AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 258
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2016, 06.10.2017 and 29.09.2017 respectively. 2. It was common ground between both the parties that the issue involved in all the above appeals was common. They were therefore heard together and are being disposed off by way of common consolidated order. 3. At the outset, it may be stated that the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 1654/Chd/2017 was time barred by 358 days. An application seeking condonation of delay was filed by the assessee dated 06.12.2017 submitting therein that there was a reasonable cause for said delay, since the Accounts Manager of the assessee, Shri Jagmohan Sharma, who was the main person looking after the case, had met with a major accident on 13.09.2016 and was therefore, hospitalized from 13.09.2016 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of eligible profits as against 100% claimed by the assessees on account of 'substantial expansion' undertaken by them. The facts common to all the above appeals is that all the afore-stated assesses had started their manufacturing activities in areas specified u/s 80IC after the section was brought on statute i.e 01-07-2003 and were eligible to claim deduction of their profits u/s 80IC of the Income Tax Act,1961. All the assessees had already claimed 100% deduction of their profits, as per the said section, for the initial prescribed period of five years. Thereafter, the assessees had claimed 100% deduction on account of having carried out 'substantial expansion'. The Assessing Officer denied the same and restricted it to 25% of the eligibl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee brought to our notice that the order of the I.T.A.T. Bench in the case of M/s Hycron Electronics (Supra),which had been followed by the Ld.CIT(A), had been decided in appeal by the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court vide their order dated 28.11.2017 in the group of cases with the lead case titled as M/s Stovecraft India and others vs. CIT in ITA No. 20/Chd/2015 and it was pointed out therefrom, that the Hon'ble High Court had decided the issue in favour of the assessee holding that there is no bar in Section 80IC of the Act denying the benefit 100% deduction to new units undertaking 'substantial expansion'. Our attention was drawn to the relevant conclusions of the Hon'ble High Court in this regard at Para 55 of the order as under:....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny other Section, contained in Chapter VI-A or Section 10A or 10B of the Act [Section 80- IB(5)]." 10. The ld. DR fairly admitted that the issue is squarely covered by the above decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. He, however, submitted that the issue be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification as to whether the assessee had actually carried out the substantial expansion to be entitled to claim deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. 11. At this juncture, ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the I.T.A.T., Chandigarh Bench in the case of M/s Security Products Pvt. Ltd., one of the assessees in appeal before us, in ITA No. 1152/Chd/2017 had while dealing with the identical issue i.e. claim of 100% de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e at this stage. A perusal of the order of the Assessing officer reveals that the Assessing officer has not disputed that the assessee unit has carried out substantial expansion as provided under clause (b) of sub section (2) read with clause (ix) of sub section (7) of section 80IC of the Act. Almost similar view has also been taken by the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of 'M/s Stovekraft India vs. Commissioner of Income Tax' (supra) in the following concluding para of the order:- "58. On facts, we may clarify that the Revenue has not disputed, (a) the units having carried out substantial expansion within the definition of the Section, (b) their entitlement and extent of deduction would be dependent upon interp....