M/s Universal Print O Pack, Solan V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Parwanoo

MA 39/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6412 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 04-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GULSHAN RAJCIT

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.39/CHD/2018 (IN ITA NO. 463/CHD/2017) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 M/S UNIVERSAL PRINT O PACK, VS. THE DCIT, VILLAGE KISHANPURA, CIRCLE PARWANOO, TEHSIL NALAGARH, PARWANOO DISTT. SOLAN PAN NO. AABFU8813G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. PRIKSHIT AGGARWAL, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI GULSHAN RAJ-CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 06.04.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.04.2018 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICATION HAS BEEN MOVED BY TH E APPLICANT PLEADING THEREIN FOR RECALLING & NECESSARY AMENDMEN T IN THE ORDER DATED 11.10.2017 OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN ABOVE CAPTIONE D APPEAL WHICH WAS DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN TURN RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF HYCRON ELECTRONIC S VS. ITO IN 798/CHD/2012. 2. THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED T HAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO DEDUCTION CLAIME D U/S 80IC OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF 100% ON ACCOUNT OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANS ION CARRIED OUT BY THE MA NO. 39/CHD/2018- M/S UNIVERSAL PRINT O PACK, SOLAN 2 ASSESSEE. THAT THE SAID DECISION IS NOW COVERED BY THE SUBSEQUENT DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL P RADESH IN M/S STOVKRAFT INDIA VS. CIT IN ITA NO. 20/2015 DATED 28 .11.2017, WHEREIN, THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HYCRON (SUP RA) HAS BEEN SET ASIDE. THE LD. DR IS FAIR ENOUGH TO CONCEDE THIS FACTUAL M ATRIX. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT IN THE CASE OF LAW DECLARED / ANY INTERPRETATI ON MADE BY THE HIGHER COURT, IT IS TO BE TAKEN AS SUCH INTERPRETATION WAS THE RIGHT INTERPRETATION OF THOSE PROVISIONS AS ON THE DATE OF THEIR INCORPORAT ION IN THE STATUTE. IN VIEW OF THIS, ANY CONTRARY INTERPRETATION MADE BY T HIS TRIBUNAL WOULD CONSTITUTE MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD. 3. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE FIND MERIT IN THE APPLICATIO N AND, THEREFORE, WE RECALL THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 11.10.2017 I N THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEAL AND RESTORE THE APPEAL TO ITS ORIGINAL POSIT ION TO BE HEARD ON 10.04.2018. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED :06.04.2018 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR