ITO, WARD-35(2), NEW DELHI vs. VIJAY GUPTA, DELHI

This appeal has been filed by Revenue against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], New Delhi, dated 19.02.2018 for Assessment Year 2014-15, on the following grounds:

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on fact in deleting the addition of Rs.69,03,427/- for A.Y.2014-15 by holding that the assessee is eligible to claim further deduction @ 100% u/s 80IC of the Act by making substantial expansion even after the assessee has already availed 100% deduction u/s 80IC of the Act for the initial five years after the commencement of manufacturing or production of the industrial undertaking. The Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the provisions of sub-clause (ii) of sub-section 3 of section 80IC which enumerates that the deduction referred to in sub-section 1 shall be restricted to ITA No.- 4080/Del/2018. Sh. Vijay Gupta. 100% of such profit and gains for five assessment years commences with the initial assessment year and thereafter 25% of the profit and gains.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and fact by not appreciated the fact that section 801C of the I.T. Act, 1961 has been enacted in order to promote industrial growth and employment generation in a backward area either through commencement of manufacturing or production by a new industrial unit or substantial expansion by a pre-existing industrial unit. The law has been enacted in such a way that the preexisting undertaking or enterprises do not suffer from any handicap merely on account of the fact that they were existing prior to the introduction of section 80IC. The condition of substantial expansion has made a pre-requisite for allowing deduction u/s 80IC in the case of old undertaking or enterprise. It is however, clear that there is no overlapping of the two kinds of undertaking or enterprises made eligible for deduction u/s 801C. These are two distinct categories with distinct conditions of eligibility laid down for deduction u/s 801C. Since the pre- existing unit cannot possibly crossover into the zone of new undertakings or enterprises, the new undertakings also obviously cannot be allowed to cross over into the zone meant for old, pre-existing undertakings. The rules have to be same for all the participants or stakeholders.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on fact in interpreting Section 80IC of the I.T. Act in manner whereby substantial expansion in the new units is interpreted on basis of deduction at the rate of 100% which will lead to absurdity as that would Page 2 of 36

ITA No.- 4080/Del/2018. Sh. Vijay Gupta. mean that deduction would become perpetual as long as assessee has carried out substantial expansion but such interpretation would render provisions of sub section 6 of Section 80IC otiose/meaningless/redundant and therefore such interpretation cannot be permitted.

The appellant reserves his right to add, amend or alter the grounds of app on or before the date of appeal is finally heard for disposal”

However, the AO rejected the contention of the assessee for 100% deduction u/s 80IC of the Act and allowed deduction @ 25 % of the profits from the Page 3 of 36

ITA No.- 4080/Del/2018. Sh. Vijay Gupta. eligible business and disallowed the remaining 75%, amounting to Rs.69,93,427/-.

3. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), who vide order dated 19.02.2018 deleted the addition and allowed the assessee’s appeal holding as under:-

My attention has been drawn towards the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in the case of Mis Stovekraft India vs. CIT &

ITA No.- 4080/Del/2018. Sh. Vijay Gupta. Others decided on November 28, 2017. The relevant part of the decision is quoted below:

ITA No.- 4080/Del/2018. Sh. Vijay Gupta. 16. Thereafter, the Legislators, in their wisdom, enacted a special provision, in respect of "units" established in certain special category States. Thus, Section 80-le cam to be inserted by virtue of Finance Act, 2003, applicable with effect from 01.04.2004. At this point, it be only noticed that correspondingly certain provision of Section 80-18 were also amended/repealed. Deductions under the said Section were discontinued for the Assessment years commencing from 01.04.2004. (Sub-section (4) of Section 80-18).

"80IC. Special provision in respect of certain undertakings or enterprise in certain special category States :- (1) Where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived by an undertaking or an enterprise from any business referred to in sub- section (2), there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provision of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction from such profits and gains, as specified in sub-section (3).

(2) This section applies to any undertaking or enterprise,- (b) which has begun or begins to manufacture or produce any article or thin, specified in the Fourteenth Schedule or commences any Page 6 of 36

ITA No.- 4080/Del/2018. Sh. Vijay Gupta. operation specified in that Schedule, or which manufactures or produces any article or thin, specified in the Fourteenth Schedule or commences any operation specified in that Schedule and undertakes substantial expansion during the period beginning.

(i) on the 23rd day of December, 2002 and ending before the 1 st day of April, [2007], in the State of Sikkim: or (ii) On the 7th day of January, 2003 and ending before the 1st day of April, 2012, in the State of Himachal Pradesh or the State of Uttaranchal; or (iii) on the 24th day of December, 1997 and ending before the 1st day of April, 2007, in any of the North-Eastern States.

(3) The deduction referred to I sub-section (1) shall be- (i) In the case of any undertaking or enterprise referred to in sub- clauses (i) and (iii) of clause (a) or sub-clauses (i) and (iii) or clause (b), or sub-section (2), one hundred per cent of such profits and gains for ten assessment years commencing with the initial assessment year; (ii) in the case of any undertaking or enterprise referred to in sub- clause (ii) or clause (a) or sub-clause (ii) of clause (b), of sub-section (2), one hundred per cent of such profits and gains for five assessment years commencing with the initial assessment year and ITA No.- 4080/Del/2018. Sh. Vijay Gupta. thereafter, twenty-five per cent (or thirty per cent where the assessee is a company) of the profits and gains.

(4) This section applies to any undertaking or enterprise which fulfils all the following conditions, namely:

(i) It is not formed by splitting up, or the reconstruction, of a business already in existence:

Provided that this condition shall not apply in respect of an undertaking which is formed as a result of the re-establishment, reconstruction or revival by the assessee of the business or any such undertaking as is referred to in section 33B, in the circumstances and within the period specified in that section; (ii) it is not formed by the transfer to a new business of machinery or plant previously used for any purpose.

Explanation: The provision of Explanations 1 and 2 to sub-section (3) of section 80-IA shall apply for the purposes of clause (ii) of this sub- section as they apply for the purposes of clause (ii) of that sub- section.

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, in computing the total income of the assessee, no deduction shall be allowed under any other section contained in Chapter VIA

ITA No.- 4080/Del/2018. Sh. Vijay Gupta. or in section 10A or section 10B, in relation to the profits and gains of the undertaking or enterprise.

(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no .deduction shall be allowed to any undertaking or enterprise under this section, where the total period of deduction inclusive of the period of deduction under this section, or under the second proviso to sub- section (4) of section 80-IB or under section 10C, as the case may be, exceeds ten assessment years.

(7) The provisions contained in sub-section (5) and sub-section (7) to (12) of section 80-IA shall, so far as may be, apply to the eligible undertaking or enterprise under this section.

(8) For the purposes of this section,- (v) "initial assessment year" means the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the undertaking or the enterprise begins to manufacture or produce articles or things, or commences operation or completes substantial expansion; (vii) "North-Eastern States" means the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura; (ix) "substantial expansion" means increase in the investment in the plant and machinery by at least fifty per cent of the book value of plant and machinery (before taking depreciation in any year), as on ITA No.- 4080/Del/2018. Sh. Vijay Gupta. the first day of the previous year in which the substantial expansion is undertaken;"

ITA No.- 4080/Del/2018. Sh. Vijay Gupta. 19. Sub-section (1) of Section 80-IC entitles a unit for deduction; sub- section (2) lays down eligibility criteria; sub-section (3) specifies the extent of entitlement, Sub-section (3), in turn, is controlled by sub- section (8), in case of substantial expansion of a unit.

Significantly, the Act does not stipulate that only units established prior to 07.01.2003 shall be entitled to the benefits under Section 80-IC. The definition of "initial assessment year" is disjunctive and ITA No.- 4080/Del/2018. Sh. Vijay Gupta. not conjunctive. The initial assessment year has to be subsequent to the year in which the "Unit" completes substantial expansion or commences manufacturing etc., as the case may be.

22. A bare look at Explanation (b) of Section 80-18 (11C) and Section 80-IB(14)(C) would reflect that, earlier [till Section 80-IC was inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2004J "substantial expansion was not included in the definition of initial assessment year. Earlier definition had used words "starts functioning", "company is approved", "commences production", "begins business", "starts operating", "begins to provide services". But Section 80-IC (8)(v) changed wordings [of "initial assessment year"] to "begins to manufacture", "commences operation", or "completes substantial expansion". Thus, legislature consciously extended the benefit of "initial assessment year" to a unit that completed substantial expansion.

23. This is absolutely in conjunction and harmony with clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 80-IC, which postulates two things - (a) an undertaking or an enterprise has "begun", it is in the past tense or (b)"begins", which is in presenti. Significantly, what is important is the word "and" prefixed to the words "undertakes substantial expansion" during the period 07.01.2003 to 01.04.2012.

ITA No.- 4080/Del/2018. Sh. Vijay Gupta. 27. Also, in our considered view, "substantial expansion" can be one more than one occasion. Meaning of expression "substantial expansion" is defined in clause [8(ix)J of Section 80-IC and with each such endeavour, if the assessee fulfills the criteria then there cannot be any prohibition with regard thereto. For what is important, in our considered view, is not the number of expansions, but the period within which such expansions can be carried out within the window period [07.01.2003 to 01.04.2012] and it is here we find the words "begun" or "begins" and "undertakes substantial expansion" during the said period, as stipulated under clause (b) sub-section 2 of Section 80-IC, to be of significance. The only rider imposed is by virtue of sub-section (6) of Section 80-1A, which caps the deduction with respect to Assessment Years to which a unit is entitled to.

ITA No.- 4080/Del/2018. Sh. Vijay Gupta. of the "Unit". It is to give incentives to "Units" for setting up or expanding in special category States.

ITA No.- 4080/Del/2018. Sh. Vijay Gupta. reproduce the observations made by the Apex Court on the issue, as under:-

40. In fine thus, a fiscal statute shall have to be interpreted on the basis of the language used therein and not de hors the same. No words ought to be added and only the language used ought to be considered so as to ascertain the proper meaning and intent of the legislation. The Court is to ascribe natural and ordinary meaning to the words used by the legislature and the Court ought not, under any circumstances, to substitute its own impression and ideas in place of the legislative intent as is available from a plain reading of the statutory provisions.

5 SCC 622. We notice the Court to have observed as under:-

"50. Basic rule of interpretation of statute is that the court shall not go beyond the statute unless it is absolutely necessary so to do.

Rule of "purposive construction" would be resorted to only when the statute to observe or when read literally it leads to manifest injustice or absurdity."

ITA No.- 4080/Del/2018. Sh. Vijay Gupta. the Apex Court, in another Report, has held that equity and taxation are often strangers and if construction results in equity rather than injustice, then such construction should be preferred to the literal construction. (Commissioner of income Tax v. J.H. Got/a, (1985) 4 SCC 343).

138. It is well settled that it is for the legislature to draft a piece of legislation by making the choicest selection of words so as to give expression to its intention. The ordinary rule of interpretation is that the words used by the legislature shall be given such meaning as the legislature has chosen to in absence thereof the words would be given such meaning as they are susceptible of in ordinary parlance, maybe, by hiving recourse to dictionaries. However, still, the interpretation is the exclusive privilege of the legislation avoiding absurdity, unreasonableness, incongruity and conflict. As is with the words used so is with the language employed in drafting a piece of legislation .....

ITA No.- 4080/Del/2018. Sh. Vijay Gupta. 37. In Bajaj Tempo Ltd., Bombay v. Commissioner of income Tax, Bombay City-III, Bombay, (1992) 3 SCC 78, the Apex Court observed that:

A provision in a taxing statute granting incentives for promoting growth and development should be construed liberally. Since a provision intended for promoting economic growth has to be interpreted liberally, the restriction on it, too, has to be construed so as to advance the objective of the section and not to frustrate it. It is necessary to resort to a construction which is reasonable and purposive to made the provision meaningful.

It is a settled rule of interpretation that if two statutes dealing with the same subject use different language then it is not permissible to apply the language of one statute to other while interpreting such statutes. Similarly, once the assessee is able to fulfil the conditions specified in the section for claiming exemption under the Act then provisions dealing with grant of exemption should be construed liberally because the exemptions are for the benefit of assessee.

ITA No.- 4080/Del/2018. Sh. Vijay Gupta. "Further, if the taxpayer is within the plain terms of the exemption it cannot be denied its benefit by calling in aid any supposed intention of the exempting authority. If such intention can be gathered from the construction of the words of the notification or by necessary implication therefrom, the matter is different but that is not the case here."

"it is true that the words used, even in their literal sense, are the primary and ordinarily the most reliable, source of interpreting the meaning of any writing: be it a statute, a contract of anything else.

But it is one of the surest indexes of a mature and developed jurisprudence not to make a fortress out of the dictionary; but to remember that statutes always have some purpose or object ot

ITA No.- 4080/Del/2018. Sh. Vijay Gupta. accomplish, whose sympathetic and imaginative discovery is the surest guide to their meaning."

ITA No.- 4080/Del/2018. Sh. Vijay Gupta. provision deals with the establishments established within the State of Sikkim or North Eastern States of India.

(Section 80-1C(8)(v)] comes into play. And consequently, Section 80- IC(3)(ii) entitles the unit to 100% deduction for five years commencing with completion of "substantial expansion", subject to maximum of ten years as per Section 80-IC(6).

If this unit completes substantial expansion during the window period (7.1.2003) to 31.3.2012), it would be eligible for 100% deduction again for another five years under Section 80-1C(3)(ii), subject to ceiling of ten years as stipulated under Section 80-1C(6).

ITA No.- 4080/Del/2018. Sh. Vijay Gupta. States, like the State of Himachal Pradesh. Thus, a unit established in the north Eastern States after 07.01.2003, regardless whether it carries out substantial expansion or not, is entitled to deduction @ 100% for ten assessment years, unlike the State of Himachal Pradesh, wherein a "Unit" established after 07.01.2003 will have to undertake substantial expansion before 01.04.2012, for further claiming deduction @ 100% for next five years, subject to over all cap of ten years.

ITA No.- 4080/Del/2018. Sh. Vijay Gupta. carries out substantial expansion only in the 8th year of its establishment, for the first five years would have already claimed deduction @ 100%; for the 6th and 7th years @ 25% and then for the period post substantial expansion, in our considered view, the initial year of assessment being in the 8th year, would be entitled for deduction @ 100% subject to the cap of ten assessment years, (iii) the assessee establishes a unit after January 2003, say in the year 2005-06 and claims deduction under Section 80-IC for the first time in the assessment year 2006-2007 @ 100% of its profits. Thereafter, substantially expands the Unit in the year 2009-10, relevant to Assessment Year 2010-11 can claim deduction @ 100% for next five years subject to the cap of ten assessment years, (iv) an existing unit not claiming any deduction under Section 80-IA, 80-IB or 80-IC substantially expands in the year 2003 and claims deduction under Section 80-IC first time in Assessment Year 2004-2005 and then substantially expands in the year 2007-2008, can claim deduction @ 100% w.e.f. Assessment Year 2008-2009 for next five years, (v) the assessee sets up its unit in the year 2000-2001, claiming deduction under Section 80-IB still the Assessment Year 2003-2004 and thereafter under Section 80-IC as per law. Carrying out Substantial expansion in the Assessment Year 2004-2005, now claims deduction @ 100% w.e.f. Assessment Year 2004- 05 again substantially expands in the Assessment Year 2008-2009, (vi) the ITA No.- 4080/Del/2018. Sh. Vijay Gupta. assessee sets up a unit in the year 2005-2006 and does not undergo substantial expansion at all can claim deduction under Section 80-IC.

Eligibility of benefits to the unit under Section 80-IC is not in dispute.

ITA No.- 4080/Del/2018. Sh. Vijay Gupta. 53. In fact, we find that the conclusions arrived at by the Assessing Officer as well as the Appellate Authority/Tribunal are not base on correct appreciation and interpretation of the statutory provisions.

While arriving at their respective conclusions, in interpreting Section 80- IC, they have relied upon Notifications under the Central Excise Laws as well as Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion), Government of India and Department of Income Tax. While doing so, the said authorities erred in not appreciating that Section 80 IC of the Act is a self contained and a complete code in itself, which, for the purpose of its interpretation, did not require assistance of any Notification(s), much less that of other Department.

ITA No.- 4080/Del/2018. Sh. Vijay Gupta. Plain reading of the Statute demonstrates that there is no such bar in the statute as stands held by the authorities below. We father find that in fact both the authorities have misconstrued the definition of "Initial Assessment Year". The Assessment Officer as well as the Appellate Authority have held that there cannot be two "Initial Assessment Years" between 07.01.2003 and 01.02.2012, which conclusion, in our considered view, is totally perverse. We reiterate that Sub clause (v) of Sub section (8) of Section 80 IC itself contemplates more than one "Initial Assessment Years". The said Clause envisages that for a "Unit", which begins to manufacture or produce any article or things or commences operation, the Initial Assessment Year means Assessment Year relevant to the previous year, in which, it begins to manufacture and produce article or thing or commences operation and for a "Unit" , which completes substantial expansion, Initial Assessment Year means Assessment Year relevant to the previous year, in which it completes substantial expansion. This very important aspect of the matter has been completely overlooked by the Assessment Officer as well as the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by all the authorities below, that new industrial Units cannot carry out substantial expansion to claim benefits envisages under Section 80 IC is perverse and not sustainable in law.

ITA No.- 4080/Del/2018. Sh. Vijay Gupta. 55. Thus, in view of the above discussion, these appeals are allowed and orders passed by the Assessment Officer as well as the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal, in the case of each one of the assessees, are quashed and set aside, holding as under:

(a) Such of those undertakings or enterprises which were established, became operational and functional prior to 7.1.2003 and have undertaken substantial expansion between 7.1.2003 upto 1.4.2012, should be entitled to benefit of Section 80-IC of the Act, for the period for which they were not entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section 80-IB.

(b) Such of those units which have commenced production after 7.1.2003 and carried out substantial expansion prior to 1.4.2012, would also be entitled to benefit of deduction at different rated of percentage stipulated under Section 80-IC.

(c) Substantial expansion cannot be confined to one expansion. As long as requirement of Section 80-IC(8)(ix) is met, there can be number or multiple substantial expansions.

(d) Correspondingly, there can be more than one initial Assessment Years.

ITA No.- 4080/Del/2018. Sh. Vijay Gupta. (e) Within the window period of 7.1.20013 upto 1.4.2012, an undertaking or an enterprise can be entitled to deduction @ 100% for a period of more than five years.

(f) All this, of course, is subject to a cap of ten year, [Section 80- 1C(6)].

(g) units claiming deduction under Section 80-IC shall not be entitled to deduction under any other Section, contained in Chapter VI-A or Section 10A or 108 of the Act [Section 80-18(5)].

7.2 The reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Bench 'H' in the case of Tirupati LPG Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT in (AY 2009-10) CircIe-2, Dehradun. The relevant part of this decision is quoted below:

"The only dispute that arises for our consideration is the Interpretation of the term 'initial assessment year 'and whether the same comes with any restriction. The revenue seeks to take the color from the object of introducing section 801C. The Assessing Officer referred to policy of the government for giving incentives to the State of Uttaranchal and Himachal Pradesh. It is well settled that external aids should not be taken for the purpose of interpreting the statute, when the language of the section is clear and unambiguous. A plain

ITA No.- 4080/Del/2018. Sh. Vijay Gupta. reading of the Section 80-1C(8)(v) which defines the term 'Initial Assessment Year' read with Section 80-IC(8)(ix) which defines the term 'substantial expansion' makes it clear that there is no restriction or bar on more than one substantial expansions, being undertaken by an assessee. In our view, a unit can undertake any number of substantial expansions, in absence of any specific restriction in the section. There is no suggestion in the language of the section that incentive u/s.80IC is not available if the assessee substantially expands for a second or third time. Substantial expansion requires additional investment and results in higher production, employment etc. Industrialists have to be encouraged to undertake substantial expansion. The section recognizes this fact and provide for an incentive, if assessee undertakes 'substantial expansion"

"The substantial expansion as per 80-1C (8) (ix) means Increase in the investment in the plant and machinery at least 50% of the book value of plant and machinery (before taking depreciation In any year), as on 1st day of previous year in which the substantial expansion Is undertaken. If such substantial expansion is completed, then, for the purpose of this section the Assessment Year relevant to the Previous Year in which substantial expansion is completed becomes the initial Assessment Year. Once It becomes initial assessment year consequently under sub section (3) the Page 29 of 36

ITA No.- 4080/Del/2018. Sh. Vijay Gupta. assessee would be entitled to 100% deduction of profits and gains for a period of 5 year commencing from such initial assessment year. The term initial year has been defined a year in which substantial expansion is completed. However assessee cannot claim the deduction under Section 80lC for a total period exceeding 10 years.

7.3. Since, the case of the Appellant is covered by the above two decisions and the decision of any other High Court on this matter is not in the knowledge, the appeal of the Appellant is allowed in view of judicial discipline.”

ITA No.- 4080/Del/2018. Sh. Vijay Gupta.

4.1.1. We have heard both sides. We have perused material on record carefully. We find that the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr.

ITA No.- 4080/Del/2018. Sh. Vijay Gupta. CIT vs M/s. Aarham Softronics (supra) dated 20.02.2109 has been passed after the order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Classic Binding Industries (supra). We further find that the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs M/s. Aarham Softronics (supra) is passed by a Larger Bench of three Hon’ble judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court whereas the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Classic Binding Industries (supra) was passed by two Hon’ble judges of Hon’ble Supreme Court. We further find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in aforesaid order in the case of Pr. CIT vs M/s. Aarham Softronics (supra) has already considered the decision of the CIT vs Classic Binding Industries (supra) and has over-ruled the decision in the case of CIT vs Classic Binding Industries (supra) in the following word:-

ITA No.- 4080/Del/2018. Sh. Vijay Gupta. to deduction @ 100% even after five years. This ruling was predicated on the ground that there can be two initial assessment years, one for the purpose of Section 80-IB and other for the purposes of Section 80-IC of the Act. Once we find that there can be two initial assessment years, even as per the definition thereof in Section 80-IC itself, the legal position comes at par with the one which was discussed in Mahabir Industries.

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-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 Page 33 of 36

ITA No.- 4080/Del/2018. Sh. Vijay Gupta. 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.”

4.2. In view of the foregoing, we find that the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs M/s. Aarham Softronics (supra) being passed by a Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stronger force as a precedent as compared to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Classic Binding Industries (supra). Moreover, Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in order in the case Pr. CIT vs M/s. Aarham Softronics (supra) already considered order in the case of CIT vs Classic Binding Industries (supra) and has over-ruled the order in the case of CIT vs Classic Binding Industries (supra). Therefore, respectfully following the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs M/s. Aarham Softronics (supra), we dismiss the grounds of appeal; and decide the issues in dispute in the present appeal before us in favour of the assessee. We reject the contention of the Ld.DR that order of Hon’ble Supreme Court does not lay down correct law in the case of Pr. Page 34 of 36

ITA No.- 4080/Del/2018. Sh. Vijay Gupta. CIT vs M/s. Aarham Softronics (supra). For this purpose, we take guidance from Article 141 of Constitution of India, under which the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India. Further, we rely on judicial precedents in the cases of Union of India vs Kantilal Hemantram Pandya AIR 1995 Hon'ble Supreme Court 1349 [in which it was held that law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is binding on all courts and tribunals]; state of Orissa vs Dhaniram Lohar AIR 2004 Hon'ble Supreme Court 1794 [in which it was held that judicial discipline to abide by the Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be forsaken, under any pretext by any authority or court]; Director of Settlements, A.P. v/s M.R.Apparao AIR 2002 Hon'ble Supreme Court 1598 [in which it was held that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be assailed on the ground that certain aspects were not considered or the relevant provisions were not brought to the notice of the Court]; Palitana Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd. vs State of Gujarat (2004) 12 SCC 645 [in which it was held that the judgements of the Supreme Court are binding on all authorities under Article 142 of the Constitution and it is not open to any authority to ignore a binding judgement of the Supreme Court on the ground that the full facts had not been placed before it] and State of Punjab vs Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. (2004) 11 SCC 26 [in which it was held that binding precedents, which are authoritative in nature and are meant to be applied, should not be ignored on application of the doctrine of sub silentio or per incurian without assigning specific reasons therefor]. Accordingly, the order of CIT(A) is upheld and the present appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

ITA No.- 4080/Del/2018. Sh. Vijay Gupta. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18th day of July, 2019.