Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
M/S Gmh Organics, Panchkula vs Dcit, Panchkula on 11 April, 2017
1
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER &
Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 299/Chd/2017
Assessment Year: 2014-15
M/s GMH Organics, Vs. The DC IT, Panchkula Circle,
Panchkula Panchkula
PAN No. AAGFG9690N
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant By : S/Sh. B.M. Monga & Rohit Kaura
Respondent By : Sh. Manjit Singh
Date of hearing : 11.04.2017
Date of Pronouncement : 11. 04.2017
ORDER
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 15.12.2016 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)], Panchkula.
2. In this appeal the assessee has taken the following grounds:-
1. That the Learned CIT(A), is not justified in not allowing the 100% deduction by not accepting the year of 'substantial expansion' as 'initial year' thus not interpreting the provisions of section 80-IC in its true and liberal spirit 2 being an incentive provision.
2. That the Learned CIT(A), is not justified in misconstruing the provisions of section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act by not following or distinguishing the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of Tirupati LPG Industries Ltd. New Delhi vs. DCIT, Dehradun.
3. That Learned CIT(A) is unjustified by not following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd., [1973] 88 ITR 192 (SC) that "if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible, that construction which favours the assessee must be adopted'.
4. That Learned Assessing Officer and CIT(A) are unjustified by not giving the benefit of Doctrine of 'Promissory Estoppel' enshrined under the 'Constitution of India' as Worthy CIT, Shimla had made a clear and unequivocal promise and/or assurance of 100% deduction for further 5 years after 'substantial expansion' in the case of other similar assessee as there is no bar for refixing the 'initial year' in the statue.
3. At the outset, Ld. DR has submitted that issue raised by the assessee regarding claim of deduction @ 100% of profit u/s 80IC of the Act on account of substantial expansion during the year under consideration is squarel y covered against the assessee with the order of the Tribunal in the case of Hycron Electronics Vs. ITO in ITA No. 798/Chd/2012 and Others. He has further invited our attention to para 6.12 of the impugned order of the CIT(A) wherein the Ld. C IT(A) has followed the said order of the Tribunal while dismissing the appeal of the assessee. The said para 6.12 of the impugned order for the sake of ready reference is reproduced as under:-
3
"6.12 Further, the issue raised in this appeal is identical to the issue which has been adjudicated by the Hon'bl e jurisdictional ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in the case of Hycron Electronics v ITO in ITA No. 798/Chd/20-12 and 374/Chd/2014 and others wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal has held as under:-
"49. In view of the above detailed discussion we hold that the assessee before us i.e M/s Hycron Electronics in ITA No. 798/Chd/2012 is entitled to only 25% of deduction during the present year because the assessee has already availed the period of full deduction @ 100% in the earlier five year i.e from assessment year 2004-05 to 2008-09. In this background, we find nothing wrong with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and we uphold the same. Accordingly, assessee's appeal is dismissed"
4. The Ld. AR has not brought to our knowledge any contradictory order of this Tribunal or of the High Court. This issue is, thus, securel y covered against the assessee with the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal of the assessee and the same is accordingl y dismissed.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 11.04.2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated : 12 t h April, 2017
Rkk
Copy to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT
4. The CIT(A)
5. The DR
4