TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 1058
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ke of brevity, facts are borrowed from ITA-253-2022. 2. The appellant through instant appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 is seeking setting aside of order dated 14.06.2022 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh in ITA No. 41/Chd/2021 for the assessment year 2013-14. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is engaged in the business of manufacture of Aluminum Extrusion and having its unit at Baddi, Himachal Pradesh. The respondent filed its income tax return for the assessment year 2013-14 on 29.09.2013 wherein declared income of Rs. 2,64,39,760/-. The respondent-assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 5,87,89,770/- under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short '1961 Act'). 4. The responden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibunal'). The Tribunal vide order dated 20.02.2019 allowed appeal of the respondent and restored deduction claimed by it. 6. The Tribunal allowed appeal of the respondent vide order dated 20.02.2019 and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax initiated proceedings under Section 263. The Principal Commissioner vide order dated 30.03.2021 formed an opinion that order dated 27.11.2017 passed by Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Principal Commissioner held that respondent-assessee has wrongly claimed deduction @100%. He directed Assessing Officer to modify assessment order dated 27.11.2017 in accordance with his directions. The respondent-assessee assailing order dated 30.03.2021 passed by Principa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of 1961 Act. The deduction claimed by respondent was reduced from 100% to 30%. The relevant extracts of order dated 27.11.2017 passed by Assessing Officer are reproduced as below: "8. It is also clear from the ITR, Computation and 10CCB Report that the assessee has claimed 100% deduction of the profit & gains derived by the undertaking/enterprises (Unit No.-II, Baddi) from the eligible business at Rs. 5,87,89,770/-, whereas as per the above detailed discussion the assessee was eligible for only 30% deduction at Rs. 1,76,36,931/-. Considering the above discussion it is quite clear that the assessee has claimed excessive relief u/s 80IC of the I.T. Act, 1961. 9. In view of the above discussion excess deduction claimed at Rs. 4,11,52,839....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ligible profits even if it has already claimed deduction of its profits at the said rate for first five years, in view of the law laid down by the Apex court in this regard in its decision in the case of M/s Aarham Softronics (supra). 12. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT (A) and allow the appeals of the assessee." 11. From the perusal of order dated 27.11.2017 passed by Assessing Officer and order dated 14.06.2019 passed by Tribunal, it is quite clear and lucid that issue before the Assessing Officer as well as Appellate Authority was whether assessee is entitled to deduction @ 100% or 30% under Section 80IC. Assessing Officer on one or another ground concluded that assessee is entitled to deduction @ 30% and First Appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the order under section 92CA and directing a fresh order under the said section." 13. From the perusal of above quoted section, it is evident that Principal Commissioner has power to revise an order if he finds that order passed Assessing Officer is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 14. In the case in hand, the Assessing Officer had not extended deduction @ 100% whereas Assessing Officer had rejected claim of assessee and reduced deduction from 100% to 30%. The said order merged with the order of Commissioner (A) and order of Commissioner (A) further merged with the order of Tribunal. The common thread running through order of Assessing Officer, Commissioner (A) and Tribunal was whether assessee is entitled to deduction @ 100% or....