MINILEC INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27-04-2018 passed by the CIT(A)-7, Pune in relation to the assessment year 2013-14.

The only issue raised in this appeal is against non-granting of weighted deduction of Rs.72,05,797/- claimed by the assessee u/s.35(2AB) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’).

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing, research and development of electronic current sensing parts, microprocessor based alarm enunciators, water level controllers etc. The Assessing Officer (AO) did not discuss the issue of weighted deduction in the body of the assessment order. It was contended before the ld. CIT(A) that weighted deduction of R&D facilities amounting to Rs.72,05,797/- u/s.35(2AB) of the Act ought to have been allowed by the AO. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee could not file certificate in Form No.3CM from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) for the period from 01-04-2009 to 31-03-2013. The contention of the assessee that the deduction should be allowed without submission of Form No.3CM did not find favour with the ld. CIT(A), who rejected the claim of weighted deduction. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has approached the Tribunal.

We have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen that similar issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2010-11, which has decided it in favour of the assessee vide order dated 09-04-2018 (ITA No.690/PUN/2015) allowing weighted deduction u/s.35(2AB). This fact has been recorded by the ld. CIT(A) on page 5 of the impugned order. For the immediately two preceding years, namely, A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13, the issue was disposed of by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee by means of its orders dated 06-05-2021 and 12-07-2019 in and ITA No.850/PUN/2017 respectively, granting the weighted deduction under similar circumstances. The ld. DR fairly conceded that the facts and circumstances for the extant year are similar. Respectfully following the precedents, we overturn the impugned order and direct to grant deduction u/s.35(2AB) of the Act

In the result, the appeal is allowed.