M/s J.K. International, Kangra V. DCIT, Palampur

ITA 815/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7001 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 15-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.815/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 M/S J.K.INTERNATIONAL, VS. THE DCIT, PLOT NO. 18, INDUSTRIAL AREA, CIRCLE, BAI ATTARIAN, PO KANORORI, PALAMPUR. TEHSIL INDORA, KANGRA (HP). PAN NO. AAEFJ9527D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT.CHANDER KANTA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 27.06.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.08.2017 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSA ILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2017 OF CIT(A) PALAMP UR PERTAINING TO 2011-12 ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, A COUNSEL STOOD UP STATING THA T HE IS PROXY COUNSEL, AS SUCH TIME WAS SOUGHT. THE LD. SR.DR OBJECTED TO THE REQUEST FOR TIME STATING THAT IT IS A COVERED ISSUE BY THE ORDER DAT ED 08.10.2015 OF THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS VS ITO, BADDI ITA NO. 326/CHD/2015. ACCORDINGLY, A PASS OVER WA S GIVEN TO ALLOW TIME TO THE CONCERNED PERSON TO FAMILIARIZE HIMSELF WITH TH E FACTS. IN THE SECOND ROUND, WHEN THE APPEAL WAS CALLED, THE PERSON STA TING TO BE PROXY COUNSEL WAS NOT PRESENT. IT WAS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE RE IS NO POWER OF ATTORNEY ON RECORD. ACCORDINGLY, IT COULD NOT BE SAID THA T REQUEST FOR TIME WAS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, C ONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. SR.DR, IT WAS PROPOSED TO PROCEED WITH THE PRESENT APPEAL EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT ON MERITS. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 14.08.2015 U/S 263/143(3) OF THE ACT CONSIDERING THE CLAIM O F DEDUCTION OF 100% U/S 80IC RESTRICTED IT TO 25% ON THE GROUND THAT BEING THE 6 TH YEAR OF THE DEDUCTION FROM THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 10 0% DEDUCTION COULD NOT BE ALLOWED. THE SAID CLAIM WAS UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) RELYING UPON ITA 815/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 2 OF 2 THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCRO N ELECTRONICS VS ITO, BADDI ITA NO. 326/CHD/2015. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISTIN CTION OF FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES OR POSITION OF LAW HAVING BEEN BROUGHT TO T HE NOTICE OF THE BENCH, WE FIND NO GOOD REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDE R. BEING SATISFIED BY THE REASONING AND THE FINDING, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH AUG.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.