TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w, the same is accordingly ordered to the deleted. So far as the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer has made a observation that the assessee has not proved that any substantial expansion has been carried out, in our view, the said observation of the Ld. CIT(A) is misplaced. We have gone through the order of the Assessing Officer in quantum proceedings as well as the order of the Assessing Officer in penalty proceedings and find that the Assessing Officer has made a general observation by picking up certain lines as such from the order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Hycron Electronics, Baddi, Solan vs ITO [2015 (6) TMI 725 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] and no separate observation has been made by the Assessing Officer in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TA No. 120/Chd/2019 : 2. In ITA No. 120/Chd/2019 the assessee has agitated the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The assessee in this respect has taken following grounds of appeal:- 1. The order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chandigarh (Ld. CIT Appeals) upholding demand of penalty under section 271(l)(c) being unlawful, perverse and against facts and law needs to be set aside, annulled and vacated; 2. Ld. CIT Appeals order upholding demand of penalty under section 271(l)(c), by considering appellant's bonafide claim of 100% deduction u/s 80-IC based on substantial expansion done ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me of hearing of appeal/ during the course of the appeal proceedings. 3. The brief facts relating to the issue are that the assessee had set up a new Industrial unit after first of January 2003 and had already claimed 100% depreciation u/s 80IC of the Act for the first five assessment years starting from assessment year 2006-07. As per the provisions of section 80IC of the Act, the assessee was entitled to deduction @ 100% u/s 80IC of the Act for the first five years and thereafter for another five years @ 25%. However, the assessee in the 6th year claimed deduction @ 100% on account of substantial expansion of the unit. This is the 7th year from the initial assessment year from which the assessee had started claiming deduction u/s 80I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Leave granted. The impugned judgments have relied upon a judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Classic Binding Industries, [Civil Appeal No. 7208 of 2018] which has since been overruled by our judgment in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla vs M/s Aarham Softronics [Civil Appeal No. 1784 of 2019] delivered by a three-Judge Bench on 20.02.2019. Following the aforesaid judgment, we allow the appeals and set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court. Sd/- .......................... J. (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN) Sd/- .......................... J (VINEET SARAN) New Delhi; May 03, 2019. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account of substantial expansion. However, the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been recalled and the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee in the bunch of appeals with the lead case being Pr. CIT, Shimla vs M/s Aarham Subtonics in Civil No. 1784 of 2019 dated 20.2.2019. Following the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 03.05.2019 (supra) has allowed the appeal of the assessee. 6. We find that the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11542/2019 before the Hon'ble High Court was filed against the order of the Punjab Haryana High Court dated 6.9.2018 passed in ITA No. 303/ 2017. As observed above, ITA No. 303 of 2017 was filed by the assessee against the order of the Tribunal da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vied by the Assessing Officer is accordingly ordered to be deleted. ITA No.121/Chd/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) 9. This appeal is relating to the quantum proceedings in respect of denial of deduction @ 100% in the assessment year under consideration which is the fifth year of claiming deduction @ 100% after the initial assessment year 2011-12 for claiming of deduction on account of substantial expansion. As observed above, the issue is already settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of assessee M/s Adley Formulations vs CIT, Chandigarh in Civil Appeal No. 4587 of 2019 Ors vide order dated May 03, 2019 (supra) 10. In view of this, the disallowance made by the lower authorities is set aside and it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
