Shri Navdeep Dhingra, Jagadhari V. DCIT, Yamunanagar

ITA 906/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8372 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 17-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 17-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Advance ruling
• Section: 80IB; 263; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.906/CHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) SHRI NAVDEEP DHINGRA, VS. THE D.C.I.T., H.NO.2279, SECTOR 17, HUDA, CIRCLE YAMUNA NAGAR. JAGADHARI. PAN: AAWPD8237A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ASHOK GOYAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 17.03.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.03.2016 O R D E R PER RANO JAIN, A.M . : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PANCHKULA DATED 13.10.2015, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AR E AS UNDER : 1. THAT THE WORTHY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PANCHKULA ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC AMOUNTING TO RS.1,78,76,224/- OUT OF DEDUCTION OF RS.2,38,34,966/ - 2 AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT AT THE TIME OF FILING TH E RETURN OF INCOME. 2. THAT THE ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION HAS BEE N MADE AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEA RD OR DISPOSED OFF. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE RELATES TO ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT), @ 25% AS AGAINST 100% CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION CARR IED ON DURING THE YEAR. 4. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINS T THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T., CHANDIGARH B ENCH IN THE CASE OF HYCRON ELECTRONICS VS. ITO, ITA NO.798/CHD/2012, DATED 27.5.2015. 5. THE LEARNED D.R. AGREED WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THE LE ARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE ON THE BASIS OF ORDER IN THE CASE OF HYCRON ELECTRONIC S (SUPRA). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECO RD. WE SEE THAT THE I.T.A.T., CHANDIGARH BENCH AFTER 3 CONSIDERING DETAILED SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, HA S GIVEN A FINDINGS AT PARAS 28 TO 49 WHICH READ AS UNDER : 28. HAVING CONSIDERED THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETAT ION ABOVE, LET US CONSIDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 80IC IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. SECTION 80IC READS AS UNDER:- SECTION 80IC 80-IC (1) WHERE THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSES SEE INCLUDES ANY PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED BY AN UNDERTAKING OR AN E NTERPRISE FROM ANY BUSINESS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (2), THERE SHAL L, IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, BE A LLOWED, IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, A DEDUCTION FROM SUCH PROFITS AND GAINS, AS SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION(3). (2) THIS SECTION APPLIES TO ANY UNDERTAKING OR ENTE RPRISE,- (A) WHICH HAS BEGUN OR BEGINS TO MANUFACTURE OR PRO DUCE ANY ARTICLE OR THING, NOT BEING ANY ARTICLE OR THING SPECIFIED IN THE THIRTEENTH SCHEDULE, OR WHICH MANUFACTURES OR PRODUCES ANY ARTICLE OR TH ING, NOT BEING ANY ARTICLE OR THING SPECIFIED IN THE THIRTEENTH SCHEDU LE AND UNDERTAKES SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION DURING THE PERIOD BEGINNING. (I) ON THE 23 RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2002 AND ENDING BEFORE THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, [2007], IN ANY EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE OR INT EGRATED INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CENTRE OR INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE OR I NDUSTRIAL ESTATE OR INDUSTRIAL PARK OR SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK OR INDU STRIAL AREA OR THEME PARK, AS NOTIFIED BY THE BOARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH T HE SCHEME FRAMED AND NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN THIS REGARD, IN THE STATE OF SIKKIM; OR (II) ON THE 7 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2003 AND ENDING BEFORE THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2012, IN ANY EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE OR INTEGRATED I NFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CENTRE OR INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE OR I NDUSTRIAL ESTATE OR INDUSTRIAL PARK OR SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK OR INDU STRIAL AREA OR THEME PARK, AS NOTIFIED BY THE BOARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH T HE SCHEME FRAMED AND NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN THIS REGARD, IN THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH OR THE STATE OF UTTARANCHAL; OR (III) ON THE 24 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1997 AND ENDING BEFORE THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2007, IN ANY EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE OR INTEG RATED INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CENTRE OR INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE OR I NDUSTRIAL ESTATE OR INDUSTRIAL PARK OR SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK OR INDU STRIAL AREA OR THEME PARK, AS NOTIFIED BY THE BOARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH T HE SCHEME FRAMED AND NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN THIS REGARD, IN ANY OF THE NORTHEASTERN STATES; (B) WHICH HAS BEGUN OR BEGINS TO MANUFACTURE OR PRO DUCE ANY ARTICLE OR THING, SPECIFIED IN THE FOURTEENTH SCHEDULE OR COMM ENCES ANY OPERATION SPECIFIED IN THAT SCHEDULE, OR WHICH MANUFACTURES O R PRODUCES ANY ARTICLE OR THING, SPECIFIED IN THE FOURTEENTH SCHEDULE OR C OMMENCES ANY OPERATIONS SPECIFIED IN THAT SCHEDULE AND UNDERTAKE S SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION DURING THE PERIOD BEGINNING- (I) ON THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2002 AND ENDING BE FORE THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, [2007], IN THE STATE OF SIKKIM; OR (II) ON THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2003 AND ENDING BEF ORE THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2012, IN THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH OR THE STATE OF UTTARANCHAL; OR (III) ON THE 24TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1997 AND ENDING BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2007, IN ANY OF THE NORTH-EASTERN STATES. (3) THE DEDUCTION REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) SH ALL BE (I) IN THE CASE OF ANY UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE RE FERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSES (I) AND (III) OF CLAUSE (A) OR SUB-CLAUSES (I) AND (III) OF CLAUSE (B), OF SUB- 4 SECTION (2), ONE HUNDRED PER CENT OF SUCH PROFITS A ND GAINS FOR TEN ASSESSMENT YEARS COMMENCING WITH THE INITIAL ASSESS MENT YEAR; (II) IN THE CASE OF ANY UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE R EFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (II) OF CLAUSE (A) OR SUB-CLAUSE (II) OF CLAUSE (B) , OF SUB-SECTION (2),ONE HUNDRED PER CENT OF SUCH PROFIT AND GAINS FOR FIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS COMMENCING WITH THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE REAFTER TWENTY-FIVE PER CENT (OR THIRTY PER CENT WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY) OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS. (4) THIS SECTION APPLIES TO ANY UNDERTAKING OR ENTE RPRISE WHICH FULFILS ALL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, NAMELY:- (I) IT IS NOT FORMED BY SPLITTING UP, OR THE RECONS TRUCTION, OF A BUSINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE: PROVIDED THAT THIS CONDITION SHALL NOT APPLY IN RES PECT OF AN UNDERTAKING WHICH IS FORMED AS A RESULT OF THERE-ESTABLISHMENT, RECONSTRUCTION OR REVIVAL BY THE ASSESSEE OF THE BUSINESS OF ANY SUCH UNDERTAKING AS IS REFERRED TO IN SECTION 33B, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AN D WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN THAT SECTION; (II) IT IS NOT FORMED BY THE TRANSFER TO A NEW BUSINESS OF MACHINERY OR PLANT PREVIOUSLY USED FOR ANY PURPOSE. EXPLANATION.- THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATIONS 1 AND 2 TO SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 80-IA SHALL APPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLAUS E (II) OF THIS SUB-SECTION AS THEY APPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLAUSE (II) OF TH AT SUB-SECTION. (5) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS ACT, IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, NO D EDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED UNDER ANY OTHER SECTION CONTAINED IN CHAPTE R VIA OR IN SECTION 10A OR SECTION 10B, IN RELATION TO THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE. (6) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THIS ACT, NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED TO ANY UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE UNDER THIS SECTION, WHERE THE TOTAL PERIOD OF DEDUCTION INCLUSIVE OF THE PERIOD O F DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SECTION, OR UNDER THE SECOND PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 80-IB OR UNDER SECTION 10C, AS THE CASE MAY BE, EXCEEDS T HE ASSESSMENT YEARS. (7) THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTION (5) AND SUB-SECTIONS(7) TO (12) OF SECTION 80-IA SHALL, SO FAR AS MAY BE, APPL Y TO THE ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE UNDER THIS SECTION. (8) FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION,- (I) INDUSTRIAL AREA MEANS SUCH AREAS, WHICH THE B OARD, MAY, BE NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, SPECIFY IN AC CORDANCE WITH THE SCHEME FRAMED AND NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT; (II) INDUSTRIAL ESTATE MEANS SUCH ESTATES, WHICH THE BOARD, MAY, BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, SPECIFY IN AC CORDANCE WITH THE SCHEME FRAMED AND NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. (III) INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE MEANS SUCH CENTRES , WHICH THE BOARD, MAY, BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, SPECI FY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCHEME FRAMED AND NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMEN T; (IV) INDUSTRIAL PARK MEANS SUCH PARKS, WHICH THE BOARD, MAY, BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, SPECIFY IN AC CORDANCE WITH THE SCHEME FRAMED AND NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT; (V) INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR MEANS THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE UNDERTAKING OR THE ENTER PRISE BEGINS TO MANUFACTURES OR PRODUCE ARTICLES OR THINGS, OR COMM ENCES OPERATION OR COMPLETES SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION; (VI) INTEGRATED INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CENTRE MEANS SUCH CENTRES, WHICH THE BOARD, MAY, BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICI AL GAZETTE, SPECIFY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCHEME FRAMED AND NOTIFIED BY T HE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT (VII) NORTH-EASTERN STATES MEANS THE STATES OF A RUNACHAL PRADESH, ASSAM, MANIPUR, MEGHALAYA, MIZORAM, NAGALAND AND TRIP URA; 5 (VIII) SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK MEANS ANY PARK S ET UP IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK SCHEME NOTIFIED B Y THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA IN THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY; (IX) SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION MEANS INCREASE IN THE INVESTMENT IN THE PLANT AND MACHINERY BY AT LEAST FIFTY PER CENT OF T HE BOOK VALUE OF PLANT AND MACHINERY (BEFORE TAKING DEPRECIATION IN ANY YE AR), AS ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE SUBSTANTIAL E XPANSION IS UNDERTAKEN; (X) THEME PARK MEANS SUCH PARKS, WHICH THE BOARD, MAY, BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, SPECIFY IN AC CORDANCE WITH THE SCHEME FRAMED AND NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. 29. SUB SECTION (1) OF THE ABOVE PROVISION IS A GEN ERAL PROVISION AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERPRETATION. SUB SECTION [2] IS THE ENABLING PROVISION WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE TYPES OF UNDERTAKINGS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHE RE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC WOULD BE ALLOWED. IT ALLOWS DEDUCTION TO VARIOUS UN DERTAKINGS WHICH HAVE EITHER BEGUN OR BEGINS MANUFACTURING OF ANY ARTICLE OR THI NGS NOT BEING ANY ARTICLE OR THING SPECIFIED IN SCHEDULE XIII AND ALSO UNDERTAKES SUBS TANTIAL EXPANSION. THESE DEDUCTIONS WERE AVAILABLE IN DIFFERENT STATES DURIN G DIFFERENT WINDOW PERIODS WHICH HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (I), (II) & (III) O F THIS SUB SECTION. THE CONTENTION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT SINCE DEDUCTION IS A VAILABLE TO THE UNDERTAKING WHICH UNDERTAKES SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION AND SINCE THERE IS NO RESTRICTION IN THIS SUB SECTION ITSELF, THEREFORE, THE DEDUCTION WAS AVAILABLE ON S UBSTANTIAL EXPANSION BY OLD UNDERTAKINGS AS WELL AS NEW UNDERTAKINGS DURING THE WINDOW PERIOD. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO FORCE IN THIS INTERPRETATION. SUB SECTION (2) BEGINS WITH THE EXPRESSION THIS SECTION APPLIES TO ANY UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE WH ICH HAS BEGUN OR BEGINS THIS ITSELF SHOWS THAT PROVISION MADE EVEN THE EXISTING UNDERTAKINGS ENTITLED FOR THE DEDUCTION BECAUSE THE EXPRESSION BEGUN WOULD REFE R TO THE UNDERTAKING WHICH WERE ALREADY EXISTING AND BEGAN THE MANUFACTURE BEFORE T HE WINDOW PERIOD MENTIONED IN THE SUB SECTION. THE LAST LINE OF THE SUB SECTION R EADS AND UNDERTAKES SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION DURING THE PERIOD BEGINNING... THIS WO ULD NATURALLY REFER TO THE UNDERTAKING WHICH WERE ALREADY EXISTING. IF IT IS R EAD THE WAY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD LIKE US TO READ THEN THE PROVISION W OULD BECOME UNWORKABLE BECAUSE IF THERE IS AN UNDERTAKING WHICH IS ESTABLISHED DUR ING THE WINDOW PERIOD THEN THE SAME CANNOT POSSIBLY UNDERTAKES SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSI ON ALSO SIMULTANEOUSLY. THE EXPRESSION AND WOULD REFER TO THE CUMULATIVE COND ITION THAT IS BOTH PARTS OF THE CONDITIONS NEED TO BE COMPLIED. THE EXPRESSION AND CAN BE JOINED ONLY WITH THE EXPRESSION BEGUN. THIS IS BECAUSE BEGUN REFERS TO SOMETHING WHICH HAS ALREADY STARTED IN THE PAST WHEREAS BEGINS CONNOTES SOMET HING WHICH WOULD COMMENCE IN THE PRESENT. THEREFORE, THE EXPRESSION AND CAN BE CORRELATED ONLY WITH EXISTING UNIT BECAUSE AS WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN A NEW UNIT WHICH HA S BEEN SET UP AND BEGINS PRODUCTION CANNOT SIMULTANEOUSLY UNDERGO SUBSTANTIA L EXPANSION ALSO SO AS TO BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SECTION. 30. AT THIS STAGE, IT CAN BE SAID THAT SECTION HAS SOME CONFUSION AND SOME EFFORT IS REQUIRED TO UNDERSTAND THE CORRECT INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE BY KEEPING VARIOUS PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. THEREFORE, VARIOUS PR INCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION NEEDS TO BE LOOKED INTO. THIS PROVISION WAS BROUGHT INTO THE ST ATUTE INDISPUTABLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE INCENTIVE PACKAGE ANNOUNCED BY THE UNION CABI NET. THROUGH THIS INCENTIVE PACKAGE NOT ONLY INCOME TAX CONCESSION BUT EXCISE C ONCESSIONS AND SOME SUBSIDIES LIKE TRANSPORT SUBSIDY AND CAPITAL SUBSIDY WERE ALS O PROVIDED TO VARIOUS INDUSTRIES IN THE HILLY STATED COMPRISING STATES OF HIMACHAL PRAD ESH, UTTARANCHAL, SIKKIM AND NORTH-EASTERN STATES TO BOOST THE ECONOMIES OF THES E HILLY STATES. CIRCULAR NO.7 WAS ISSUED BY THE CBDT ON 5.9.2003 IN THIS RESPECT AND THE CIRCULAR READS AS UNDER:- CIRCULAR NO. 7/2003 DATED 05.09.2003 49. NEW PROVISIONS ALLOWING A TEN YEARS TAX HOLIDAY IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN UNDERTAKINGS IN THE STATES OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SIK KIM, UTTARANCHAL AND NORTH-EASTERN STATES. 49.1 THE UNION CABINET HAS ANNOUNCED A PACKAGE OF F ISCAL AND NON-FISCAL CONCESSIONS FOR THE SPECIAL CATEGORY STATES OF HIMA CHAL PRADESH, UTTARANCHAL, SIKKIM AND NORTH-EASTERN STATES, IN OR DER TO GIVE BOOST TO THE ECONOMY IN THESE STATES. WITH A VIEW TO GIVE EFFECT TO THESE NEW PACKAGES A NEW SECTION 80-IC HAS BEEN INSERTED TO A LLOW A DEDUCTION FOR TEN YEARS FROM THE PROFITS OF NEW UND ERTAKING OR 6 ENTERPRISE OR EXISTING UNDERTAKINGS OR ENTERPRISES ON THEIR SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION, IN THE STATES OF HIMACHAL PR ADESH, UTTARANCHAL, SIKKIM AND NORTH-EASTERN STATES . FOR THIS PURPOSE, SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IS DEFINED AS INCREASE IN THE INVESTMENT IN THE PLANT AND MACHINERY BY AT LEAST 50% OF THE BOOK VALUE OF THE PLANT AND MACHINERY (BEFORE TAKING DEPRECIATION IN ANY YEAR), AS ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSIO N IS UNDERTAKEN. 49.2 THE SECTION PROVIDES THAT THE DEDUCTION SHALL BE AVAILABLE TO SUCH UNDERTAKINGS OR ENTERPRISES WHICH MANUFACTURE OR PR ODUCE ANY ARTICLE OR THING, NOT BEING ANY ARTICLE OR THING SPECIFIED IN THE THIRTEENTH SCHEDULE AND WHICH COMMENCE OPERATION IN ANY EXPORT PROCESSI NG ZONE, OR INTEGRATED INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CENTRE OR IND USTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE OR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, OR INDUSTRIAL PARK, OR SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK OR INDUSTRIAL AREA OR THEME PARK, AS NOTIFIED BY THE BOARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULES PRESCRIBED IN THIS REGARD. SI MILAR DEDUCTION SHALL BE AVAILABLE TO THRUST SECTOR INDUSTRIES, AS SPECIFIED IN THE FOURTEENTH SCHEDULE. 49.3 THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION IN CASE OF UNDERTAKING S OR ENTERPRISES IN THE STATES OF SIKKIM, AND THE NORTH-EASTERN STATES SHALL BE ONE HUNDRED PER CENT OF THE PROFITS OF THE UNDERTAKING FOR TEN ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION IN CASE OF UNDERTAKINGS OR ENTE RPRISES IN THE STATES OF UTTARANCHAL, HIMACHAL PRADESH SHALL BE ONE HUNDR ED PER CENT OF THE PROFITS OF THE UNDERTAKING FOR FIVE ASSESSMENT YEAR S, AND THEREAFTER TWENTY-FIVE PER CENT (THIRTY PER CENT FOR COMPANIES ) FOR THE NEXT FIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 49.4 THE SECTION ALSO PROVIDES THAT NO DEDUCTION SH ALL BE ALLOWED TO ANY UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE UNDER THIS SECTION, WHERE THE TOTAL PERIOD OF DEDUCTION INCLUSIVE OF THE PERIOD OF DEDUCTION UNDE R THIS SECTION OR UNDER SECTION 80-IB OR UNDER SECTION 10C, AS THE CASE MAY BE, EXCEEDS TEN ASSESSMENT YEARS. FURTHER, IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED UNDER ANY O THER SECTION CONTAINED IN CHAPTER VIA OR IN SECTION 10A OR 10B, IN RELATION TO THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE. 49.5 A NEW THIRTEENTH SCHEDULE HAS BEEN INSERTED IN THE INCOME-TAX ACT TO SPECIFY THE LIST OF ARTICLES AND THINGS, WHICH A RE INELIGIBLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IC. FURTHER, A NEW FOURTEENTH SCHEDULE HAS ALSO BEEN INSERTED, WHICH SPECIFIES TH E LIST OF ARTICLES AND THINGS, BEING THRUST SECTOR INDUSTRIES, WHICH ARE E LIGIBLE FOR THE PURPOSES OF AVAILING DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SECTION. CONSEQUEN T TO THESES AMENDMENTS, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10C AND SUB-S ECTION(4) OF SECTION 80-IB HAVE BEEN MADE INOPERATIVE IN RESPECT OF THE UNDERTAKINGS OR ENTERPRISES IN THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH OR IN NORTH-EASTERN REGION INCLUDING SIKKIM, WITH EFFECT FROM THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2004. 49.6 THESE AMENDMENTS WILL TAKE EFFECT FROM 1 ST APRIL, 2004 AND WILL, ACCORDINGLY, APPLY IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2004-05 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS. 31. THE CIRCULAR MAKES IT CLEAR THAT SECTION 80IC W AS INSERTED TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE NEW PACKAGE ANNOUNCED BY THE UNION CABINET. THE CIR CULAR FURTHER CLARIFIES THAT THIS SECTION PROVIDES FOR DEDUCTION FOR A PERIOD OF 10 Y EARS FROM THE PROFITS OF NEW UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE OR EXISTING UNDERTAKING O R ENTERPRISE ON THEIR SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION (SEE HIGHLIGHTED PORTION OF THE CIRCULAR) . THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT WORD EXISTING QUALIFIES ONLY THE UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISES AND DOES NOT MENTION ANY PARTICULAR DATE FOR CARRYI NG OUT SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THIS CONTENTION. THE WORD EXISTIN G IS DEFINED IN THE DICTIONARIES ARE AS UNDER:- 32. BLACK LAW DICTIONARY 6 TH EDITION:- EXIST : TO LIVE, TO HAVE LIFE OR ANIMATION TO BE IN PRESENT FORCE , ACTIVITY, OR EFFECT AT A GIVEN TIME, AS IN SPEAKI NG OF EXISTING CONTRACTS, CREDITORS DEBTS, LAWS, RIG HTS OR LIENS. FOR US RELEVANT MEANING WOULD BE TO BE IN PRESENT FORCE 7 AS PER OXFORD DICTIONARY EXIST IS DEFINED AS UNDE R EXIST : 1 (NOT USED IN THE PROGRESSIVE TENSES) TO BE REAL; TO BE PRESENT IN A PLACE OR SITUATION : DOES LIFE EXIST ON OTHER PLANETS? THE PROBLEM ONL Y EXISTS IN YOUR HEAD, JANE. FEW OF THESE MONKEYS STI LL EXIST IN THE WILD. ON HIS RETIREMENT THE POST WILL CEASE TO EXIST. THE CH ARITY EXISTS TO SUPPORT VICTIMS OF CRIME. 2- (ON STH) TO LIVE, ESPECIALLY IN A DIFFICULT SITU ATION OR WITH VERY LITTLE MONEY: WE EXISTED ON A DIET OF RICE. THEY CANT EXI ST ON THE MONEY HES EARNING THE ABOVE DEFINITION CLEARLY SHOWS THAT EXIST WOU LD REFER TO SOMETHING WHICH IS IN FORCE PRESENTLY. EXIST WOULD GENERALLY AND IN COM MON SENSE REFERS TO SOMETHING WHICH IS ALREADY THERE. WITH REFERENCE TO THIS PROV ISION, THIS WOULD REFER TO AN UNDERTAKING WHICH WAS ALREADY PRESENT ON THE DATE W HEN THIS PROVISION WAS INTRODUCED. IN ANY CASE THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POL ICY AND PROMOTION WHICH IS PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA REMOVED ALL THE D OUBTS. THIS NOTIFICATION IS RELEVANT BECAUSE THIS WAS ISSUED WITH REFERENCE TO SAME PACK AGE ANNOUNCED BY THE UNION CABINET OF INDIA FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE HILLY S TATES. SECTION 5, READS AS UNDER;- DEFINITIONS: (A)... (B) .. (C) EXISTING INDUSTRIAL UNIT MEANS AN INDUSTRIAL U NIT EXISTING AS ON 7 TH JANUARY 2003. (D) . (E) . (F) THUS THE DEFINITION GIVEN ABOVE MAKES IT CLEAR THAT EXISTING INDUSTRIAL UNIT WOULD MEAN AN UNIT WHICH EXISTED ON 7.1.2003. 33. EVEN IF THE ABOVE CONTROVERSY IS IGNORED REGARD ING EXISTING UNIT, THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE BECOME ABSOLUTELY CLEAR WHEN SUB SE CTION (2) IS READ ALONGWITH SUB- SECTION (3) OF SECTION 80IC. AS NOTED EARLIER, SUB SECTION (2) IS ENABLING PROVISION WHICH PROVIDES FOR DEDUCTION IN CERTAIN KIND OF UND ERTAKINGS, I.E. NEW UNIT SET UP OR THE EXISTING UNITS WHICH CARRIES OUT SUBSTANTIAL EX PANSION DURING THE PARTICULAR WINDOW PERIOD WHICH ARE GIVEN IN CLAUSES (I), (II) & (III) OF SUB SECTION (2). THE SUB SECTION (3) PROVIDES FOR RATES OF DEDUCTION. IT IS USEFUL TO NOTE THAT CLAUSE (I) OF SUB SECTION (3) PROVIDES FOR 100% DEDUCTION FOR A PERIO D OF 10 ASSESSMENT YEARS IN CASES COVERED BY SUB CLAUSE (I) & (III) OF CLAUSE (A) AND SUB CLAUSE (I) & (III) OF CLAUSE (B). NOW SUB CLAUSE (I ) AND (III) OF CLAUSE (A) OF SUB SECTION (2) REFERS TO THE WINDOW PERIOD IN CASE OF STATE OF SIKKIM, NORTH-EASTERN ST ATES WHEREAS SUB CLAUSE (II) REFERS TO THE WINDOW PERIOD IN CASE OF STATE OF HIMACHAL P RADESH AND STATE OF UTTARANCHAL. SIMILARLY, SUB CLAUSE (I) & (III) OF CLAUSE (B) REF ERS TO WINDOW PERIOD IN CASE OF STATE OF SIKKIM AND NORTH-EASTER STATES WHEREAS SUB CLAUS E (II) REFERS TO THE WINDOW PERIOD IN CASE OF STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND UTT ARANCHAL. NOW CLAUSE (II) OF SUB SECTION (3) PROVIDES FOR 100% DEDUCTION ON SUCH PRO FITS FOR FIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS COMMENCING WITH INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THEREAF TER 25% (OR 30% WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY) OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS. TH EREFORE, IT IS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT IN CASE OF STATE OF SIKKIM AND NORTH-EASTERN STATES , LEGISLATURE WAS VERY CLEAR THAT IN CASE OF NEW UNDERTAKING OR IN CASE OF SUBSTANTIAL E XPANDED UNDERTAKING DEDUCTION IS TO BE ALLOWED @ 100% FOR WHOLE OF THE TEN YEARS WHE REAS IN CASE OF STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND UTTARANCHAL THE DEDUCTION WAS TO BE ALLOWED @ 100% ONLY FOR FIRST FIVE YEARS AND THEREAFTER IT WAS ONLY 25%. IF THE LEGISLATURE WANTED TO EXTEND THE BENEFIT IN THE CASE OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION SE PARATELY THEN THE RATE OF DEDUCTION IN THE CLAUSE (I) & (II) OF SUB SECTION (3) WOULD N OT HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT I.E. 100% FOR WHOLE OF THE 10 YEARS IN CASE OF STATE OF SIKKIM & NORTH-EASTERN STATES UNDER SUB CLAUSE (I) AND FOR THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & UTTARANCHAL UNDER SUB CLAUSE (II) 100% FOR FIRST FIVE YEARS AND THEREAFTER 25% FOR NE XT FIVE YEARS. THE CONCEPT OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION REMAINS SAME UNDER SUB SECTIO N (2) FOR BOTH TYPES OF STATES I.E STATE OF SIKKIM AND NORTH-EASTERN STATES AND STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND 8 UTTRANCHAL. IF THE EXTENDED BENEFIT OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION WAS TO BE SEPARATELY ALLOWED IN CASE OF STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ST ATE OF UTTARANCHAL, THEN MEANING OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION AS GIVEN UNDER SUB SECTION (2) WHICH IS SAME FOR THE STATE OF SIKKIM AND NORTH-EASTERN STATES BECOME REDUNDANT . AS NOTED EARLIER, THE PROVISION CANNOT BE INTERPRETED IN SUCH A WAY THAT PART OF THE SECTION BECOMES REDUNDANT OR OTIOSE. THEREFORE, WHATEVER DOUBTS MAY BE THERE IN SUB SECTION (2) WHEN IT IS READ WITH SUB SECTION (3), THOSE DOUBTS ARE TOTALLY REMOVED AND IT BECOME ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT RATE OF DEDUCTION HAS TO BE 1 00% FOR FIRST 5 YEARS AND 25% THEREAFTER. 34. THERE IS A FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF LD. CIT/D R THAT IF THE INTERPRETATION CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO BE ADOPT ED THEN SUB SECTION (4) OF SECTION 80IC WOULD ALSO BECOME REDUNDANT. SUB SECTI ON (4) CLEARLY PROVIDES THAT THE DEDUCTION IS AVAILABLE TO ANY UNDERTAKING OR ENTERP RISE WHICH IS NOT FORMED BY SPLITTING OR RECONSTRUCTION OF THE BUSINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE OR IT IS NOT FORMED BY TRANSFER TO NEW BUSINESS OF MACHINERY OR PLANT PREV IOUSLY USED FOR ANY PURPOSE. FURTHER THE EXPLANATION TO THIS SUB SECTION MAKES I T CLEAR THAT EXPLANATION 1 & 2 OF SUB SECTION (3) OF SECTION 80IA ARE APPLICABLE IN T HIS RESPECT. EXPLANATION 2 OF SUB SECTION (3) OF SECTION 80 IA READS AS UNDER: EXPLANATION 2- WHERE IN THE CASE OF AN [UNDERTAKIN G], ANY MACHINERY OR PLANT OR ANY PART THEREOF PREVIOUSLY USED FOR ANY P URPOSE IS TRANSFERRED TO A NEW BUSINESS AND THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE MACHINERY OR PLANT OR PART SO TRANSFERRED DOES NOT EXCEED TWENTY PER CENT OF THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE MACHINERY OR PLANT USED IN THE BUSINESS, THEN, FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLAUSE (II) OF THIS SUB-SECTION, THE CONDITION SPECIFIED T HEREIN SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH. FROM THE ABOVE IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT IF 20% OF THE MACHINERY FROM THE OLD UNIT WAS USED IN THE NEW UNIT THEN SUCH UNIT WOULD NOT BE EL IGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SECTION THAT IS SECTION 80IC. NOW FOR CARRYING OUT SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION THE INVESTMENT IN PLANT & MACHINERY IS REQUIRED TO BE MA DE BY ATLEAST 50%. SO IF 50% FRESH MACHINERY IS ADDED TO THE NEW UNIT THEN IT WI LL VIOLATE SUB SECTION (4) OF SECTION 80IC, THEREFORE, INTERPRETATION CANVASSED O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT POSSIBLE BECAUSE SECTION 80IC(4) WOULD BECOME REDUN DANT AND SUCH AN INTERPRETATION IS NOT POSSIBLE. 35. FURTHER, SUB SECTION (6) PROVIDES THAT IN NO CA SE THE TOTAL PERIOD OF DEDUCTION COULD EXCEED THE PERIOD OF 10 YEARS INCLUDING DEDUC TION AVAILED UNDER SUB SECTION (4) OF SECTION 80IB AND SECTION 10A AND 10B. IT WAS CONTENDED BEFORE US THAT SINCE THERE IS NO RESTRICTION IN CARRYING OUT OF SUBSTANT IAL EXPANSION IN THE NEW UNITS AND AS SUCH SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION CAN BE CARRIED OUT ANY N UMBER OF TIMES. IF THIS INTERPRETATION IS ACCEPTED THEN SUB SECTION (6) WOU LD BE RENDERED OTIOSE OR MEANINGLESS BECAUSE IF A UNIT WAS SET UP ON THE COM MENCEMENT OF THIS SECTION AND THE SAME CLAIMS DEDUCTION @ 100% AND LATER ON EVERY FIVE YEARS A SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IS CARRIED OUT THEN ACCORDING TO THE INTE RPRETATION CANVASSED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, SUCH UNIT WOULD AGAIN BECOME ENTITLED TO 100% DEDUCTION FOR ANOTHER FIVE YEARS AND FURTHER BLOCK OF FIVE YEARS EVERY TI ME SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IS CARRIED OUT. IF THIS INTERPRETATION IS ADOPTED THEN DEDUCTI ON WOULD BECOME ALMOST PERCEPTUAL AS LONG AS THE ASSESSEE HAS CARRIED OUT SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION BUT IN THAT CASE SUB SECTION (6) WOULD LOOSE ITS MEANING. SUCH AN UNLIMI TED PERIOD OF DEDUCTION WOULD NOT BE IN CONSONANCE OF LAW. AT THE COST OF REPETITION, WE WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASIZE THAT NO PRINCIPLE OF INTERPRETATION CAN BE ADOPTED WHICH LEADS TO A SITUATION WHERE A PARTICULAR PART OF THE SECTION BECOMES TOTALLY REDU NDANT. IN FACT THOUGH IT WAS CONTENDED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE (I.E. IN CASE OF HYCRON ELECTRONICS) DEDUCTION HAS BEEN CLAIMED ONLY OF 10 YEARS BUT ON THE DATE OF HE ARING SOME OTHER APPEALS WERE ALSO LISTED WHEREIN THE DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED FOR M ORE THAN 10 YEARS ADOPTING THE SAME CONTENTION WHICH HAS BEEN MADE BEFORE US. IN C ASE OF M/S MAHAVIR INDUSTRIES (ITA NO. 127/CHD/2011 AND ITA NO. 791/CHD/2012) THO UGH THOSE CASES WERE ADJOURNED BECAUSE SOME OTHER ISSUES WERE ALSO THERE BUT IN THOSE TWO CASES ASSESSEE HAD COMMENCED THE OPERATION ON 8.5.1997 AN D CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB FROM ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 TO 2005-06. LATER ON, SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION WAS CARRIED OUT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND ON THE B ASIS OF THE CONTENTION THAT ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED TO CARRY OUT ANY NUMBER OF EXPA NSIONS, DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED FOR THE 12 TH YEAR FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 (WE MAY CLARIFY T HAT REFERENCE TO THESE CASES IS MADE BECAUSE OF PARTICULAR CONTENTIO N AND WE ARE NOT EXPRESSING ANY OPINION ON THE MERITS OF THESE APPEALS HERE). THERE FORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE 9 ASSESSEE THAT ANY NUMBER OF EXPANSIONS ARE ALLOWED IS NOT POSSIBLE IN VIEW OF THE RESTRICTION GIVEN IN SECTION 80IC(6). 36. THE ABOVE SITUATION AS POINTED BY THE REVENUE A LSO BECOMES CLEAR IF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 80IC IS COMPARED TO THE PROVIS ION OF SECTION 80IB(4). RELEVANT PROVISION OF SECTION 80IB (4) READS AS UNDER:- (4) THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION IN THE CASE OF AN INDU STRIAL UNDERTAKING IN AN INDUSTRIALLY BACKWARD STATE SPECIFIED IN THE EIG HTH SCHEDULE SHALL BE HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FR OM SUCH INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING FOR FIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS BEGINNING WIT H THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THEREAFTER TWENTY-FIVE PER CENT (OR THIRTY PER CENT WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY) OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM SUCH INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING: PROVIDED THAT THE TOTAL PERIOD OF DEDUCTION DOES NO T EXCEED TEN CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS (OR TWELVE CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS WHERE THE ASSESEE IS A COMPANY-OPERATIVE SOCIETY) S UBJECT TO FULFILLMENT OF THE CONDITION THAT IT BEGINS TO MANUFACTURE OR P RODUCE ARTICLES OR THINGS OR TO OPERATE ITS COLD STORAGE PLANT OR PLANTS DURI NG THE PERIOD BEGINNING ON THE IST DAY OF APRIL, 1993 AND ENDING ON THE 31 ST DAY OF MARCH, [2004] : PROVIDED FURTHER THAT IN THE CASE OF SUCH INDUSTRIE S IN THE NORTH-EASTERN REGION, AS MAY BE NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMEN T, THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION SHALL BE HUNDRED PER CENT OF PROFITS AND GAINS FOR A PERIOD OF TEN ASSESSMENT YEARS, AND THE TOTAL PERIOD OF DEDUC TION SHALL IN SUCH A CASE NOT EXCEED TEN ASSESSMENT YEARS: PROVIDED ALSO THAT NO DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SUB-SECT ION SHALL BE ALLOWED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR BEGINNING ON THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2004 OR ANY SUBSEQUENT YEAR TO ANY UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE RE FERRED TO IN SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 80-IC. 37. THE CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE PROVISION WOUL D SHOW THAT BEFORE THE INTRODUCTION OF SECTION 80IC WHICH IS BEFORE US FOR CONSIDERATION, THE DEDUCTION TO THE BACKWARD STATES WAS AVAILABLE IN TERMS OF SECTION 8 0IB(4). THE THIRD PROVISO MAKES IT CLEAR THAT AFTER 31.3.2004, THIS DEDUCTION WILL BE AVAILABLE ONLY U/S 80IC. THE SUB SECTION FURTHER MAKES IT CLEAR THAT DEDUCTION WOULD BE @ 100% FOR THE FIRST FIVE YEARS AND THEREAFTER @ 25%. FURTHER, THE FIRST PROV ISO MAKES IT CLEAR THAT DEDUCTION WILL NOT EXCEED 10 CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. TH E SECOND PROVISO FURTHER MAKES IT CLEAR THAT IN THE CASE OF STATES OF NORTH-EASTER N REGIONS, THE DEDUCTION WOULD BE @ 100% FOR ALL THE 10 YEARS. THUS, EVEN IN THE EARLIE R PROVISION ONLY IN CASE OF NORTH- EASTER STATES, THE DEDUCTION OF 100% WAS ALLOWABLE FOR 10 YEARS WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF STATES OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, THE DEDUCTION WAS AL LOWABLE @ 100% FOR FIRST FIVE YEARS AND 25% FOR NEXT FIVE YEARS. 38. FURTHER, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT SUB SECTION (6 ) STARTS WITH NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE AND THEREFORE, IN NO CASE THE DEDUCTION COULD BE FO R PERIOD EXCEEDING 10 YEARS AND IN THIS REGARD WE MAY NOTE THAT EVEN THE LD. AUTHOR S IN THEIR COMMENTARY OF INCOME TAX LAWS BY CHATURVEDI & PITHISARIAS - SIXTH EDITI ON HAS EXPRESSED THE SAME OPINION. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT AT PAGES 6351 OF THE COMMENTARY READS AS UNDER;- NO DEDUCTION POSSIBLE FOR MORE THAN 10 ASSESSMENT YEARS.- SECTION 80- IC(6) ALSO OPENS WITH A NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE NOTWI THSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN,AND PROVIDES THAT NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED TO ANY UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE UNDER SECTION 80-IC, - WH ERE THE TOTAL PERIOD OF DEDUCTION INCLUSIVE OF THE PERIOD OF DEDUCTION - UNDER SECTION 80-IC, OR - UNDER THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 80-IB(4) OR - UNDER SECTION 10C - AS THE CASE MAY BE, EXCEEDS 10 ASSESSMENT YEARS. 39. LASTLY, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT INITIAL ASSESSMEN T YEAR AS DEFINED IN CLAUSE (V) OF SUB SECTION (8) OF SECTION 80IC USES THE EXPRESSION OR THEREFORE, IT CAN BE CONSTRUED THAT IT RELATES TO BOTH SITUATIONS SEPARATELY I.E. FOR NEW UNIT AND SUBSTANTIAL EXPANDED UNIT. WE FIND NO FORCE IN THIS CONTENTION. THE INIT IAL ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS BEEN DEFINED AND THE EXPRESSION OR HAS BEEN USED IN RE SPECT OF NEW UNITS BY STATING 10 COMMENCES OPERATION OR COMPLETE SUBSTANTIAL EXPA NSION. HERE THE EXPRESSION OR IS TO BE READ AS A MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE EXPRESSION WH ICH REFERS TO A PARTICULAR SITUATION BY EXCLUDING THE OTHER SITUATION. THEREFORE, INITIA L ASSESSMENT YEAR WOULD CLEARLY COMMENCE EITHER ON COMMENCEMENT OF OPERATION OR AT COMPLETION OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION OF EXISTING UNIT. IN ANY CASE THE WORD I NITIAL CANNOT BE USED TWICE BY REFERRING TO SERIES OF EVENTS. THIS CAN BE UNDERSTO OD WITH A VERY SIMPLE EXAMPLE. LET US SAY A PERSON A PASSES OUT HIS EXAMINATION OF L LB AND GET EMPLOYED AS LEGAL OFFICER IN AN ORGANIZATION. LATER ON, HE QUITS THE JOB AND STARTS THE PRACTICE IN LEGAL PROFESSION AND ULTIMATELY HE IS ELEVATED AS A JUDGE . THEN IN SUCH A SITUATION IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT INITIALLY A WAS WORKING IN A ORGANIZATION AND THEN INITIALLY HE WAS IN THE PROFESSION AND THEN ELEVATED AS A JUDGE. INITIALLY CAN BE USED ONLY ONCE AS A MATTER OF USAGE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE. THEREFORE , READING OF THE ABOVE PROVISION CLEARLY SHOWS THAT INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE WAS VERY CLEAR TO ALLOW 100% FOR FIRST FIVE YEARS IN CASE OF UNITS SITUATED IN THE STATE O F HIMACHAL PRADESH (SINCE ALL THE CASES BEFORE US ARE SITUATED IN THE STATE OF HIMACH AL PRADESH) AND THEREAFTER 25% DEDUCTION FOR ANOTHER FIVE YEARS ON THE NEW UNITS O R THE EXISTING UNITS WHERE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION WAS CARRIED OUT. 40. IT HAS ALSO BEEN CONTENDED THAT INCENTIVE PROVI SION SHOULD BE CONSTRUED LIBERALLY. FURTHER, IT WAS CONTENDED WITH REFERENCE TO THE DEC ISION OF M/S NOVAPAN INDIA LTD VS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS (SUPRA) BY THE REVENUE IS NOT CORRECT BECAUSE THAT PROVISION WAS RENDERED UNDER INDIRECT TAX ACT. WE FIND NO FORCE IN THESE SUBMISSIONS. EVERY DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SU PREME COURT OR FOR THAT MATTER OF ANY HIGH COURT HAS TO BE SEEN FOR THE RATIO LAID DO WN IN A PARTICULAR DECISION AND IT DOES NOT MATTER UNDER WHICH PARTICULAR ACT SUCH PRI NCIPLES HAS BEEN DECIDED. NO DOUBT THE INCENTIVE PROVISIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE I NTERPRETED LIBERALLY BUT IN CASE OF M/S NOVAPAN INDIA LTD V COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS (SUPRA), IT WAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE AP PELLANT THEN CONTENDED THAT SINCE THERE IS AN AMBIGUITY ABOUT THE MEANING AND P URPORT OF ITEM-6 OF THE TABLE APPENDED TO THE EXEMPTION NOTIFICATION, THE BENEFIT OF SUCH AMBIGUITY SHOULD GO TO THE ASSESSEE MANUFACTURER AND THE ENTRY MUST BE CON STRUED AS TAKING IN THE MFPBS AS WELL. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO AGREE WITH THIS SUBMISSION. IN MANGALORE CHEMICALS& FERTILIZERS LTD.. V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES & ORS., [1992) SUPPL. 1 S.C.C, 21, A BENCH OF THIS COURT COMPRISING M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, J. (AS THE LEA RNED CHIEF JUSTICE THEN WAS) AND S.C AGRAWAL, J. STATED THE RELEVANT P RINCIPLE IN THE FOLLOWING WORDS: SHRI NARASIMHAMURTY AGAIN RELIED ON CERTAIN OBSERV ATIONS IN CCE V. PARLE EXPORTS (P)LTD. [1989] 1 SCC 345, IN SUPPORT OF STR ICT CONSTRUCTION OF A PROVISION CONCERNING EXEMPTIONS. THERE IS SUPPORT O F JUDICIAL OPINION TO THE VIEW THAT EXEMPTIONS FROM TAXATION HAVE A TENDE NCY TO INCREASE THE BURDEN ON THE OTHER UN-EXEMPTED CLASS OF TAX PAYERS AND SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AGAINST THE SUBJECT IN CASE OF AMBIGUITY. IT IS AN EQUALLY WELL KNOWN PRINCIPLE THAT A PERSON WHO CLAIMS AN EXEMPTI ON HAS TO ESTABLISH HIS CASE. INDEED, IN THE VERY CASE OF PARLE EXPORTS (P) LTD. RELIED UPON BY SHRI NARASIMHAMURTHY, IT WAS OBSERVE D. WHILE INTERPRETING AN EXEMPTION CLAUSE, LIBERAL IN TERPRETATION SHOULD BE IMPARTED TO THE LANGUAGE THEREOF, PROVIDED NO VIOLE NCE IS DONE TO THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED. IT MUST, HOWEVER, BE BORNE IN MI ND THAT ABSURD RESULTS OF CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE AVOIDED. THE CHOICE BETWEEN A STRICT AND A LIBERAL CONSTRUCT ION ARISES ONLY IN CASE OF DOUBT IN REGARD TO THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLAT URE MANIFEST ON THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE. INDEED, THE NEED TO RESORT TO A NY INTERPRETATIVE PROCESS ARISES ONLY WHERE THE MEANING IS NOT MANIFE ST ON THE PLAIN WORDS OF THE STATUTE. IT THE WORDS ARE PLAIN AND CLEAR AN D DIRECTLY CONVEY THE MEANING, THERE IS NOT NEED FOR ANY INTERPRETATION. WE ARE, HOWEVER, OF THE OPINION THAT, ON PRINCIPLE , THE DECISION OF THE COURT IN MANGALORE CHEMICALS AND IN UNION OF INDIA V. WOOD PAPERS , REFERRED TO THEREIN REPRESENTS THE CORRECT VIEW O F LAW. THE PRINCIPLE THAT IN CASE OF AMBIGUITY, A TAXING STATUTE SHOULD BE CO NSTRUED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ASSUMING THAT THE SAID PRINCIPLE IS GOOD AND SOUND- DOES NOT APPLY TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN EXCEPTION OR AN EXE MPTING PROVISION; THEY HAVE TO BE CONSTRUED STRICTLY. A PERSON INVOKING AN EXCEPTION OR AN 11 EXEMPTION PROVISION TO RELIEVE HIM OF THE TAX LIABI LITY MUST ESTABLISH CLEARLY THAT HE IS COVERED BY THE SAID PROVISION. I N CASE OF DOUBT OR AMBIGUITY, BENEFIT OF ITS MUST GO TO THE STATE. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN ORISSA STATE WAREHOUSI NG CORPORATIONS CASE (SUPRA) HAS LAID DOWN THAT WHILE IT IS TRUE T HAT IN THE EVENT OF THERE BEING ANY DOUBT IN THE MATTER OF INTERPRETATION OF A FISCAL STATUTE, THE SAME GOES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT THE FACT R EMAINS AND THE LAW IS WELL-SETTLED ON THIS SCORE THAT IN THE MATTER OF IN TERPRETATION OF THE TAXING STATUTES THE LAW COURTS WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN I NTRODUCING SOME OTHER EXPRESSIONS WHICH THE LEGISLATURE THOUGHT FIT TO OM IT. IN THE PRESENT CONTEXT, THERE IS NO DOUBT AS TO THE MEANING OF THE WORDS USED IN THE SECTION BY REASON OF THE LANGUAGE USED, NEITHER THE RE IS ANY DIFFICULTY IN ASCERTAINING THE STATUTORY INTENT. INCIDENTALLY, IT CANNOT BUT BE SAID THAT AN EXEMPTION IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE AN D SINCE THE SAME IS OPPOSED TO THE NATURAL TENOR OF THE STATUTE, THE EN TITLEMENT FOR EXEMPTION, THEREFORE, OUGHT NOT TO BE READ WITH ANY LATITUDE TO THE TAX- PAYER OR EVEN WITH A WIDER CONNOTATION. 41. THEREFORE, IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT LIBERAL INTERP RETATION OF AN INCENTIVE PROVISION IS POSSIBLE IF THERE IS ANY DOUBT. AS WE HAVE SEEN ABO VE THAT IF VARIOUS SUB SECTIONS OF SECTION 80IC ARE READ CAREFULLY IT LEAVES NO DOUBT THAT DEDUCTION WAS MEANT ONLY FOR NEW UNITS OR IN CASE OF OLD UNITS IF SUBSTANTIAL EX PANSION WAS CARRIED OUT IN SUCH OLD UNITS AND DEDUCTION WAS AVAILABLE ONLY FOR A PERIOD OF 10 YEARS. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF GIVING ANY INTERPRETATION MUCH LESS LIBERAL INTERPRETATION TO SECTION 80IC WHEN THE READING OF WHOLE SECTION MAKES THE PR OVISION VERY CLEAR. AS OBSERVED IN CASE OF M/S NOVAPAN INDIA LTD V COLLECTOR OF CEN TRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS (SUPRA) THE BURDEN WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW UNDER WHICH CLAUSE HE WAS ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION BUT ASSESSEE IS SIMPLY ASSERTING BEFORE U S THAT THERE IS NO RESTRICTION FOR DEDUCTION IN CASE OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION OF NEW U NITS. IN OUR OPINION, THAT IS NOT ENOUGH BECAUSE ABSENCE OF RESTRICTION DOES NOT MEAN THAT PARTICULAR DEDUCTION WAS ALLOWABLE. 42. WE ALSO FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. CI T-DR THAT IF INTERPRETATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE ACCEPTED, THE PROVISION WOULD BECOME DISCRIMINATORY FOR TWO CLASSES OF UNDERTAKINGS I.E. NEW UNITS AND OLD UNIT S. BECAUSE THE OLD UNITS WOULD BE ENTITLED TO 100% DEDUCTION ON EXPANSION FOR FIRST F IVE YEARS AND 25% THEREAFTER WHEREAS THE NEW UNITS WOULD BECOME ENTITLED TO DEDU CTION FOR 100% FOR FIRST FIVE YEARS AND AGAIN @ 100% ON SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION. SU CH DISCRIMINATORY INTENTION CANNOT BE IMPUTED TO THE LEGISLATURE. 43. BEFORE US, RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECI SION OF DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF TRIPUTI LPG INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. D CIT(SUPRA). IN THIS DECISION, THE BENCH HAS SIMPLY OBSERVED THAT MAIN DISPUTE IS ON T HE DEFINITION OF INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE PROVISIONS OF SUB SECTION (2) AND SUB SECTION (3) AS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL ABOVE HAVE BEEN TOTALLY IGNORED AND, THER EFORE, THIS DECISION, IN OUR OPINION, IS PER INQUERIM AND CANNOT BE FOLLOWED. 44. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF S.R. PARYAVARAN ENGINEERS PVT LTD (SUPRA) OF THE CHANDIGARH BENCH. THE FACTS IN THAT CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB IN ASSESSME NT YEAR 1999-2000 @ 100% . THE DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED @ 100% FOR FIVE YEARS AND THEN DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED @ 30% ON THE PROFITS IN THE NEXT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE UNDERTOOK SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IN FINANCIAL YEARS 2004-05 & 2005-06 AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION AT THE RATE OF 100% ON THE BASIS OF SUCH SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. HOWEVER, THE DEDUCTION WAS WRONGLY CLAIMED U/S 80IB INSTEAD OF SECTION 80IC. THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION BY OBSERVING THAT DEDU CTION COULD NOT BE DENIED SIMPLY BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAS QUOTED A WRONG SECTION. ON THE APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE, THE DEDUCTION WAS HELD TO BE ALLOWABLE BECAUSE SUBSTANT IAL EXPANSION WAS CARRIED OUT IN A UNIT WHICH WAS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE AS ON 7.1.200 3. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THIS DECISION DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY ASSISTANCE TO THE CAS E OF THE ASSESSEE. 45. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF ABHISHEK BHARGAV AAR NO. 1097 OF 2011 (SUPRA). THE FACTS IN THAT CASE ARE TH AT A PARTNERSHIP FIRM NAMELY M/S. HIMACHAL POWER PRODUCTS WAS FORMED ON 23.05.2009. T HE FIRM COMMENCED COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION IN MARCH, 2010. SHRI ABHISHEK BHARGAV WHILE PLANNING TO JOIN THE FIRM AS PARTNER BY ACQUIRING 20% SHARE OF PROFI T AND ENHANCING ADDITIONAL MANUFACTURING FACILITY BY UNDERTAKING SUBSTANTIAL E XPANSION SOUGHT ADVANCE RULING ON 12 THE ISSUE WHETHER THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW PARTNER W OULD BE TREATED AS RECONSTRUCTION OF THE EXISTING BUSINESS OR THE FIRM WILL BE ENTITL ED TO THE BENEFIT OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IC(2)( A)(II) IF IT STARTS COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION BEFORE 01.04.2012. THE AUTHORITY HELD TH AT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IN TERMS OF AN D TO THE EXTENT PROVIDED BY SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT IF IT STARTS COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION IN THE SUBSTANTIALLY EXPANDED UNIT BEFORE 01.04.2012. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSE SHALL B E ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION OF 100% OF ITS PROFITS UPTO A.Y. 2014-15 SINCE THE INITIAL ASS ESSMENT YEAR WAS A.Y. 2010-11 AND CLAIM OF DEDUCTION CANNOT BE DENIED MERELY ON THE G ROUND OF EXPANSION OF MANUFACTURING CAPACITY SO LONG IT IS NOT A CASE OF RESTRUCTURING OF BUSINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE. HOWEVER, THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ASSESS EE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION OF 100% OF ITS PROFIT EVEN AFTER A.Y. 2014-15 I.E. FOR 2 MORE YEARS BEYOND A.Y. 2014- 15 IS LEFT OPEN AND NOT DECIDED BY THE AAR. THEREFO RE THIS DECISION IS TOTALLY DISTINGUISHABLE AND DOES NOT HELP THE CASE OF THE A SSESSEE. 46. THE LAST DECISION RELIED ON WAS IN THE CASE OF SINTEX INDUSTRIES LTD V CIT (SUPRA). IN THIS CASE THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IC WAS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT LATER ON A REVISIONARY ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT. THE BENCH MAINLY DEALT WITH THE PROVISION OF SECTION 263 AND IN VIEW OF THE DECISIO N OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIES CO LTD V CIT 243 ITR 83 ( SC) HELD THAT SINCE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ALSO POSSIBLE VIEW, THE REFORE, ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS NOT ERRONEOUS. IN FACT THE BENCH REFERRED TO THE DECISI ON OF DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF TRIPUTI LPG INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. DCIT (SUPRA) WIT HOUT CONSIDERING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 80IC IN DETAIL FOR REACHING THE CONCLUSION THAT IT IS ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEW. SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED THE DECISION OF TRI PUTI LPG INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. DCIT (SUPRA) AND FOUND THAT ALL THE PROVISIONS OF T HE SECTION WERE NOT DISCUSSED IN THAT SECTION AND THAT IS PER INQUERIM, THEREFORE, I N OUR OPINION, THIS ORDER DOES NOT HELP THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 47. THE LAST ARGUMENT WAS IN RESPECT OF COLUMN IN F ORM NO. 10CCB. THE COLUMN 25 OF FORM NO. 10CCB READS AS UNDER:- 25 (I) WHETHER THE UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE IS LOCATED IN AN AREA NOTIFIED BY THE BOARD FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 80-IC ---YES ---NO (II) IF YES PLEASE INDICATE,- A. NAME OF THE EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE / INTEGRATED INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CENTRE / INDU STRIAL GROWTH CENTRE/INDUSTRIAL PARK/ESTATE/SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK/INDUSTRIAL AREA/THEME PARK AND THE DISTRICT/STATE IN WHICH LOCATED -------------------- (B) KHASRA NO. OF THE UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE (ALSO INDICATE THE BOARDS NOTIFICATION NO. ) -------------------- (C) IF THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS IS NEW, PLEASE GIVE THE DATE --------------------- 13 OF COMMENCEMENT OF PRODUCTION OR MANUFACTURE OF ARTICLE OR THING. (D) IF THE EXISTING BUSINESS HAS UNDERTAKEN SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION, PLEASE SPECIFY,-(I) THE DATE OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION (II) THE TOTAL BOOK VALUE OF PLANT AND MACHINERY (BEFORE TAKING DEPRECIATION IN ANY YEAR)AS ON FIRST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUB- STANTIAL EXPANSION TOOK PLACE ---------------------- (III) VALUE OF INCREASE IN THE P LANT AND MACHINERY IN THE YEAR OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION. : (E) DOES THE UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCE ANY ARTICLE OR THING SPECIFIED IN THE THIRTEENTH SCHEDULE. (IF YES, PLEASE SPECIFY THE ARTICLE OR THING) :---YES ---NO : (F) DOES THE UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCE ANY ARTICLE OR THING SPECIFIED IN THE FOURTEENTH SCHEDULE. (IF YES, PLEASE SPECIFY THE ARTICLE OR THING OR OPERATION) :---YES ---NO : 48. THE CAREFUL READING OF THE FORM IN A SERIAL ORD ER WOULD CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO INFORM THE LOCATION OF THE INDUSTRY AND COLUMN (C) SPECIFICALLY ASK THE ASSESSEE TO STATE WHETHER BUSINESS IS A NEW BUSINESS? COLUMN (D) CLEARLY ASK THE ASSESSEE WHETHER EXISTING BUSINESS HAS UNDE RTAKEN SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION, THEREFORE, THERE ARE TWO CATEGORIES OF BUSINESS AND SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IS POSSIBLE ONLY IN CASE OF EXISTING BUSINESS. IN OUR OPINION, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY ADJUDICATED THIS ISSUE. 49. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DETAILED DISCUSSION WE HOL D THAT THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US I.E. M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS IN ITA NO. 798/CHD/2012 IS E NTITLED TO ONLY 25% OF DEDUCTION 14 DURING THE PRESENT YEAR BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS AL READY AVAILED THE PERIOD OF FULL DEDUCTION @ 100% IN THE EARLIER FIVE YEARS I.E. FRO M ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2008-09. IN THIS BACKGROUND, WE FIND NOTHING WRONG WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND WE UPHOLD THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) . 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 18 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2016. SD/- SD/- (H.L.KARWA) (RANO JAIN) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 18 TH MARCH, 2016 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/THE CIT/THE D R. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 15