आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ‘बी’ न्यायपीठ , लखनऊ।

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW श्री कुल भारत, उपाध्यक्ष एवं श्री ननखखल चौिरी, लेखा सदस्य के समछ BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.620/LKW/2016 आयकर अपील सं/

Assessment Year: 2004-05 ननिाारण वर्/ा

M/s Allahdad Tannery v. DCIT-1 99/85A, Jajmau, Kanpur- Kanpur

208010.

PAN:AAEFA9951C (Appellant) (Respondent)

अपीलार्थी/ प्रत्यर्थी/

अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant by: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Adv प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent by: Shri S. H. Usmani, CIT(DR)

सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date of hearing:

12 08 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date of 20 08 2025 pronouncement:

O R D E R

आदेश /

PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:

This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Kanpur, dated 15.07.2016, pertaining to the assessment year 2004-05.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -

“1.Because the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and has erred in not allowing the deduction both under section 80IB and 80HHC simultaneously from the net profit, which action of the CIT(A) is bad in law, the order be quashed.

2. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in wrongly holding, that the issue is vexed and undecided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and hence, the fate of the present appeal would be decided either way on the basis of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In such circumstances, the appeal should have been kept pending, the order passed by the CIT(A) is erroneous.

3. Because in any case, the decision in favorable to the assessee should have been adopted and the appeal should have been allowed in favor of the assessee.

4. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in holding that both the deductions under section 80IB and 80HHC are not to be allowed simultaneously, but are allowable one after the year, which decision of the CIT(A) is erroneous and misconceived, the order is liable to be quashed.”

2. The only effective ground in this appeal is with regard to the claim of deduction u/s 80IB and also 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) simultaneously from the net profit.

3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case, the assessee filed its return of income declaring total income at Rs.2,17,52,380/- on 01.11.2004. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and a refund of sum of Rs.25,52,093/- was determined by the Assessing Authority. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny assessment. In response to the notices issued u/s 143(2) of the Act, the Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee attended the proceedings. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of finished leather. The assessee firm was having two Units, at situated at Jajmau, Kanpur (Old Unit) and the other situated at Banthar Industrial Area, Unnao. The assessee filed its separate set of audited Profit & Loss account and balance-sheet in respect of the Banthar Unnao Unit and Jajmau Kanpur Unit along with the return of income. It was noticed that the deduction u/s 80IB of the Act and also deduction 80HHC of the Act, the Assessing Officer did not allow the deduction as claimed by the assessee on the basis that the assessee could not have claimed both the deductions.

Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

4. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the issue is now covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. He contended that the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of Associated Capsules (P.) Ltd vs DCIT, Central Circle-43 (332 ITR 42) has been approved by the three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the ca