The Assessee And In Favour Of The Revenue In View Of The Decision Of The Apexcourt Incommissioner Ofincome Tax v. M/S Classic Binding Industries>2018 (407) Itr 429 : 2018(9) Scc 753. The Substantial Questions Of Lawinvolved Are Read As Under

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA.AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 16.08.2019 (1)RA-CR-26-2019 in ITA-214-2016 (O&M) M/s Admac Formulations...... ApplicantVersusCommissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula...... Respondent(2)RA-CR-29-2019 in ITA-342-2017 (O&M)M/s Pivot Fabrique H.P....... ApplicantVersusThe ITO, Ward | (4), Sector 17, Chandigarh...... Respondent(GBRA-CR-30-2019 in ITA-351-2017 (O&M)M/s Pivot Fabrique H.P...... ApplicantVersusThe ITO, Ward | (4), Sector 17, Chandigarh...... Respondent(4)RA-CR-31-2019 in ITA-343-2017 (O&M)M/s Pivot Fabrique H.P...... ApplicantVersusThe ITO, Ward 1(4), Sector 17, Chandigarh|...... Respondent (<5RA-CR-32-2019 in ITA-344-2017 (O&M)M/s Pivot Fabrique H.P....... ApplicantVersusThe ITO, Ward | (4), Sector 17, Chandigarh...... Respondent(6)RA-CR-33-2019 in [ITA-332-2015 (O&M M/s Admac Formulations...... ApplicantVersusCommissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula...... RespondentPOOJA SHARMA2019.08.21 17:27I am the author of thisdocument 222 AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of above mentioned eight review applications.Since common questions of law and facts are involved therein, they are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience thefacts are being taken from.RA-CR-26-2019 in ITA-214-2016 (O&M). To Recapitulate, vide order dated 06.09.2018 the substantialquestions of law as claimed relating to admissibility of deduction under Section SOIC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "IT Act") were decided against the Assessee and in favour of the Revenue in view of the decision of the ApexCourt inCommissioner ofIncome Tax Vs. M/s Classic Binding Industries>2018 (407) ITR 429 : 2018(9) SCC 753. |The substantial questions of lawinvolved are read as under :- 61) Whether on the facts and 1n the circumstances of the case, theTribunal erred in law in holding that benefit of deduction undersection 80IC @ 100% of profit was not available to units set upafter 7.1.2003, on undertaking substantial expansion from the yearof completion of substantial expansion? 11) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theTribunal erred in law in holding that units set up after 7.1.2003|would not be entitled to enlarged deduction under section 80IC of ©the Act @ 100% of profit, even on undertaking substantial expansion within the specified period? 111) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theTribunal erred in law in disallowing the benefit of substantialexpansion under Section 8OIC to the units that came into existenceafter 7.1.2003 by stating that initial assessment year can’t be re-fixed for such units? iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theTribunal erred in law in not following the decision of the|coordinate benches of the Tribunal, without referring the matter to|the larger bench? v) Whether the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right 1nlaw and facts in holding that definition of initial assessment year|does not allow the undertaking to claim deduction under SectionSOIC of 100% upon their substantial expansion? v1) Whether the orders of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse as the same 1s based on incorrect applicationof the provisions of law?” The present application has been filed by the Assessee under Order47 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC’) for review ofthe order dated 06.09.2018 passed by this Court. The ground taken is that thejudgment on the basis of which these appeals were disposed of wassubsequently reviewed by the Supreme Court in |Pr. Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Shimla Vs. M/s AARHAM Softronics2019 (412) ITR 623. v) Whether the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right 1nlaw and facts in holding that definition of initial assessment year|does not allow the undertaking to claim deduction under SectionSOIC of 100% upon their substantial expansion? v1) Whether the orders of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse as the same 1s based on incorrect applicationof the provisions of law?” The present application has been filed by the Assessee under Order47 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC’) for review ofthe order dated 06.09.2018 passed by this Court. The ground taken is that thejudgment on the basis of which these appeals were disposed of wassubsequently reviewed by the Supreme Court in |Pr. Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Shimla Vs. M/s AARHAM Softronics2019 (412) ITR 623. Counsel for the revenue has argued that the explanation to Order47 CPC clearly bars a review on the ground that a decision on a question of lawon which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified bythe subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case and relied upon ajudgment passed by the Supreme Court in Shanti Devi Vs. State ofHaryanaand others (1999) 5 SCC 703. There is no quarrel with this proposition of law in the abstract butin the present case what is emerged is that the original judgment of this Court(decided on 06.09.2018) was based on the decision of the Supreme Court inM/s Classic Binding Industries (supra). However, in the subsequent decision1n M/s AARHAM Softronics (supra)the Supreme Court specifically noticedthat inM/s Classic Binding Industries (supra), |it omitted to take note of thedefinition of ‘initial assessment year’ contained in Section 8O0IC and insteabased its conclusion on the definition contained in Section SOIB andspecifically held that the decision in |M/s Classic Binding Industries (supra)does not lay down the correct law. In this view of the matter, though the argument raised by thecounsel for the revenue can not be said to be technically wrong but in case this circumstances of the case, and in our considered opinion, it would be in theinterest ofjustice to allow the review application. Resultantly, the review applications are allowed in terms otfMs AARHAM Softronics (supra)and it is held that as regards questionsof law claimed regarding claim of 100% deduction under Section 80IC of theIT Act for the relevant assessment years are answered in favour of the Assesseeand against the Revenue. Since the review applications have been decided, the pending CMApplications, if any, also stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI)JUDGE (AVNEESH JHINGAN)JUDGE. 16.08.2019.pooja sharma-l Whether speaking/reasonedYes/NoWhether reportableYes/No