Raj Industries, Ludhiana V. ACIT, Ludhiana

ITA 981/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8930 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 12-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: AMRINDER SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 981/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 M/S RAJ INDUSTRIES, VS THE ACIT, VILLAGE PAWA, CIRCLE-5, G.T. ROAD, LUD HIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: AAIFR5498R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI AMRINDER SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 08.12.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.12.2016 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-2, LUDHIANA DATED 01.06.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 CHALLENGING THE DENIAL OF PART DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE WA S ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF FATTY A CID, SOAP NOODLES & SOAPS ETC. DURING THE PERIOD UNDER 2 CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE FIRM CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT ON ITS UNDERTAKING AT NALAGARH (HP) SINCE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR 100% DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT FOR TH E FIRST FIVE YEARS, THUS ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION O F 100% FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 TO 2012-13. DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, ASSESSEE UNDERTOOK SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION OF ITS UNIT AND HAD INCREASED BOOK VALUE OF PLANT AND MACHINERY WHICH QUALIFIED AS SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION AND THUS, RECKON ED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AS INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR AND CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTION FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 TO 2014-15. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION @ 25% F OR THE POST EXPANSION PERIOD BUT LATER HE REVISED THE RETURN AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION @ 100% FOR THE POST EXPANSION PERIOD TAKING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AS BASE YEAR OR INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HELD THAT ONLY ONE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR AND IT IS TAKEN AS ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOU S YEAR EITHER FROM THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF THE BUSINESS OR WHEN SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION TOOK PLACE. THEREFORE, THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2008-09 THEREFORE, CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RESTRICTED UND ER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT AT 25% AS AGAINST 100% DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3 3. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRON ICS LTD. REPORTED IN 41 ITR (TRIBUNAL)(CHD) 486 IN WHIC H IT WAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO ONLY 25% OF THE DEDUCTION DURING THE PRESENT YEAR BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY AVAILED THE PERIOD OF FULL DEDUCTION @ 100% IN EARLIER FIVE YEARS I.E. FROM ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004- 05 TO 2008-09. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) REPRODUCED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND DISMISSED TH E APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT WHICH IS OBJECTED TO BY THE LD. DR SUBMITTING THAT ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESS EE BY ORDER OF ITAT DIVISION BENCH CHANDIGARH IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS (SUPRA). SINCE THE ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE ABOVE ORDER IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS (SUPRA), THEREFORE, REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS REJECTED. 5. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT O F ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE VIEW ISSU E IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRON ICS (SUPRA). NO INFIRMITY HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF T HE 4 TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS (SUP RA). THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NO MERIT, SAME IS ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- ( ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (BHAVNESH SAINI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 8 TH DECEMBER, 2016. POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT/CHD