IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM (Assessment Year:2012-13)

M/s Amalgamated DCIT, Circle 4(1) Plantations Pvt. Ltd.

8^th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Unit No.302A, 3^rd Floor, Elgin Square, AaykarBhavan, Kolkata Vs. Chambers, Ashutosh West Bengal-700069 Mukherjee Road, 1A, Kolkata-700020, West Bengal (Appellant) (

Respondent)

PAN No. AAGCA6995B Assessee by : Shri PratushJhunjhunwala, AR Revenue by : Shri Amuldeep Kaur, DR Date of hearing: 19.12.2024 Date of pronouncement : 11.02.2025

O R D E R

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata, (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 0.011.2019 for the AY 2012-13.

02. 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 convinced about the sufficiency and genuineness of the reasons for delay and accordingly, we condone the same by admitting the appeal for adjudication.

03. 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/-.

04. 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 a manufacture of eligible items for the purpose of substantial expansion u/s 80IE sub section 2 of the Act. The ld. AO while framing the assessments u/s 143(3) for A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12 allowed the claim of the assessee u/s 80IE of the Act in respect of three undertakings namely Powai, Chubwa and Sagmootea and in respect of those five undertakings i.e. Borhat, Lattakojan, Nahorani, Majuli, and Hattigor, the claim u/s 80IA of the Act was not available as there is a loss during the year. So far as the three undertakings namely;Namroop, Nahakutia and Lamabarifor, which the assessee made claim in A.Y. 2012-13 as initial assessment year ,are concerned , the ld. AO noted that the assessee achieved the substantial expansion in respect of such three undertakings by making addition to the plant and machinery