CHALLENGED BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. TAKING NOTE OF THE SAME, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01.08. 2017. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (DIVA SIN GH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 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.