TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 183
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inst order dated 22.03.2016 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Haldwani {CIT(A)} for Assessment Year 2012-13. Since, both the appeals involved identical issues, they were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of through this common order for the sake of convenience. 2.0 None was present on behalf of the respondent assessee when the appeals were called out for hearing. However, looking into the facts of the case, we deem it fit to hear the appeals ex-parte qua the respondent assessee. 3.0 The brief acts of the case are that the assessee is a limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing of Writing and Printing Paper. The return of income was filed declaring an income of Rs. 1,87,35,270....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wed by the Ld. CIT(A) and now the Department has approached this Tribunal challenging the said orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and has raised the following grounds of appeal: Grounds of appeal in ITA No. 3427/Del/2016 "1. Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law, facts and circumstances of the case in allowing appeal of the assessee for the claim of deduction u/s 80IC to 100% as against 30% only by following the order of Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi in the case of M/s Tirupati LPG Industries Limited Vs JCIT, Range -2, Dehradun which is not accepted by the department, therefore, it is not binding on the department. 2. Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law, facts and circumstances that the assessee made the claim of deduction @ 100% of profits in the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....could have been provided in as clear words as it has been provided in section 80IA." 5.0 The Ld. SR. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in allowing the assessee's claim of deduction to the full as against the legally permissible deduction of 30% because the law was very clear on the issue that for companies the deduction was allowable only @ 30% after expiry of the initial five assessment years. It was submitted by the Ld. Sr. DR that the assessee does not have an option to re-fix the initial assessment year, and therefore, the claim of deduction @ 100% for the 6th and 7th Assessment Years from the initial assessment year was not valid in the eyes of law. 6.0 Having heard the Ld. Sr. DR and after ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vehemently opposed the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) granting deduction @ 100%, we find no error either in law or on facts having been committed by Ld. CIT(A) in the two captioned appeals as the Ld. CIT(A) has only followed the interpretation as laid down by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal. Further, the Ld. Sr. DR also could not bring to our notice any order contrary to the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Tirupati LPG Industries (supra). It will be relevant here to reproduce the relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.991/Del/2013 as under: "10.4. The only dispute that arises for our consideration is the interpretation of the term "initial assessment year" and whether the same comes wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion into account. If such substantial expansion is completed, then, for the purpose of this section, the Assessment Year relevant to the P.Y. in which such substantial expansion is completed becomes the initial assessment year. Once it becomes the initial Assessment Year consequently under sub section (3) the assessee would be entitled to 100% deduction of profits and gains for a period of 5 years commencing from such initial Assessment Year, and thereafter the % of deduction from profits come down. The term "initial year" has been defined, as a year in which substantial expansion is completed. There is nothing to suggest that there cannot be a second initial year if a second substantial expansion is completed. Even if an existing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....varan Engineers P. Ltd. (supra) was considering a case where the assessee originally claiming deduction u/s 80 IB(iv) of the Act from the A. Y. 1999-2000. For the first 5 years it had claimed exemption of 100%. Thereafter it undertook substantial expansion and claimed deduction u/s 80 IB(iv). The AO rejected the same and observed that benefit could be availed u/s 80 1C and as the substantial expansion was less than 50% of the value of plant ITA N0.2786/Del/2013 10 and machinery the claim is to be rejected. The Tribunal observed that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80-IC. It held that mere mention of a wrong Section would not disentitle the assessee to claim the above said deduction. To our mind this case law is not directly on the....