Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shimla v. M/S Sansui Electronics

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA ITA No. 73 of 2018 Date of decision: 11.03.2019 ________________________________________________________ Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla Versus …..Petitioner M/s Sansui Electronics …Respondent ________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?[1] _________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, Advocate. Mr. Vishal Mohan, Advocate. For the respondent: Surya Kant, Chief Justice (Oral) The instant Income Tax Appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 16.01.2018, passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Division Bench ‘B’, Chandigarh in ITA No. 1383/Chd/2017, titled as M/s Sansui Electronics versus The DCIT, Circle, Parwanoo, in respect of Assessment Year 2013-2014. According to the appellant-Revenue, the following substantial questions of law are involved in this appeal: “(i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is right in law in holding that there can be more than one “initial assessment year” for availing the deduction that there can be more than one “initial assessment year” for availing the deduction 1Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? under section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act? In other words, the assessee can first claim deduction from the initiation assessment year, being the year of setting up of the industrial undertaking and, thereafter, once again claim the deduction from another initial assessment year, being the assessment year in which the assessee carries out substantial expansion of its undertaking? (ii) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is justified in holding that those undertakings or enterprises which commenced production after 07.01.2003 can carry out multiple “substantial expansion” prior to 01.04.2012 and there will be initial year for each “substantial expansion” as long as provisions of section 80-IC (ix) are met without appreciating that as per provisions of Section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act and as explained in CBDT Circular No. 7/2003, such enterprise or undertaking cannot carry out any “substantial expansion”? the case and in law, the ITAT is justified in holding that those undertakings or enterprises which commenced production after 07.01.2003 can carry out multiple “substantial expansion” prior to 01.04.2012 and there will be initial year for each “substantial expansion” as long as provisions of section 80-IC (ix) are met without appreciating that as per provisions of Section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act and as explained in CBDT Circular No. 7/2003, such enterprise or undertaking cannot carry out any “substantial expansion”? 2. During the course of hearing, learned Counsel for the parties very fairly point out that the above stated questions have been answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1784 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 23172 of 2018), titled as Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimlaversus M/s Aarham Softronics, decided on 20[th] February, 2019 against the Revenue. 3. In the light of the authoritative pronouncement made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the afore cited case, no substantial question of law is found involved in this appeal. This appeal is accordingly disposed of. (Surya Kant) Chief Justice. March 11, 2019 (hemlata) (Sandeep Sharma) Judge.