Sh. Rajiv Sahni, Chandigarh V. DCIT, Chandigarh

ITA 984/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8926 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 24 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: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 14-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGHDR

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. 984/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SHRI RAJIV SAHNI, VS THE DCIT, PLOT NO. 924-A, CIRCLE-1(1), INDUSTRIAL AREA, CHANDIGARH. PHASE-II, CHANDIGARH. PAN: AEEPS8919J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL & SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH,DR 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)-I, CHANDIGARH DATED 19.07.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW IN UPHOLDING THE REDUCTION OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE IN COME TAX ACT TO 25% AS AGAINST 100% CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE INDUS TRIAL UNDERTAKING OF THE ASSESSEE WAS INSTALLED AND COMMENCED THE PRODUCTION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 . THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT FROM THE PROFITS DURING THE FIRST F IVE YEARS, BETWEEN 2006-07 TO 2010-11. IN THE RELEVANT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. 6 TH YEAR FROM COMMENCEMENT OF THE PRODUCTION, THE ASSESSEE AGAIN CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT @ 1 00% FROM THE ELIGIBLE PROFIT CLAIMING THAT SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION TO THE EXISTING PLANT AND MACHINERY WAS TAKEN BY MAKING AN ADDITION WHICH WAS MORE THAN 50% OF THE COST OF PLANT AND MACHINERY AS AT THE FIRST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR CORRESPONDING TO THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, RESTRICTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO 25%. THE L D. CIT(APPEALS) NOTED THAT ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST TH E ASSESSEE BY ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE C ASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS LTD. REPORTED IN 41 ITR (TRIBUNAL)(CHD) 486 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO ONLY 25% OF THE DEDUCTION DURING THE PRESENT YEAR BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY AVAILED THE PERIO D OF FULL DEDUCTION @ 100% IN EARLIER FIVE YEARS I.E. FR OM ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2008-09. 3. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) REPRODUCED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND DISMISSED THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 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 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