9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1058X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and, the AO had not extended deduction @ 100% whereas AO had rejected claim of assessee and reduced deduction from 100% to 30%. The said order merged with the order of Commissioner (A) and order of Commissioner (A) further merged with the order of Tribunal. The common thread running through order of AO, Commissioner (A) and Tribunal was whether assessee is entitled to deduction @ 100% or @ 30% u/s 80IC Tribunal categorically held that assessee is entitled to deduction @ 100%. The Principal Commissioner while exercising its power under Section 263 concluded that assessee was not entitled to deduction @ 100%. The ground to reduce the deduction may be different but it cannot be ignored that Assessing Officer had reduced deduction from 100% to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h. The respondent filed its income tax return for the assessment year 2013-14 on 29.09.2013 wherein declared income of Rs. 2,64,39,760/-. The respondent-assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 5,87,89,770/- under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 1961 Act ). 4. The respondent-assessee started its manufacturing activities at Baddi in the assessment year 2005-06 and claimed 100% deduction under Section 80IC of 1961 Act. As per said section, the respondent was eligible to 100% deduction for the first 5 years and 30% deduction for the subsequent 5 years. Accordingly, the respondent was entitled to 30% deduction for the assessment year 2010-11 to 2014-15. The respondent undertook substantial expansion during assessment year 2009-10 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue. The Principal Commissioner held that respondent-assessee has wrongly claimed deduction @100%. He directed Assessing Officer to modify assessment order dated 27.11.2017 in accordance with his directions. The respondent-assessee assailing order dated 30.03.2021 passed by Principal Commissioner preferred an appeal before Tribunal which came up for consideration on 18.05.2022. The Tribunal vide order dated 14.06.2022 set aside order of Principal Commissioner on the ground that order of Assessing Officer could not be revised after setting aside of said order by Appellate Tribunal. The order of Assessing Officer has already merged in the order of Tribunal, thus, revision of order of Assessing Officer was beyond the jurisdiction of Principal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee was eligible for only 30% deduction at Rs. 1,76,36,931/-. Considering the above discussion it is quite clear that the assessee has claimed excessive relief u/s 80IC of the I.T. Act, 1961. 9. In view of the above discussion excess deduction claimed at Rs. 4,11,52,839/- u/s 80IC of the I.T. Act, 1961 are disallowed and added to the returned income of the assessee. I am satisfied that the assessee company has furnished inaccurate particulars of income hence penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is being initiated. Subject to above income of the assessee is computed as under:- Last Assessed Income as per order dated 10.03.2016 4,76,40,025/- Addition as discussed above 4,11,52,839/- Total Income 8,87,92,864/- Income Roun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer as well as Appellate Authority was whether assessee is entitled to deduction @ 100% or 30% under Section 80IC. Assessing Officer on one or another ground concluded that assessee is entitled to deduction @ 30% and First Appellate Authority confirmed the said order. The Appellate Tribunal set aside order of Assessing Officer and held that assessee is entitled to deduction @ 100%. The Principal Commissioner after adjudication of appeal by Tribunal formed an opinion that assessee has wrongly claimed deduction @ 100% whereas it was entitled @ 30% during assessment year 2013-14. 12. The Tribunal adjudicated the matter on 14.06.2019 whereas Principal Commissioner passed order under Section 263 on 30.03.2021. Section 263 permits Principal Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Commissioner (A) further merged with the order of Tribunal. The common thread running through order of Assessing Officer, Commissioner (A) and Tribunal was whether assessee is entitled to deduction @ 100% or @ 30% under Section 80IC of 1961 Act. The Tribunal categorically held that assessee is entitled to deduction @ 100%. The Principal Commissioner while exercising its power under Section 263 concluded that assessee was not entitled to deduction @ 100%. The ground to reduce the deduction may be different but it cannot be ignored that Assessing Officer had reduced deduction from 100% to 30%, thus, issue before the authorities was confined to entitlement of deduction. The Appellate Tribunal settled the matter in favour of the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
