9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the unit. Even otherwise, this was not a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. Revenue has not been able to point out any error or illegality in the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the claim of deduction @ 100% for the year under consideration by the assessee was on account of bonafide belief of the assessee and not on account of furnishing of any inaccurate particular or concealment of income, thus, warranting interference by this Court - decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 242 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 29-1-2019 - MR AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR HARNARESH SINGH GILL, JJ. For The Appellant-Revenue : Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel ORDER Ajay Kumar Mittal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who is a firm and represented by a team of professionals at every stage of the proceedings? iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Ld. ITAT is right in law in holding that explanation furnished by the Assessee was bonafide within the ambit of Explanation-I to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Ld. ITAT misdirected itself in misconstruing the provisions of the Section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and grossly overlooked the material available on record resulting into delivering a perverse order contrary to the material on record? v) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Ld. ITAT is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inated Boards at Kalam Amb, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh. It filed its return of income on 30.09.2013 by declaring an income of ₹ 10,12,840/-. The case of respondent-assessee was selected for scrutiny. The statutory notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 01.09.2014. The case was transferred from the office of Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Panchkula to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula Circle, Panchkula. Notice under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act was issued on 27.05.2015 which was served upon the respondent-assessee on 03.06.2015. The Assessing Officer during the year under consideration noticed that the respondent-assessee had claimed deduction under Section 80IC of the Act @ 100% for the yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r consideration by investing in Plant and Machinery more than 50% of gross block of Plant and Machinery as on 31.03.2010, the firm was eligible for deduction at the rate of 100% under Section 80IC of the Act in this year as well. The Assessing Officer examined the claim of assessee under Section 80IC of the Act and disallowed the same by restricting to 25% against the claim made at the rate of 100% and framed the assessment vide order dated 10.12.2015 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for wilfully furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under Section 80IC of the Act. The assessee carried the order dated 10.12.2015 before the Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the case of M/s Stovekraft India Vs. CIT [2018] 400 ITR 225 (HP), wherein it was held that deduction under Section 80IC of the Act was allowable on account of substantial expansion of the unit. Hence the instant appeals by revenue. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Admittedly, the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80IC of the Act at the rate of 100% on account of substantial expansion of the unit. The Assessing Officer denied the claim observing that the assessee had once availed the deduction under Section 80IC of the Act at the time of establishment of the unit and, thus, was not entitled to 100% deduction subsequently on account of substantial expansion. The Assessing Officer also initiated pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ictional High Court of Himachal Pradesh vide their order dated 28.11.2017 in the group of cases with the head case titled as M/s Stovekraft India Vs. CIT , ITA No. 20 of 2015 wherein the Hon ble High Court has held that the assessee as per the provisions of the Act is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80IC of the Act on account of substantial expansion of the unit. Even otherwise, we do not find that this is a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. The assessee under the bonafide belief claimed the deduction under Section 80IC of the Act and even such claim of deduction under Section 80IC has been found to be correct in the ease of other assessee by jurisdictional high Court of Himachal Pra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
