IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 999/CHD/2016 & ITA NOS. 1438 TO 1440/CHD/2016 A.YS : 2010-11 TO 2013-14 M/S PIVOT FABRIQUE H.P., VS THE ITO, HOUSE NO. 706, SECTOR-11, WARD 1(4), CHANDIGARH. SECTOR 17, CHANDIGARH. PAN: AAHFP2766R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH,DR DATE OF HEARING : 21.02.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.03.2017 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM ALL THE APPEALS BY ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-I, CHANDIGARH DATED 19.07.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND DATED 27.10.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12, 2012-13 AN D 2013-14. 2. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES. 2 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS GROUND NO. 2 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 WITH REGARD TO RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 148 OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT, SAME IS, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 4. IN ALL THE APPEALS, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW IN RESTRICTING THE CLAI M OF ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE AC T @ 25% INSTEAD OF 100% CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING OF THE ASSESSEE WAS INSTALLED AND COMMENCED PRODUCTION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTION FROM PROFITS DURING FIRST FIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS BETWEEN ASSESSME NT YEAR 2005-06 TO 2009-10. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010- 11 IS THE SIXTH YEAR FROM COMMENCEMENT OF THE PRODUCTI ON. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER DISCUSSING THE ISSUE, RESTRICTED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I C OF THE ACT TO 25% AS AGAINST 100% CLAIMED BY THE ASSES SEE. THE REMAINING ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE ALSO BEYOND FIVE YEARS AS NOTED ABOVE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE REFORE, RESTRICTED THE DEDUCTIONS UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF 25%. 5. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE SAID ISSUE H AS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED UPON BY JURISDICTIONAL ITA T 3 CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRON ICS VS ITO ( REPORTED IN 41 ITR (CHD) 486 IN WHICH IT W AS 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 ORDERS AND DISMISSED T HE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES SUBMITTE D THAT ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS (SUPRA). NO INFIRMITY HAS BEEN POINT ED OUT IN THE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 7. THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (BHAVNESH SAINI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 1 ST MARCH, 2017. POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT/CHD