9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound of appeal, any other ground deemed fit that may be craved to be added, amended during the course of hearing." On the other hand, the assessee-company is before us as a Cross- Objector on the following grounds: "1. The order passed by the CIT(A) of NFAC allowing the appeal filed by the respondents against the order passed by the Assessing Officer is legal, proper and not perverse. 2. The learned CIT(A) of NFAC rightly directed the Assessing Officer to grant deduction u/s. 80IC at 100% of the profits earned rather than at 25% of the profits earned as the respondents are entitled for deduction at 100% in view of the Apex Court's judgment in 'PCIT, Shimla vs. Aarham Softronics' reported in 102 Taxmann.com 343 (2019); 3. The learned CIT(A) of NFAC rightly directed the Assessing Officer to grant deduction at 100% of the profits earned duly following the Board's Circular No. 14(XL-35), dated 11/04/1955. 4. The Department is estopped from preferring an appeal particularly in view of the fact that they granted enhanced deduction for the immediate preceding previous year based on the same set of facts. 5. The substantial benefit of 100% deduction cannot be denied based on sma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entire amount of its eligible profits for the year under consideration i.e @100%. 5. Although, the Assessing Officer found the aforesaid claim of the assessee company to be in order, but at the same time was of the view that as the said modified claim for deduction was not raised by the assessee company by filing a revised return of income, therefore, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2006] 157 Taxman 1 (SC) the same could not be considered by him. Accordingly, the A.O. after declining the modified claim of the assessee company for deduction under Section 80IC(2)(a)(ii) of the Act i.e @ 100% of its profits from the eligible business, determined its income at Rs. 22.09 crores (approx.) i.e. as was originally returned. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee-company carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) being guided by his conviction that the assessee-company had, in the course of the assessment proceedings, not raised a fresh claim for deduction under Section 80IC(2)(a)(ii) of the Act, but based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 100% as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Aarham Softronics (2019) 412 ITR 623 (SC). The appellant has also placed reliance on the CBDT's Circular No. 14(XL- 35) dated 11/04/55 and also placed reliance on various citations on the issue in his submissions. After examining the detailed submission, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant is entitled to 100% deduction on the profit earned against 25% of the profits, as it is not a fresh claim but merely modification of the claim in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision, referred supra. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal No.1 and 2 are allowed and the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the deduction u/s. 80IC at 100% of the profits earned." 7. The Revenue, being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. Also, the assessee-company is before us as a cross-objector. 8. As the issue involved in the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection are inextricably interwoven, therefore, we shall take up and dispose off the same together. 9. Sri T. Rajendra Prasad, Learned Authorized Representative (in sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under law. 10. Per contra, the Learned CIT-Departmental Representative (in short "Ld. CIT-DR") vehemently assailed the order of the CIT(A). Elaborating on her contentions, the Ld. CIT-DR submitted that as the assessee-company had not filed any revised return of income, therefore, the A.O being guided by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income (supra) had rightly refrained from considering its modified claim for deduction under Section 80IC(2)(a)(ii) of the Act. Carrying her contention further, the Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the assessee-company had not only failed to file a revised "audit report" in Form 10CCB to support its modified and enhanced claim for deduction under Section 80IC(2)(a)(ii) of the Act, but also at Column No.25(d) of the "audit report" that was filed/uploaded with the AO, had stated, that it had not undertaken any substantial expansion of its existing manufacturing capacity. The Ld. CIT-DR to buttress her aforesaid claim had drawn our attention to the "audit report" filed by the assessee-company in "Form 10CCB" (Pages 170 to 174 of APB). The Ld. CIT-DR submitted that in the backdrop of the aforesaid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owers of the A.O. will not impinge on the powers of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act. We thus, in the backdrop of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court find no infirmity in the view taken by the Assessing Officer, who in the absence of a revised return of income of the assessee company had rightly declined to consider its modified claim for deduction under Section 80IC(2)(a)(ii) of the Act. 14. Ostensibly, the CIT(A) while disposing off the appeal was of the view that as the assessee-company based on the ratio decidendi of the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Aarham Softronics [2019] 102 taxmann.com 343 (SC), had only modified its claim for deduction under Section 80IC(2)(a)(ii) of the Act and not raised any new claim of deduction, therefore, the same did merit acceptance. 15. We concur with the CIT(A) that the core issue involved in the present case i.e., as to whether or not an assessee, which had set up a new industry of a kind mentioned in Section 80IC(2) of the Act between 07th January, 2003 and 01st April, 2012 in the State of Himachal Pradesh, and started availing exemption of 100 percent t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
