No AI summary yet for this case.
आदेश/Order
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 23.01.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chandigarh [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)].
The assessee in this appeal has taken following grounds of appeal:-
ITA No. 445-Chd/2017 M/s Micro Turners, Chandigarh 2 1. That the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) is bad, against facts & Law.
That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has wrongly upheld the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IC amounting to Rs 1,18,91,248/- for TPD unit without appreciating the fact that the appellant has undertaken substantial expansion during FY 12-13.
That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has wrongly upheld the disallowance of deduction of Rs.30,20,840/- u/s 80IC of the Income Tax Act.
That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has wrongly upheld the adjustment of Brought forward losses of earlier years against our claim of deduction u/s 80IC, which was already set off during the earlier year.
That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal before the final hearing.
Ground No.1: Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not
require any specific adjudication.
Ground No.2: Vide ground No.2, the assessee has agitated the
action of the CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance u/s 80IC of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') @ 100% on account of
substantial explanation carried out during the financial year 2011-12.
During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for the
assessee, at the outset itself, pointed out that the Hon'ble Apex Court
ITA No. 445-Chd/2017 M/s Micro Turners, Chandigarh 3 has decided this issue in favour of the assessee in bunch of cases with
the lead case being Pr.CIT, Shimla Vs. M/s Aarham Softronics in
Civil No.1784 of 2019 dated 20.2.2019.
Ld. DR fairly conceded that the issue was settled in favour of
the assessee by the above decision of the Apex court.
We have gone through the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of M/s Aarham Softronics (supra) and find that the Hon'ble
Apex Court dealt with the entire scheme of the Act relating to the
relevant section i.e. section 80IC of the Act, and arrived at the
conclusion that the definition of the initial assessment year contained
in clause (v) of sub-section(8) of section 80IC of the Act can lead to a
situation where there can be more than one initial assessment year
within the said period of ten years. The relevant finding of the
Hon'ble Apex Court at para 19 of its order is as under:
“19. Having examined the scheme in the aforesaid manner, we arrive at the conclusion that the definition of ‘initial assessment year’ contained in clause (v) of sub-section (8) of Section 80-IC can lead to a situation where there can be more than one “initial assessment year” within the said period of 10 years. As per sub- section (6), cap is on the 10 assessment years. It is not on quantum. We have also to keep in mind the purpose for which Section 80-IC was enacted. The purpose was to establish the business of the nature specified in the said provision in the specified States. This provision was, thus, aimed at encouraging the undertakings or enterprises to establish and set up such units in the aforesaid States to make them industrially advanced States as well. Undoubtedly, these are difficult States as most of these States fall in hilly areas. Therefore, cost of production and transportation may also go up.
ITA No. 445-Chd/2017 M/s Micro Turners, Chandigarh 4 20. When we keep in mind these objectives for which Section 80-IC was enacted, an irresistible conclusion would be to grant 100% deduction of the profits and gains even from the year when there is substantial expansion in the existing unit. After all, this substantial expansion involves great deal of investment which has to be, at least 50% in the plant and machinery, of the book value thereof before taking depreciation in any year. With an expansion of such a nature not only there would be increase in production but generation of more employment as well, which would benefit the local populace. It is for this reason, carrying out substantial expansion by itself is treated as ‘initial assessment year’. It would mean that even when an old unit completes substantial expansion, such a unit also becomes entitled to avail the benefit of Section 80-IC. If that is the purpose of the legislature, we see no reason as to why 100% deduction of the profits and gains be not allowed to even those units who had availed this deduction on setting up of a new unit and have now invested huge amount with substantial expansion of those units.” 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court thereafter concluded that a newly set
up undertaking or enterprise in the State of Himachal Pradesh would
be entitled to deduction @ 100% of the Act its profits for the first
five years and even thereafter in the case of substantial expansion is
carried out by it, then the assessment year relevant to the previous
year in which substantial expansion is undertaken becoming the initial
assessment year. That in any case, the period of deduction u/s 80IC of
the Act would not exceed 10 years. The conclusion of the Hon'ble
Apex Court at para 24 of its order is as under:
“24. The aforesaid discussion leads us to the following conclusions: (a) Judgment dated 20th August, 2018 in Classic Binding Industries case omitted to take note of the definition ‘initial assessment year’ contained in Section 80-IC itself and instead based its conclusion on the definition contained in Section 80-IB, which does not apply in these cases. The definitions of ‘initial assessment year’ in the two sections, viz. Sections 80-IB and 80-
ITA No. 445-Chd/2017 M/s Micro Turners, Chandigarh 5 IC are materially different. The definition of ‘initial assessment year’ under Section 80-IC has made all the difference. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid judgment does not lay down the correct law. (b) An undertaking or an enterprise which had set up a new unit between 7th January, 2003 and 1st April, 2012 in State of Himachal Pradesh of the nature mentioned in clause (ii) of sub- section (2) of Section 80-IC, would be entitled to deduction at the rate of 100% of the profits and gains for five assessment years commencing with the ‘initial assessment year’. For the next five years, the admissible deduction would be 25% (or 30% where the assessee is a company) of the profits and gains. (c) However, in case substantial expansion is carried out as defined in clause (ix) of sub-section (8) of Section 80-IC by such an undertaking or enterprise, within the aforesaid period of 10 years, the said previous year in which the substantial expansion is undertaken would become ‘initial assessment year’, and from that assessment year the assessee shall been entitled to 100% deductions of the profits and gains. (d) Such deduction, however, would be for a total period of 10 years, as provided in sub-section (6). For example, if the expansion is carried out immediately, on the completion of first five years, the assessee would be entitled to 100% deduction again for the next five years. On the other hand, if substantial expansion is undertaken, say, in 8th year by an assessee such an assessee would be entitled to 100% deduction for the first five years, deduction @ 25% of the profits and gains for the next two years and @ 100% again from 8th year as this year becomes ‘initial assessment year’ once again However, this 100% deduction would be for remaining three years, i.e., 8th, 9th and 10th assessment years. 25. In view of the aforesaid, we affirm the judgment of the High Court on this issue and dismiss all these appeals of the Revenue. Likewise, appeals filed by the assessees are hereby allowed.”
In view of the above, it is now settled law that even a new
undertaking, which has claimed deduction of its eligible profits @
100% thereof for the first five years, is entitled to claim deduction @
100% of its profits thereafter on account of substantial expansion
ITA No. 445-Chd/2017 M/s Micro Turners, Chandigarh 6 undertaken by it. However, such deduction would be for a total period
of 10 years as provided in sub-section (6) to section 80IC of the Act.
Since in the present case the fact that the assessee had
undertaken substantial expansion in the impugned year is not
disputed, the assessee, we hold, is entitled to claim deduction @
100% of its eligible 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). Thus, this issue is decided in
favour of the assessee.
Ground Nos 3 & 4: Vide these grounds, the assessee has 10.
agitated the action of the CIT(A) in upholding the addition made by
the Assessing Officer of Rs. 30,20,840/- on account of adjustment of
Brought forward losses of earlier years against the profits of the unit
for which the deduction u/s 80IC of the Act has been claimed.
The plea of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has been that since
the losses of the earlier years have already been set off / adjusted
against the income of the assessee of that year, hence, the lower
authorities were not justified in notionally carrying forward the losses
and setting off against the profits of 80IC eligible unit for computation
of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act for the assessment year under
ITA No. 445-Chd/2017 M/s Micro Turners, Chandigarh 7 consideration. The Ld. Counsel in this respect has relied upon the
following case law:- i) CIT-10 vs Hercules Hoists Ltd, ITA No. 707 of2014 order dated 14.7.2017 (Bombay High Court)
ii) ITO vs M/s Parry Engineering & Electronics in ITA No. 1148/Ahd/2017 order dated 13.5.2019 of ITAT Ahmedabad
iii) ACIT vs M/s Leo Fasteners, Pondicherry; Tax Case (Appeal) No.533 to 538 of 2010, 1217 to 1220 of 2010 and 787 and 788 of 2014 order dated 10.7.2017 (Madras High Court )
iv) CIT vs Poppy’s Knitwear (P) Limited [2015] 92 CCH 005 Chen HC / [2015] 373 ITR 0455
v) Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd vs ACIT [2010] 78 CCH 0265 Chen High Court / (2012) 340 ITR 0477
We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and have also
gone through the case laws relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the
assessee. In the aforesaid case laws, the issue before the Hon'ble
Courts was that for computation of deduction u/s 80IA/ 80IB, whether
the loss prior to initial assessment year choosen by the assessee for
claim of deduction for 10 consecutive years can be brought forward or
set off against the deduction claimed from the eligible business. The
proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid case laws is that when
the assessee exercises the option to claiming deduction u/s 80IA / 80IB,
the only losses of the years beginning from initial assessment year
alone are to be brought forward. That losses of the earlier years i.e.
ITA No. 445-Chd/2017 M/s Micro Turners, Chandigarh 8 prior to the initial assessment year, which were already set off against
the income of the assessee cannot be brought forward to adjust / set off
against the profits of eligible business to compute deduction from
eligible business.
As per the provisions of section 80IA(5) of the Act, the profit and
gains of an eligible business for the purpose of determining the
quantum of deduction u/s 80IA for the assessment year immediately
succeeding the initial assessment year or any subsequent assessment
year, are to be computed as if as the eligible business were the only
source of income of the assessee during the previous year relevant to
the initial assessment year and to every subsequent assessment year
upto the assessment year for which the deduction is allowable. As per
sub section (7) of section 80IC, the provisions of section 80IA(5) being
also made applicable to the eligible undertaking for claim of deduction
u/s 80IC. Hence, as per the aforesaid provisions, the losses of the
eligible undertaking prior to the start of the initial assessment year for
claim of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act cannot be brought forward and
set off against the profits of the eligible undertaking for the purpose of
computation of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. However, once the initial
assessment year has already began, the losses of the eligible
undertaking of earlier years, not before the start of the initial
assessment year, are to be taken into consideration / set off for
ITA No. 445-Chd/2017 M/s Micro Turners, Chandigarh 9 computation of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act of that assessment year.
It is pertinent to mention here that for the computation of total income
of the assessee, the losses of the eligible undertaking are set off against
the profits / income of the assessee, however, the computation of
deduction u/s 80IC of the Act is to be done separately treating the
eligible unit as it is only the business / source of income of the
assessee during the relevant assessment year. It is, thus, held by the
various Courts that for computation of deduction u/s 80IA/80IB of the
Income Tax Act, the losses of the earlier assessment years, when the
business of the assessee was not eligible for deduction u/s 80IA/ 80IB
of the Act are not to be set off after the commencement of initial
assessment year for claim of deduction. However, the losses of the
initial assessment year and subsequent assessment years are to be
taken into consideration for computation of deduction u/s 80IA / 80IB
of the Act till the last year of the claim of deduction u/s 80IA/ 80IB of
the Act. Applying the same proposition, the assessment year under consideration in the case of the assessee is 7th assessment year from the
initial assessment year for the purpose of claim of deduction u/s 80IC
of the Act. In view of this, the losses from the previous year after start
of the initial assessment year are to be notionally brought forward for
the purpose of computation of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act for the
assessment year under consideration.
In view of this, we do not find any merit in the ground Nos. 3 & 4
ITA No. 445-Chd/2017 M/s Micro Turners, Chandigarh 10 of the appeal and the same are accordingly dismissed.
Ground No.5: Ground No.5 is general in nature and does not
require any adjudication.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 24.07.2019.
Sd/- Sd/- (संजय गग� / SANJAY GARG) (एन. के. सैनी / N.K. SAINI) उपा�य� /Vice President �या�यकसद�य/ Judicial Member Dated : 24.07.2019 “आर.के.”
आदेशक���त�ल�पअ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�त/ CIT 4. आयकरआयु�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय��त�न�ध, आयकरअपील�यआ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड�फाईल/ Guard File
आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायकपंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar