M/s Mahabir Industries, Baddi v. ITO, Baddi

ITA 127/CHANDI/2016 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2016 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 12721514 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN AACFM3117G
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 127/CHANDI/2016
Duration Of Justice 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant M/s Mahabir Industries, Baddi
Respondent ITO, Baddi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 27-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted Not Allotted
Tribunal Order Date 27-10-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 05-09-2016
Next Hearing Date 05-09-2016
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 23-02-2016
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 127/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S MAHABIR INDUSTRIES VS THE ITO PLOT NO. 117 HPSIDC BADDI INDUSTRIAL AREA (H.P.). BADDI (DISTT.SOLAN) (H.P.) PAN: AACFM3117G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PARVEEN KAPOOR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR & ITA NO. 675/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 M/S SAGAR ENTERPRISES VS THE ITO VILLAGE KATHA WARD 1 BADDI DISTT.SOLAN SOLAN (HP). (H.P.) PAN: ABFFS6537F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PUNEET GUPTA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR & ITA NO. 676/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S K.T. INC VS THE DCIT VILLAGE GUMMA CIRCLE PARWANOO PARWANOO (HP). (HP). (H.P.) PAN: AAHFK9210H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PUNEET GUPTA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR 2 ITA NO. 674/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S U.K. ENTERPRISES VS THE DCIT PLOT NO.12 SECTOR 5 CIRCLE-PARWANOO PARWANOO (HP). PARWANOO(HP). PAN: AACFU0147N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR DATE OF HEARING : 27.10.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.10.2016 O R D E R PER BENCH ALL THE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDE RS OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) SHIMLA ON IDENTICAL QUESTION OF C LAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PA RTIES APPEARING BEFORE US. THE APPEALS ARE DECIDED AS UN DER. ITA 127/2016 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE FIRM H AS BEEN CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA/80IB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT RIGHT FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998- 99 WHICH WAS BEING ALLOWED BY VARIOUS ASSESSING OFFICE RS. HOWEVER DURING THE YEAR 2005-06 THE FIRM MADE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTION. DURI NG THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ASSESSI NG 3 OFFICER IT WAS ARGUED THAT ASSESSEE CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTION FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 TO 2000-01 A ND AGAIN 100% DEDUCTION FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 T O 2002-03. THUS 100% DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED FOR THE FIRST FIVE YEARS. SUBSEQUENTLY AS PER PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 80IA/80IB OF THE ACT 25% DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED UND ER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 20 03-04 TO 2005-06. THIS SHOWS THAT DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA/80IB OF THE ACT WAS CLAIMED FOR EIGHT ASSESSME NT YEARS. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE MADE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IN THE PURCHASE OF MACHINERY DURING FINAN CIAL YEAR 2005-06 AND CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTION UNDER SECTI ON 80IC OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THA T ASSESSEE HAD BEEN CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB FROM ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 TO 2005-06 ( 8 YEARS) AND DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT WAS ALSO CL AIMED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2007-08. IT W AS HELD BY HIM THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY AVA ILED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB/80IC OF THE ACT FOR TE N ASSESSMENT YEARS AND AS SUCH NO DEDUCTION WAS AVAI LABLE TO THE ASSESSEE BEYOND THE TEN ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E . ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 ONWARDS. THE ASSESSING OF FICER ACCORDINGLY REJECTED CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF DEDU CTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT. 4. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) T HAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND ITAT IN THE PRECEDING YEARS. 4 5. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) REPRODUCED THE FINDINGS OF THOSE YEARS AND ALSO NOTED THAT THE ISSUE HAS ALSO BEEN ADJUDICATED BY ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN GROUP CASES OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS VS ITO ( 41 ITR (TRIBUNAL) ( CHD) 486 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO ONLY 25% OF THE DEDUCTION DURING THE PRESENT YEAR BECAUS E THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY AVAILED PERIOD OF FULL DEDUCTI ON @ 100% IN THE EARLIER FIVE YEARS I.E. FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 TO 2008-09. IN THIS BACKGROUND WE FIND NO THING WRONG WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOLLOWING THE ORDERS IN THE CASE OF OWN ASSESSEE IN PRECEDING YEAR AND FOLLOWING DECISION IN THE CASE O F HYCRON ELECTRONICS (SUPRA) DISMISSED APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) REPRODUCED THE ABOVE ORDER IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY ORDER OF LD. CIT (APPEALS) AS WELL AS ITAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF IN THE PRECEDING YEAR AS WELL AS ORDER IN THE CASE OF HYCR ON ELECTRONICS (SUPRA). SINCE IT IS ADMITTED FACT THA T ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY ORDER OF ITAT CHAND IGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS (SUPRA) THEREFORE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 5 ITA 675/2016 7. IN THIS CASE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SE CTION 80IC TO THE EXTENT OF 100% OF THE ELIGIBLE PROFIT F OR FIVE YEARS PERIOD FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 TO 20 10-11. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL I.E. 2011-12 IT IS 6 TH YEAR THEREFORE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTRICTED THE DEDUCTI ON TO 25% AS AGAINST 100% CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(AP PEALS) FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HYCRON ELECTRONICS (SUPRA) DISMISSED APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E. 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT I SSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY ORDER OF ITAT CHAND IGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF HYCRON ELECTRONICS(SUPRA). TH E LD. CIT(APPEALS) THEREFORE RIGHTLY DISMISSED THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ITA 676/2016 10. IN THIS CASE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF 100% OF THE ELIGIB LE PROFIT FOR FIVE YEARS PERIOD STARTING FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 TO 2011-12. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL IS 6 TH YEAR OF THE PRODUCTION THEREFORE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIO N 80IC WAS RESTRICTED TO 25% AS AGAINST 100% CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) NOTED THAT ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST ASSESSEE BY ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE 6 CASE OF HYCRON ELECTRONICS (SUPRA) AND DISMISSED AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST ASSESSEE BY ORDER IN THE C ASE OF HYCRON ELECTRONICS (SUPRA). IN THIS VIEW OF THE MA TTER APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED BEING COVERED B Y ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF HYCRON ELECTRONICS. 12. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ITA 679/2016 13. IN THIS CASE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY CLAIMED DEDU CTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF 100% OF THE ELIGIBLE PROFIT FOR FIVE YEARS PERIOD STARTING FRO M ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 TO 2011-12. THE ASSESSEE CL AIMED AGAIN 100% DEDUCTION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEA L I.E. 2012-13 WHICH IS 6 TH YEAR OF THE PRODUCTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE RESTRICTED THE DEDUCTION TO 25% AS AGAINST CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE OF 100% DEDUCTION. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HYCRON ELECTRONICS (SUPRA) DISMISSED APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FORWARDED A RE QUEST IN WRITING FOR ADJOURNMENT. WE MAY NOTE THAT DESPI TE IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASS ESSEE BY ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF HYCRO N 7 ELECTRONICS (SUPRA) AND THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL I S REPRODUCED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INSTEAD OF GRACEFULLY SUBMITTING THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE AS SESSEE MADE A FUTILE ATTEMPT FOR SEEKING ADJOURNMENT WHICH WAS FOUND UNNECESSARY AND REJECTED. IN THIS VIEW OF TH E MATTER WE ARE OF THE VIEW THE ISSUE IS COVERED AGA INST THE ASSESSEE BY ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE C ASE OF HYCRON ELECTRONICS (SUPRA) FOLLOWING REASONS FOR TH E SAME WE DISMISS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 15. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. 16. IN THE RESULT ALL APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (BHAVNE SH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 27 TH OCTOBER 2016. POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT CHANDIGARH