M/s Smart Enterprises, Parwanoo V. DCIT, Parwanoo

ITA 868/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6840 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 26-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.868/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 13-14 M/S SMART ENTERPRISES, VS. THE DCIT, KHASRA NO. 186-187, CIRCLE, OPP. TERMINAL MARKET, PARWANOO. SECTOR 6, PARWANOO. PAN NO. AAJFS5329C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MANOJ KUMAR, CA RESPONDENT BY : SMT. CHANDER KANTA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 05.07.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.09.2017 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSA ILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 28.04.2017 OF CIT (APPEA LS) SHIMLA PERTAINING TO 2013-14 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND : THE ID. C1T(A) IS WRONG IN DISALLOWING THE BENEFIT 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 BENEF IT OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IS ALLOWABLE ONLY TO THE UNDERTAKING WHIC H WERE EXISTING AS ON 07.01.2003. 2. BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN HEARD. THE ASSESSEE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF ELE CTRICAL GEYSERS AND CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTION U/S 80IC AFTER HAVING ALREA DY CLAIMED THE SAME IN THE INITIAL FIVE YEARS CLAIMING EXPANSION. CONSIDER ING THE PROVISIONS OF LAW APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE AO ALLOWED DEDUCTION TO THE EXTENT OF 25% OF THE ELIGIBLE PROFITS. THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL WAS DISMISSED BY THE CIT(A) RELYING UPON DECISION OF THE CHANDIGARH BENC H OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS VS ITO, BADDI ITA NO. 326/ CHD/2015 DATED 08.10.2015. NO CHANGE EITHER IN FACTS OR LAW WAS BRO UGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE BENCH BY THE LD. AR WHO MERELY STATED THAT IT MAY NO T BE ITA 868/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 PAGE 2 OF 2 UNDERSTOOD THAT THE ISSUE IS BEING GIVEN UP A S THE SAM E MAY BE CARRIED TO THE NEXT FORUM. ACCORDINGLY, TAKING NOTE OF THE SUBMIS SIONS IN FACTS WHERE THERE IS NO CHANGE EITHER ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OR POSITION OF LAW ON THE ISSUE IN HAND, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER O F THE ITAT WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE'S APP EAL IS DISMISSED. IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN UP ITS CLAIM AND IS CARRYING THE ISSUE FURTHER BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 3. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH SEPTEMBER,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.