9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 635 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - entitled to deduction @ 30% of the profits instead of 100% under the provisions of section 80IC - Held that - It is an admitted fact that the business unit of assessee was setup in 2004-05 and business activity was commenced in April, 2006. It is also not in dispute that as per the year of commencement of business, the initial assessment year of the business was 2007-08 for claiming deduction u/s. 80IC. It is also not in dispute initially, the assessee claimed deduction @ 100% on the premise that new unit was set up in the State of Himanchal Pradesh and now the assessee wanted to continue this rate of 100% for next five years under the said provisions on the premise that they have made substantial expansion, which is not permissible as per scheme of the section 80IC regarding commencement of initial assessment year. The aforesaid issue has been finally decided in recent decision of CIT vs. Classic Binding Industries 2018 (8) TMI 1209 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA as unequivocally supports the findings reached by the ld. Pr. CIT that the assessee was not entitled to get 100% deduction treating the year under considering as initial assessment year on the premise of substantial expansion of business. A perusal of the impugned assessment order nowhere reveals that the Assessing Officer, not to speak of reliance on any decision of jurisdictional High Court, has not even addressed or examined or verified the claim of the assessee in terms of provisions of section 80IC of the Act. The ld. Pr. CIT, on correct appreciation of section 80IC, which is supported by various decisions relied in the impugned order as well by the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Classic Binding Industries (supra), being the law of land, was therefore justified to in revising the assessment being erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the CIT's order under Section 263 of the IT Act. 2. Substitution of the Assessing Officer's (AO) opinion by the CIT. 3. Applicability of Section 80IC deductions at 30% versus 100%. 4. Justification of the CIT's order in terms of inadequate versus lack of enquiry. 5. Interpretation of "substantial expansion" under Section 80IC. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the CIT's Order under Section 263 of the IT Act: The assessee challenged the order passed by the CIT under Section 263 of the IT Act, arguing that it was both factually and legally incorrect. The Tribunal examined whether the CIT was justified in revising the assessment order, finding it erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's order, noting that the AO had not properly examined or verified the claim of the assessee under Section 80IC, making the assessment order erroneous. 2. Substitution of the AO's Opinion by the CIT: The assessee contended that the CIT erred by substituting the AO's opinion with his own. The Tribunal found that the AO had not addressed or examined the claim under Section 80IC in the assessment order. Therefore, the CIT was justified in revising the assessment, as the AO's lack of examination rendered the order erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. 3. Applicability of Section 80IC Deductions at 30% versus 100%: The primary issue was whether the assessee was entitled to a 100% deduction under Section 80IC for the year under consideration. The CIT argued that the assessee was only eligible for a 30% deduction, as the initial assessment year was 2007-08, and the 100% deduction was only applicable for the first five years. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Classic Binding Industries, which clarified that an assessee could not claim a 100% deduction for another five years based on substantial expansion. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's view that the assessee was entitled to only a 30% deduction. 4. Justification of the CIT's Order in Terms of Inadequate versus Lack of Enquiry: The assessee argued that the CIT's power to revise could only be invoked in cases of lack of enquiry, not inadequate enquiry. The Tribunal found that the AO had neither addressed nor examined the claim under Section 80IC, constituting a lack of enquiry. Thus, the CIT's revision of the assessment order was justified. 5. Interpretation of "Substantial Expansion" under Section 80IC: The assessee claimed a 100% deduction based on substantial expansion made in December 2011, treating it as the initial assessment year. The CIT and Tribunal disagreed, citing the Supreme Court's decision that substantial expansion does not reset the initial assessment year. The initial assessment year remained 2007-08, and the assessee was only eligible for a 30% deduction after the first five years. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the CIT's order under Section 263. The CIT was justified in revising the assessment order due to the AO's lack of examination of the claim under Section 80IC, and the assessee was only entitled to a 30% deduction, not 100%, for the year under consideration. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 07.02.2019.
|
