Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
Jindal Plast (India), Solan vs Dcit, Parwanoo on 15 November, 2016
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'SMC' BENCH, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 1071/CHD/2016
Assessment Year: 2012-13
M/s Jindal Plast (India), Vs The DCIT,
Village Dassomajra, Circle,
Bhud, Baddi, Parwanoo.
Distt. - Solan.
PAN: AAFFJ5193E
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri Armaan, Proxy counsel for
Shri Rakesh Cajla.
Respondent by : Shri Manjit Singh, DR
Date of Hearing : 15.11.2016
Date of Pronouncement : 15.11.2016
O R D E R
This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals), Shimla dated 04.08.2016 for assessment year 2012-13, challenging the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) in denying deduction under section 80IC of the Income Tax Act.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that assessee firm derives income from manufacturing of plastic articles. As per information given in form No. 10CCB, the assessee started its business activity/operation on 12.02.2007 and initial assessment year for claim of deduction under 2 section 80IC of the Act was assessment year 2007-08. The assessee had already claimed deduction under section 80IC of the Act to the extent of 100% eligible profit for five year period of assessment year 2007-08 to assessment year 2011-12. However, it was noticed that the assessee firm had again claimed 100% deduction against eligible profits in the relevant assessment year 2012-13 which is 6th year of production of the firm. The assessee has claimed 100% deduction under section 80IC upto assessment year 2011-12. In assessment year 2012-13, the assessee made substantial expansion in the plant and machinery and started claiming 100% deduction under section 80IC of the Act treating assessment year under appeal again as initial assessment year.
3. The Assessing Officer noticed that since assessee claimed 100% deduction under section 80IC of the Act for first five years from assessment year 2007-08 to 2011-12, it was entitled for claim of deduction under section 80-IC @ 25% for sixth year to 10th year i.e. 2012-13 to 2016-17. The Assessing Officer, after detailed discussion in assessment order, restricted the claim of deduction under section 80IC of the Act at 25% as against 100% claimed by assessee.
4. The ld. CIT(Appeals) noted that the issue under consideration has already been adjudicated upon by the jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of M/s Hycron Electronics Vs ITO in ITA 798/CHD/2012 and other related 3 cases ( reported in 41 ITR (Tribunal)(CHD) 486 ). The ld. CIT(Appeals) reproduced this order of ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the impugned order in which it was held that assessee is entitled to only 25% of the deduction during the present year because the assessee has already availed the period of full deduction @ 100% in earlier five years i.e. from assessment year 2004-05 to 2008-09. The appeal of the assessee was, accordingly, dismissed.
5. The ld. CIT(Appeals) following the order of the Tribunal, dismissed the appeal of the assessee considering it covered matter against the assessee.
6. The assessee's counsel Shri Rakesh Cajla, Advocate forwarded written request for adjournment on the reason that due to personal engagement, he could not appear on the date of hearing. No Power of Attorney has been filed. It is noted that despite the issue is covered against the assessee, the ld. counsel for the assessee, instead of making general statement in the adjournment application, could have gracefully stated that the issue is covered against the assessee by order of Division Bench of ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Hycron Electronics (supra). The request for adjournment is unnecessary, same is accordingly, rejected.
7. After considering the impugned orders and submission of the ld. DR, I find that issue is covered against the assessee by order of Division Bench of ITAT Chandigarh 4 Bench in the case of Hycron Electronics (supra). The appeal of the assessee, thus, has no merit. Same is accordingly, dismissed.
8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court.
Sd/-
(BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 15 t h November,2016.
'Poonam' Copy to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT(A)
4. The CIT,DR Assistant Registrar, I TAT Chandigarh