9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (3) TMI 1341 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - eligibility to claim deduction u/s 80IC in the relevant assessment year @ 100%, after claiming 100% exemption in first five years on the plea that during the year it has undertaken substantial expansion of the undertaking - Held that - The assessee is required to inform the location of the Industry and column (c) specifically ask the assessee to state whether business is a new business? Column (d) clearly ask the assessee whether existing business has undertaken substantial expansion, therefore, there are two categories of business and substantial expansion is possible only in case of existing business. In our opinion, CIT(A) has correctly adjudicated this issue. In view of the above detailed discussion we hold that the assessee before us i.e. M/s Hycron Electronics 2015 (6) TMI 725 - ITAT CHANDIGARH 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 years i.e. from assessment years 2004-05 to 2008-09. In this background, we find nothing wrong with the order of CIT(A) and we uphold the same. Accordingly, assessee s appeal is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) is defective in law and facts. 2. Whether the Pr. CIT was justified in holding the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer (AO) as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. Whether the Pr. CIT was justified in canceling the original assessment under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Whether the Pr. CIT was justified in restricting the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80IC at 25% instead of 100%. 5. Whether the Pr. CIT failed to appreciate that the assessee could have installed a new unit and claimed 100% exemption under section 80IC instead of going for substantial expansion. Detailed Analysis: 1. Defective Order of the Pr. CIT: The assessee contended that the order of the Pr. CIT was defective both in law and facts. However, the tribunal did not find any merit in this claim as the Pr. CIT had followed the due process of law in issuing the order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Erroneous and Prejudicial to Revenue: The Pr. CIT held that the assessment framed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The tribunal upheld this view, citing that the AO had allowed the deduction under section 80IC at 100% without properly examining whether the assessee was eligible for such a deduction in the relevant assessment year. 3. Cancellation of Original Assessment: The Pr. CIT canceled the original assessment under section 263, which was framed under section 143(3). The tribunal supported this action, noting that the AO had not adequately investigated the eligibility criteria for the deduction under section 80IC, thus justifying the cancellation of the original assessment. 4. Restriction of Deduction under Section 80IC: The core issue was whether the assessee was eligible to claim a 100% deduction under section 80IC after having claimed the same for the first five years, based on the substantial expansion of the undertaking. The tribunal referred to the case of Hycron Electronics Vs. ITO, where it was held that the deduction under section 80IC should be 100% for the first five years and 25% thereafter. The tribunal found no distinguishing facts in the present case and thus dismissed the assessee's claim for a 100% deduction. 5. Installation of New Unit vs. Substantial Expansion: The assessee argued that nothing prevented it from installing a new unit and claiming a 100% exemption under section 80IC instead of opting for substantial expansion. The tribunal dismissed this argument, emphasizing that the legislative intent and the provisions of section 80IC were clear in allowing a 100% deduction for the first five years and 25% thereafter, regardless of whether a new unit was installed or substantial expansion was undertaken. Conclusion: The tribunal, after considering the detailed submissions and the relevant legal provisions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. It upheld the order of the Pr. CIT, confirming that the assessee was entitled to only a 25% deduction under section 80IC for the relevant assessment year, following the precedent set in the case of Hycron Electronics. The tribunal emphasized that the interpretation of section 80IC should not render any part of the statute redundant and must align with the legislative intent.
|
