M/s Light Engineering Corporation, Solan V. ITO, Parwanoo

ITA 764/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6608 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDER KANTASR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.764 TO 766/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2009-10 TO 2011-12 M/S LIGHT ENGINEERING CORP., VS. THE ITO, VILLAGE KAMLI, WARD-PARWANOO, PARWANOO, PARWANOO. DISTT. SOLAN(HP). PAN NO. AACFL2644R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. CHANDER KANTA,SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 10.10.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.11. 2017 ORDER THESE ARE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING TH E CORRECTNESS OF THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 06.12.2016, 01 .02.2017, 01.02.2017 PERTAINING TO 2009-10, 2010-11 AND 2011-12 AS SESSMENT YEAR ON IDENTICAL GROUNDS WHEREIN THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS A RE GROUND NOS. 2 AND 3 WHICH ARE REPRODUCED FROM ITA 764/CHD/2017 HEREUNDER : 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), FARIDABAD, HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONCURRE NCE WITH THE LD. A.O. IN NOT ALLOWING 100% DEDUCTION UNDER S. 80IC AFTER THE FIRST SUBSTA NTIAL EXPANSION UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE BY TREATING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION A S THE 6 TH YEAR OF SUCH CLAIM AND ALLOWING 25% DEDUCTION ON THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING RESULTING IN A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 13,21,410/-. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), SHIMLA, HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONCURRENCE WITH THE LD. A.O. IN INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION AND DEFINING TH E INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER S. 80IC OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER TWICE. FINALLY WHE N THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING, THE LD. SR.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL CAN BE DECIDED EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE APPELLA NT ON MERITS AS IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, ADMITTEDLY THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND THE ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED A ND CONCLUDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE RELYING UPON THE ORDER DATED 27.0 5.2015 OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS V ITO ITA 798/CHD/20 12. ITA 764TO766/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2009-10 TO 2011-12 PAGE 2 OF 2 3. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM MANUFACTURING OF RAILWAY CARRIAGE FANS AND THE CLAIM OF 10 0% DEDUCTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF EXPANSIO N HAVING BEEN CARRIED OUT IN 2009-10 ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS DENIED RELY ING UPON PROVISIONS AS CONTAINED IN SECTION 80IC. THE FACTS WERE CONSIDERED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD COMMENCED ITS BUSINESS OPERATION ACTIV ITY IN 2004-05 ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BEING THE SIXTH YEAR, THE CLAIM WAS DENIED. THE SAID DECISION WAS CONFIRMED IN APP EAL BY THE CIT(A) RELYING UPON THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE ITAT. 4. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INFIRMITY QUA THE CONCLUSION EITHE R ON FACTS OR LAW, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 5. SINCE THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND POSITION OF LAW REMAIN THE SAME, ITA NOS. 765 & 766/CHD/2017 AS THERE WOULD BE SE VENTH AND EIGHTH YEAR, THE RESTRICTION OF DEDUCTION @ 25% IS CONFIRMED AND THE APPEALS ARE ALSO DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF THE AFORESAID REASONS. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.11. 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.