Ita/19/2012 Of M/S.t.c.m. Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kochi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/4TH PHALGUNA 1933 ITA.No. 19 of 2012 () --------------------- [ITA. NO. 454/COCH/2008 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH] APPELLANT/ASSESSEE/APPELLANT: ----------------------------- M/S.T.C.M. LTD., PB NO. 19, KALAMASSERY 683104. PRESENTLY AT 32/1111 SNIGDHA, CHATHANGAT CROSS ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN-25 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JOSEPH VARGHESE. BY ADVS.SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN SMT.T.P.LEKSHMI VARMA SRI.ANOOP JOSE (PALAMATTOM)SRI. P. BALAKRISHAN RESPONDENT/REVENUE/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------- 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI. R1 BY SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DST --------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:- ANNEXURE A: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 20.12.2006 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05.ANNEXURE B: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.12.2007 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOCHI.ANNEXURE C: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.03.2011 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH IN ITA NO. 454/COCH/2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE DST C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR& BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ C.M.Appl. No. 86 of 2012 &I.T.A. No. 19 of 2012 ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23[rd] day of February, 2012 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeal is filed with a delay of 206 days. Whileconsidering the delay petition, we have also heard the case onmerit. The only issue raised is against disallowance ofdepreciation in respect of plant and machinery consisting ofblock of estate in a defunct unit. The basic concept fordepreciation is deduction for wear and tear for use. Obviously,the assets in defunct unit are not entitled to depreciation asthose are not put to use. Consequently, the Tribunal, in our view,rightly declined the depreciation claimed on part of block ofassets not used in business. [I.T.A.No.19/2012] 2. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the delaycondonation petition as well as the Appeal. Consequently, bothare dismissed. Sd/- C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE Sd/-BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. krs.