DCIT, CIR. 4(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S AMALGAMATED PLANTATIONS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

At the outset, we note that there is delay of 639 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue for which the condonation petition has been moved by the Revenue dated 24.12.2021, wherein it has been stated that in order to file the appeal, the file has to go through various stages in the hierarchy for obtaining necessary approvals and hence, the delay of 639 days in filing the appeal. The revenue has explained the delay with cogent reasons. Considering the contents of the condonation and the arguments of the rival parties, we are quite

The only issue raised by the assessee is against the order of ld. CIT (A) allowing the claim of the assessee u/s 80IE of the Act of ₹5,82,61,479/-.

The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income dated 28.09.2012, which was revised on 31.03.2014, wherein the total income was computed at ₹ nil after claiming deduction u/s 80IE of the Act to the tune of ₹15,97,27,673/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory and other notices were issued along with questionnaires and served upon the assessee. The ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings observed that the assessee has claimed during the impugned assessment year, a deduction u/s 80IE of the Act of ₹15,97,27,683/- for which the assessee has submitted certificate from the auditors in form 10CEB. According to the ld. AO, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IE of the Act, in respect of 16 undertakings. The ld. AO further noted that the assessee further claimed the deduction u/s 80IE of the Act for 3 more undertakings from A.Y. 2012-13. The ld. AO noted assessee’s claim u/s 80IE of the Act, for above 16 undertakings was made in A.Y. 2010-11 as initial assessment year. In the assessments framed u/s 143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12, out of the 16 gardens, deduction u/s 80IE of the Act was allowed in respect of 8 gardens which achieved substantial expansion in one financial year. Thereafter, the ld. AO noted that the claim of deduction in respect of remaining 8 gardens were rejected as increase in plant and machinery was over a period of three years. The ld. AO identified the items of plant and machineries which were not for the purpose of production or

In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing and holding as under:-

The ld. DR vehemently submitted before us that the appeal of the assessee was wrongly allowed by the ld. CIT (A) on this issue by holding that the substantial expansion undertaken by the three units even if completed even beyond the financial year in which it was first undertaken, the deduction u/s 80(IE) is available. The ld. Authorized Representative vehemently submitted that the substantial expansion has been completed in the assessment year in which it is started and therefore, the ld. AO has taken a very correct view of the matter by rejecting the claim u/s 80IE of the Act in respect of three units namely;Namroop, Nahakutia and Lamabari.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee has acquired North India plantation division from Tata Tea Ltd. during the F.Y. 2007-08 and undertook substantial expansion thereafter. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IE of the Act for the first time in the A.Y. 2010-11 in respect of 16 undertakings. The A.Y. 2012-13 is the third year of claim in respect of 16 undertakings and the amount of deduction involved was ₹10,50,77,120/-. The assessee claimed the deduction of

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.