Appellaiit(Reveaue v. Hira Power &. Steel Ltd

&) ^•^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUbICATURE AT BILASPUR Tax Case (ITA) N0. 11J/2010OMsionBenehAPPELLANT ^.r ,,,^CommissionerofIncomeTax,(ReY?.nu8-)"A^^/Raipur^^y.^^^^^'OMsionBenehAPPELLANT ^.r ,,,^CommissionerofIncomeTax,(ReY?.nu8-)"A^^/Raipur^^y.^^^^^'RESPONDENTHira Power<& Steel Ltd., 557A,(Assessee)Urla Industrial Area, Raipur (CG)(Assessee)Urla Industrial Area, Raipur (CG) APPEAL UNDER SECTION260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 1961 ^^^:^1^ HX»HCQ!IBTOFOmATTysGAMHATffl^^Tax Case No.179 of2010 CotiimiBsioiier of['lBCome]Ta-x,Raipur. Appellaiit(Reveaue) versus Respondent Hira Power &. Steel Ltd. D.B.: Hon'Ne Shri Satish K. Agniliotri &Hoii!'Me SIxri Radlie Sliy^sw ^mx^ia, .IZ PreKent:ShriRajeevSliriva^ta-va,.StandmgCoiimeltbrtheAppelIanl/Revaiue.Shri Shashank Dvbey, Semor Advocate witfa Sliri NeelabliDubey, Advooaie for Ihe respoiiden,l/A,asesi!$€^. APPRAI, IJNDER SECTTON 260-A OF THR TNCOMF; TAX ACT.ORAL OSDER (Passed on 05th day of Sq)tember, 2011) Per Satish K.Agnthotrt, J. .1,Iii mstaiit appeal has beeii fited by the Commisaiosier oflacomeTax, Raipur (heremafter referred to w['theRev^muc')]agaiast. theorder dated 03.062010by the Incom.e Ta<x A?pella.teTribunal, Bilaspur Bench, ffor short 'the Tribmal') m I.T.(SS) ANos, 01 (Blpr) of 2010, The appeal ofthe Reveaae w^s admittedoii the followifig sisbst.aiitial qBestions oflaw:Tax, Raipur (heremafter referred to w['theRev^muc')]agaiast. theorder dated 03.062010by the Incom.e Ta<x A?pella.teTribunal, Bilaspur Bench, ffor short 'the Tribmal') m I.T.(SS) ANos, 01 (Blpr) of 2010, The appeal ofthe Reveaae w^s admittedoii the followifig sisbst.aiitial qBestions oflaw: "Whether on thefa.crt.s aad m thecircBroMances oftheaad ia lawtfae tribimal was jisstified m lioldmgflie respotident w^. eiititled fordepreciat.ionontfae.aadplaiitmachmery for llie year evesi Ihough Ibe coiild not be nm? "pla.nt 2,The fact.s, m brief, relevaat tor adt^dScatioii of ttse siibstaiitialqBestioja of law, as aforest^ted, a.re that th^ Assessmg Officer.(for short tthe AO?) ha.d disallowed the d^preciatioa claimed on.the pla.nt, and machmery by the assessee for the a-ssessmait yea-r ^^\'^,"'•v::y' ^^ ^HH»»^- Aiml -1- 2001-2002 on tte groimd tiiat w no prodiicrtion dwmg ttieprevious year, mea.nmg tha-eby the plant aiid macNsiery was aotin use. The A0< vide order dated 31.12.2008 Iwd deieted Aedepreciation,.Therea.gamst. an a.ppeal was filed by the assesseebefore the Commissioner of Inoome Tax (Appeal) |^r ^orf'CmA}] which was allowed by the order dated 17.11.2009holding tliat the assessee did aot pemiatieatly dose downproduction in its e^ablishment axid for a temporary period, thefactory a.nd office was mii^ th.CTefore< the assessee wa.$ ^tititledfbr depreciation on the plairt and the madimery,Beisiga.ggrieveA the Revemie filed an appeal before the Tribimal^ TheTribimai vide order dated 03.06.2010 dismissed tlieupholdmg the flndmgs recorded by the CIT (A),On pemsal of the ordtei^ passed by the a.uthoriti^ belowhamog regard to the foct that durmg fhe a,ss@s{iment< periocl^ therewa.s no and farther, the AO has also a^^aed the prodiictionmcome tax as ml^ m view of the mstnictioiis No. 5 of 200;8^dated 15 May, 2008, l3ie above stated appea! is not maintaintibleas the tax effect was nil, 3. 4. Accordmgly, the a.ppea-1 is dismiss^d. Sd/-R.S. SharmaJudge Sd/-Satish K. AgnihotriJudge