Parvatiya Plywood (P) Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, Ward-19(2), New Delhi

ITA 8120/DEL/2018

AI Insights

The case involves Parvatiya Plywood (P) Ltd., the appellant, contesting the decision of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), Ward 19 (2), which was upheld by the CIT (Appeals)-XXV, New Delhi. The dispute centered on the denial of a deduction amounting to Rs. 52,98,229 under section 80IC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The primary contention was whether the assessee's manufacturing plant was situated in an area approved by the government, a requirement for the deduction under section 80IC. The CIT (Appeals) noted that the Khasra number of the plant was not included in the notified area by the government of Uttarakhand, and thus, the deduction was not allowable. The assessee's appeal to the Supreme Court on this matter was acknowledged but had not progressed to a hearing at the time of this decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 113926 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-08-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 21-08-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 20-12-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 80IC; 80IC

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI) SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.8120/DEL./2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15) Parvatiya Plywood (P) Ltd., vs. DCIT, Ward 19 (2), Village Shivlalpur, Ramnagar, New Delhi. Distt. Nainital, Nainital – 244 715 (Uttarakhand). (PAN : AAACP4522H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : None REVENUE BY : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 22.08.2023 Date of Order : 24.08.2023 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT (Appeals)-XXV, New Delhi dated 24.10.2018 pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is not justified and has erred in law in upholding the order passed by A.O. which is erroneous and bad in law. ITA No.8120 /Del./2018 2 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is not justified and has erred in law in upholding the denial of deduction of Rs. 52,98,229/- u/s 80 IC of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 3. In this case, Assessing Officer noted that assessee company’s plant is not installed in approved area as necessary for claiming exemption under section 80IC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), hence the deduction claimed under section 80IC was disallowed. 4. Upon assessee’s appeal, ld. CIT (A) elaborately noted the submissions of the assessee and held as under :- “ I have considered the submissions of the appellant, the assessment order and the facts of the case. The appellant has a matter also pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue of eligibility of claim u/s 80 IB. The AO has held that as per section (8) of section 80lC, deduction is available to any undertaking enterprise in "Industrial Are" which is a notified area. The appellant has submitted that the Khasra number on which this plant is located has not been notified by the government of Uttarakhand/Uttarachal as a notified area. Against non-inclusion of Khasra number in the notification, the appellant has filed SLP in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which was heard and 'Leave granted' on 22.09.2017. 'However, no hearing has taken place thereafter in this case of the appellant. In view of the facts as they stand today, the Khasra number of appellant has not been notified by the government of Uttarakhand. Though the appeal by the appellant is pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court, yet as on date the claim is not allowable. Accordingly, the action of AO in not allowing the deduction u/s 80IC, is upheld. The AO is also directed to give effect to the order of Hon'ble Apex Court as and when the order is received. The similar issue has also been decided by Ld CIT (A) 38 for AY 2013-14 on same lines. The same is followed here also.” ITA No.8120 /Del./2018 3 5. Against the above order, assessee is in appeal before us. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite several opportunities. Hence, we proceeded to decide the appeal after hearing the ld. DR for the Revenue and perusing the records. 6. As noted in the order of authorities below, the assessee claimed for exemption under section 80IC which was denied on account of plant being not located in the area notified by the Government. Hence, in this background, assessee has rightly been held to be not eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. Accordingly, we uphold the well-reasoned order of ld. CIT (A). 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 24 th day of August, 2023. Sd/- sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR US) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated the 24 th day of August, 2023 TS Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT (Appeals)-XXV, New Delhi. 5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.