2018 (2) TMI 163 - AT - Income Tax

Claim of deduction u/s 80IC - Held that - A perusal of the order of the Assessing officer reveals that the Assessing officer has not disputed that the assessee unit has carried out substantial expansion as provided under clause (b) of sub section (2) read with clause (ix) of sub section (7) of section 80IC of the Act. Almost similar view has also been taken in the case of M/s Stovekraft India vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Stove Craft (2017 (12) TMI 69 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT) wherein held the Revenue has not disputed, (a) the units having carried out substantial expansion within the definition of the Section, (b) their entitlement and extent of deduction would be dependent upon interpretation of the relevant provisions. No justification at this stage to give the Assessing officer a second innings to re-examine undisputed facts. - Decided against revenue

Issues:
1. Claim of deduction u/s 80IC restricted to 25% instead of 100%.
2. Eligibility of substantial expansion benefit for pre-existing units only.
3. Interpretation of initial assessment year for industrial undertakings.
4. Legislative intent behind section 80IC and its liberal construction.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Claim of deduction u/s 80IC restricted to 25%
The assessee challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which restricted the deduction u/s 80IC to 25% instead of the 100% claimed by the appellant. The contention was that substantial expansion was done after fulfilling the conditions of section 80IC, and the disallowance was unjustified. The Tribunal held that the restriction was not valid, citing the case law where the High Court allowed 100% deduction for units undertaking substantial expansion. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the AO was directed to grant the assessee 100% deduction as per the High Court ruling.

Issue 2: Eligibility of substantial expansion benefit
The Tribunal addressed the issue of whether the benefit of substantial expansion under section 80IC was available only to pre-existing units operational before a specified date. The assessee argued that the law did not specify such a restriction. Referring to the High Court's decision, the Tribunal concluded that new units undertaking substantial expansion were also entitled to the deduction, rejecting the Revenue's contention for further verification by the Assessing Officer.

Issue 3: Interpretation of initial assessment year
The Tribunal examined the interpretation of the initial assessment year for industrial undertakings claiming benefits under section 80IC. The assessee argued that the initial assessment year could be changed if substantial expansion was completed, as per section 80IC(8)(v). Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal held that there could be more than one initial assessment year for such undertakings, disagreeing with the Revenue's interpretation.

Issue 4: Legislative intent and liberal construction
The Tribunal discussed the legislative intent behind section 80IC, emphasizing the promotion of industry in backward areas. It was argued that incentive-based sections should be construed liberally in favor of the assessee, as held in various court cases. The Tribunal concluded that the interpretation of section 80IC should align with the legislative intent to promote industrial growth, and any ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the assessee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, setting aside the order of the CIT(A) and directing the AO to grant 100% deduction as per the High Court ruling. The judgment highlighted the importance of interpreting tax provisions in line with legislative intent and providing favorable treatment to promote industrial development.

← Previous Next →