Commissioner Of Income Taxtrichy v. M/S.mallow Internationals.f

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.07.2015 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARandTHE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI Tax Case (Appeal).No.442 of 2015 Commissioner of Income TaxTrichy ...Appellant/Appellant Vs M/s.Mallow InternationalS.F.No.535, Semmadai Road,Salem, Bye Pass RoadKarur-639 006PAN:AABFM1014B ...Respondent/Respondent Tax Case (Appeal) filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate TribunalMadras “B” Bench dated 19.12.2014 in ITA.No.152/Mds/2014, against theorder of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Tiruchirappalli,made in ITA No.194/10-11/CIT (A)/TRY dated 23.10.2013, against theorder of the Additional Commisssioner of Income Tax, Range II,Tiruchirapalli, in PAN /GIR Noo. , date of order 13.12.2010. For appellant :Mr.J.NarayanaswamyStanding Counsel for Income Tax Dept. For respondent : Mr.R.Venkata Narayanan JUDGMENT (Delivered by R.SUDHAKAR, J.) This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passedby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “B” Bench dated19.12.2014 in ITA.No.152/Mds/2014 for the assessment year 2006-2007. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Revenue seeks admission of the Tax Case (Appeal) byraising the following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in holding that generation ofelectricity by wind mill amounts to production of an articleor thing and consequently holding that the assessee foradditional depreciation u/s.32(1)(iia). “ 3. The facts in a nutshell are as under:- The assessee is a firm engaged in manufacture and export oftextile goods and generation of power using wind energy. Theassessee in its return of income for the assessment year 2006-2007claimed additional depreciation on windmill to the tune ofRs.35,97,603/-. The Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated13.12.2010 rejected the claim of additional depreciation u/s.32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”).Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appealbefore the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The CIT(Appeals),by following the decisions of jurisdictional High Court in the caseof CIT Vs. M/s.VTM Limited reported in 319 ITR 336 (Mad) and CIT Vs.M/s.Hi Tech Arai Limited reported in 321 ITR 477 (Mad) accepted theplea of assessee and allowed additional depreciation u/s.32(1)(iia)of the Act. Against the said, the Revenue has filed appeal beforethe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 4. It is a matter of record that the Tribunal in this case hasfollowed the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case ofCIT Vs. Hi Tech Arai Limited [321 ITR 477] and pointed out inparagraphs 6 and 7 as under :- “6. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CITVs. Hi Tech Arai Ltd., reported in 321 ITR 477 (Mad) hasheld that where the assessee has set up windmill inaddition to some other existing business, and is engaged inthe generation of electricity, the assessee is entitled toclaim additional depreciation on the same. 7. We find that the issue in appeal is squarelycovered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaiddecisions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal. We do not find anyinfirmity in the impugned order.” 5. Since, the Tribunal, by following the jurisdictional HighCourt decision in the case of CIT Vs. Hi Tech Arai Limited [321 ITR477], had given a finding that the issue before it is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and that the assessee is entitledto claim additional depreciation u/s.32(1)(iia) of the Act, noquestion of law arises for consideration in this appeal.Accordingly, the Tax Case (Appeal) stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/-Assistant Registrar(LA) //True Copy// 7. We find that the issue in appeal is squarelycovered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaiddecisions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal. We do not find anyinfirmity in the impugned order.” 5. Since, the Tribunal, by following the jurisdictional HighCourt decision in the case of CIT Vs. Hi Tech Arai Limited [321 ITR477], had given a finding that the issue before it is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and that the assessee is entitledto claim additional depreciation u/s.32(1)(iia) of the Act, noquestion of law arises for consideration in this appeal.Accordingly, the Tax Case (Appeal) stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/-Assistant Registrar(LA) //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarnvsriTo1. The Additional Commissioner of Income-AX Range-II No.44, Williams Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli.2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Trichy.3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), No.44, Williams Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli.4. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Chennai.1 CC to Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, Advocate SR.No. 372551 CC to Mr.R.Venkata Narayanan, Advocate SR.No. 37258 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/