TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 734
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Chandigarh is unjustified in upholding the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer concluding that the benefit of substantial expansion is available only to the pre-existing units i.e. the units that existed and were operational as on 07-01-2003 and not to the appellant which came in existence after 07-01-2003 which is discriminatory and unjustified as the section does not specify so that the benefit of substantial expansion is available only to pre- existing units operational as on 07-01-03. This observation is unjustified and against the spirit of the Law. 4. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh is unjustified in upholding the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer concluding that once an initial assessment year is determined in case of an industrial undertaking claiming benefit u/s 80IC it cannot be changed even if the same undertaking completes substantial expansion which is unjustified as it is clearly mentioned u/s 80IC(8)(v) of the I.T. Act, 1961 that initial assessment year means the assessment year in which the undertaking completes the substantial expansion as done by the appellant in AY 2011-12 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oordinate bench in para 22 to 49 has held as under:- "22. We have considered the rival submissions including written submissions in the light of material on record, as well as judgments cited by the parties. Before we consider the relevant provisions which are required to be interpreted, it will be useful to deal with the various principles of interpretation as enunciated by various Courts. 23. It is settled that if the language of a particular Statute is clear then only literal meaning has to be given to such language as long the same does not result in absurdity or unintended consequences. Therefore, if the language of a particular Statute is clear then the same cannot be changed by applying different principles of interpretations. This is clear from the observations made by 'Hon'ble Apex Court' in the case of Orissa State Warehousing Corporation Vs. CIT 237 ITR 607 wherein it has been observed at page 604 & 605 of the report as under:- "Let us, however, at this juncture, consider some of the oft cited decisions pertaining to the interpretation of the fiscal statutes being the focal point of consideration in these appeals. Lord Halsbury as early as 1901, in Cooke v. Cha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the intendment is not in the words used. It is nowhere else. The need for interpretation arises when the words used in the statute are, on their own terms, ambivalent and do not manifest the intention of the Legislature... Artificial and unduly latitudinarian rules of construction, which with their general tendency to 'give the taxpayer the breaks', are out of place where the legislation has a fiscal mission." Be it noted that individual cases of hardship and injustice do not and cannot have any bearing for rejecting the natural construction by attributing normal meaning to the words used since "hard cases do not make bad laws". However, if some ambiguity is there in the language of a particular statute because of various reasons, the same is required to be construed so as to find out the real intention of the Legislature and then every possible material should be considered to find out the real intention of the Legislature. In this regard, the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the celebrated judgement of K.P. Vergese 131 ITR 598 (supra) are relevant. We extract the Head note which reads as under:- "A statutory provision must be so construed, if possible, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Central Board of Direct Taxes are not only binding on the Income-tax Department but are also in the nature of contemporanea exposition furnishing legitimate aid in the construction of a provision." 24. The Ld. counsel of the assessee had referred to the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Dinakar Ullal Vs. CIT (supra) and decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/s Rattan Melting & Wire (supra) for the proposition that since circulars are not binding on the Courts, therefore, the same should not be considered for interpretation of a particular provision. As far as the decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/s Rattan Melting & Wire (supra) is concerned, this does not support the proposition made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. In that case the question was whether a circular issued by the Department which is generally binding on the authorities would take precedence over the interpretation made by the Supreme Court or High Court in respect of particular provision. The Para 6 of this judgment make this point absolutely clear and reads as under:- "6. Circulars and instructions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of interest on refunds. This becomes absolutely clear from the question framed by Hon'ble Court which is contained at placitum 6 and reads as under:- "(i) Whether the condition to deny interest on refund amount due to an assessee under the Act, while admitting an application to condone the delay in making a claim for belated refund under section 237 of the Act, as contained in Instruction No. 12 of 2003 dated October 30,2003 and 13 of 2006 dated January 22,2006, of the Board, is inconsistent with sub-section (2) of section 244A of the Act? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances, the respondent was justified in denying interest on belated refund claimed for the assessment year 1995-96, by the order impugned." 26. The Hon'ble Court discussed the matter and ultimately held that assessee was entitled to interest u/s 244A and Circular No. 670 was contrary to the provisions of section 244A. The court also observed that circular could be issued to clarify the provisions for removing the difficulties. Therefore, it is clear that question whether a circular can be considered in interpretation of a particular provision was never before the Court and therefore, in our opini....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in accordance with the scheme framed and notified by the Central Government in this regard, in the State of Himachal Pradesh or the State of Uttaranchal; or (iii) on the 24th day of December, 1997 and ending before the 1st day of April, 2007, in any Export Processing Zone or Integrated Infrastructure Development Centre or Industrial Growth Centre or Industrial Estate or Industrial Park or Software Technology Park or Industrial Area or Theme Park, as notified by the Board in accordance with the scheme framed and notified by the Central Government in this regard, in any of the North Eastern States; (b) which has begun or begins to manufacture or produce any article or thing, specified in the Fourteenth Schedule or commences any operation specified in that Schedule, or which manufactures or produces any article or thing, specified in the Fourteenth Schedule or commences any operations specified in that Schedule and undertakes substantial expansion during the period beginning- (i) on the 23rd day of December, 2002 and ending before the 1st day of April, [2007], in the State of Sikkim; or (ii) on the 7th day of January, 2003 and ending before the 1st day of April 2012, in the Sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xceeds the assessment years. (7) The provisions contained in sub-section (5) and sub-sections(7) to (12) of section 80-IA shall, so far as may be, apply to the eligible undertaking or enterprise under this section. (8) For the purposes of this section,- "(i) Industrial Area" means such areas, which the Board, may, be notification in the Official Gazette, specify in accordance with the scheme framed and notified by the Central Government; (ii) "Industrial Estate" means such estates, which the Board, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in accordance with the scheme framed and notified by the Central Government. (iii) "Industrial Growth Centre" means such centres, which the Board, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in accordance with the scheme framed and notified by the Central Government; (iv) "Industrial Park" means such parks, which the Board, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in accordance with the scheme framed and notified by the Central Government; (v) "Initial assessment year" means the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the undertaking or the enterprise begins to manufactures or produce ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndertaking which were already existing and began the manufacture before the window period mentioned in the sub section. The last line of the sub section reads "and undertakes substantial expansion during the period beginning........". This would naturally refer to the undertaking which were already existing. If it is read the way the Ld. counsel of the assessee would like us to read then the provision would become unworkable because if there is an undertaking which is established during the window period then the same cannot possibly undertakes substantial expansion also simultaneously. The expression 'and" would refer to the cumulative condition that is both parts of the conditions need to be complied. The expression 'and' can be joined only with the expression 'begun'. This is because 'begun' refers to something which has already started in the past whereas 'begins' connotes something which would commence in the present. Therefore, the expression 'and' can be correlated only with existing unit because as we have already seen a new unit which has been set up and begins production cannot simultaneously undergo substantial expansion also so as to become eligible for deduction under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Board in accordance with rules prescribed in this regard. Similar deduction shall be available to thrust sector industries, as specified in the Fourteenth Schedule. 49.3 The amount of deduction in case of undertakings or enterprises in the States of Sikkim, and the North- Eastern States shall be one hundred per cent of the profits of the undertaking for ten assessment years. The amount of deduction in case of undertakings or enterprises in the States of Uttaranchal, Himachal Pradesh shall be one hundred per cent of the profits of the undertaking for five assessment years, and thereafter twenty-five per cent (thirty per cent for companies ) for the next five assessment years. 49.4 The section also provides that no deduction shall be allowed to any undertaking or enterprise under this section, where the total period of deduction inclusive of the period of deduction under this section or under section 80-IB or under section 10C, as the case may be, exceeds ten assessment years. Further, in computing the total income of the assessee, no deduction shall be allowed under any other section contained in Chapter VIA or in section 10A or 10B, in relation to the profits and gains of the u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng The above definition clearly shows that 'exist' would refer to something which is in force presently. 'Exist' would generally and in common sense refers to something which is already there. With reference to this provision, this would refer to an undertaking which was already present on the date when this provision was introduced. In any case the notification issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion which is published in the Gazette of India removed all the doubts. This notification is relevant because this was issued with reference to same package announced by the Union Cabinet of India for the development of the hilly states. Section 5, reads as under;- "Definitions: (a) ..... (b) ..... (c) Existing Industrial Unit' means an industrial unit existing as on 7th January 2003. (d) .......... (e) ............. (f) ..." Thus the definition given above makes it clear that existing Industrial Unit would mean an unit which existed on 7.1.2003. 33. Even if the above controversy is ignored regarding existing unit, the intention of the Legislature become absolutely clear when sub section (2) is read alon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efit of substantial expansion was to be separately allowed in case of State of Himachal Pradesh and State of Uttaranchal, then meaning of substantial expansion as given under sub section (2) which is same for the state of Sikkim and North-Eastern states become redundant. As noted earlier, the provision cannot be interpreted in such a way that part of the section becomes redundant or otiose. Therefore, whatever doubts may be there in sub section (2) when it is read with sub section (3), those doubts are totally removed and it become absolutely clear that rate of deduction has to be 100% for first 5 years and 25% thereafter. 34. There is a force in the contention of Ld. CIT/DR that if the interpretation contended on behalf of the assessee was to be adopted then Sub Section (4) of Section 80IC would also become redundant. Sub Section (4) clearly provides that the deduction is available to any undertaking or enterprise which is not formed by splitting or reconstruction of the business already in existence or it is not formed by transfer to new business of machinery or plant previously used for any purpose. Further the explanation to this Sub Section makes it clear that Explanation 1 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on, we would like to emphasize that no principle of interpretation can be adopted which leads to a situation where a particular part of the section becomes totally redundant. In fact though it was contended that in the present case (i.e. in case of Hycron Electronics) deduction has been claimed only of 10 years but on the date of hearing some other appeals were also listed wherein the deduction was claimed for more than 10 years adopting the same contention which has been made before us. In case of M/s Mahavir Industries (ITA No. 127/Chd/2011 and ITA No. 791/Chd/2012) though those cases were adjourned because some other issues were also there but in those two cases assessee had commenced the operation on 8.5.1997 and claimed deduction u/s 80IB from assessment years 1998-99 to 2005- 06. Later on, substantial expansion was carried out in assessment year 2005-06 and on the basis of the contention that assessee is allowed to carry out any number of expansions, deduction was claimed for the 12th year for assessment year 2009-10 (We may clarify that reference to these cases is made because of particular contention and we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of these appeals here)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es it clear that in the case of states of North-Eastern regions, the deduction would be @ 100% for all the 10 years. Thus, even in the earlier provision only in case of North-Easter states, the deduction of 100% was allowable for 10 years whereas in the case of states of Himachal Pradesh, the deduction was allowable @ 100% for first five years and 25% for next five years. 38. Further, it should be noted that sub section (6) starts with non obstante clause and therefore, in no case the deduction could be for period exceeding 10 years and in this regard we may note that even the Ld. authors in their Commentary of Income Tax Laws By Chaturvedi & Pithisaria's - Sixth Edition has expressed the same opinion. The relevant extract at pages 6351 of the commentary reads as under;- "No deduction possible for more than 10 assessment years.- Section 80-IC(6) also opens with a non obstante clause " Notwithstanding anything contained in",and provides that no deduction shall be allowed to any undertaking or enterprise under section 80-IC, - where the total period of deduction inclusive of the period of deduction - - under section 80-IC, or - under the second proviso to section 80-IB(4) or - unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....particular Act such principles has been decided. No doubt the incentive provisions are required to be interpreted liberally but in case of M/s Novapan India Ltd v Collector of Central Excise and Customs (supra), it was observed as under:- " The learned counsel for the appellant then contended that since there is an ambiguity about the meaning and purport of item-6 of the table appended to the Exemption Notification, the benefit of such ambiguity should go to the assessee manufacturer and the entry must be construed as taking in the MFPBs as well. It is not possible to agree with this submission. In Mangalore Chemicals& Fertilizers Ltd.. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Ors., [1992) Suppl. 1 S.C.C, 21, a Bench of this Court comprising M.N. Venkatachaliah, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was) and S.C Agrawal, J. stated the relevant principle in the following words: "Shri Narasimhamurty again relied on certain observations in CCE v. Parle Exports (P)Ltd. [1989] 1 SCC 345, in support of strict construction of a provision concerning exemptions. There is support of judicial opinion to the view that exemptions from taxation have a tendency to increase the burden on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot but be said that an exemption is an exception to the general rule and since the same is opposed to the natural tenor of the statute, the entitlement for exemption, therefore, ought not to be read with any latitude to the tax-payer or even with a wider connotation." 41. Therefore, it becomes clear that liberal interpretation of an incentive provision is possible if there is any doubt. As we have seen above that if various sub sections of section 80IC are read carefully it leaves no doubt that deduction was meant only for new units or in case of old units if substantial expansion was carried out in such old units and deduction was available only for a period of 10 years. Therefore, there is no question of giving any interpretation much less liberal interpretation to section 80IC when the reading of whole section makes the provision very clear. As observed in case of M/s Novapan India Ltd v Collector of Central Excise and Customs (supra) the burden was on the assessee to show under which clause he was entitled to the deduction but assessee is simply asserting before us that there is no restriction for deduction in case of substantial expansion of new units. In our opinion, that i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on in March, 2010. Shri Abhishek Bhargav while planning to join the firm as partner by acquiring 20% share of profit and enhancing additional manufacturing facility by undertaking substantial expansion sought advance ruling on the issue whether the introduction of new partner would be treated as reconstruction of the existing business or the firm will be entitled to the benefit of substantial expansion as per the provisions of section 80IC(2)(a)(ii) if it starts commercial production before 01.04.2012. The Authority held that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of substantial expansion in terms of and to the extent provided by section 80IC of the Act if it starts commercial production in the substantially expanded unit before 01.04.2012. In this case the assesse shall be entitled to deduction of 100% of its profits upto A.Y. 2014-15 since the initial assessment year was A.Y. 2010-11 and claim of deduction cannot be denied merely on the ground of expansion of manufacturing capacity so long it is not a case of restructuring of business already in existence. However, the question whether the assessee shall be entitled to deduction of 100% of its profit even after A.Y. 2014- 15 i.....