Ita/198/2015 Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ii Ludhiana v. M/S Happy Forgins Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. ITA1982015 (O&M)Date of decision:07.08 .2O1L The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Ludhiana | ..Appellant Versus. M/s Happy Forgings Ltd. © ...Respondent CORAMHONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICEHON5BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SAANDHAWALI Present: Ms. Savita Saxena, Advocate, ©for the appellant.for the appellant. ee S.J. VAZIFDAR, A.C.J. (QRAL) This is an appeal against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal dated 17.10.2014 setting aside the order of the CIT (Appeals)passed in revision under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The matter pertains to the assessment year 2008-2009. 2 |The respondent/assessee had claimed depreciation at 80%. TheAssessing Officer raised various queries regarding the plant and machinerywhich were answered by the assessee. The assessee was called upon tojustify the claim of depreciation at 80%. In respect of part of the plant andmachinery, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim altogether. Ultimately,the Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation claimed by the assessee at80% and allowed the depreciation at 15%. Accordingly, the excessdepreciation claimed by the assessee to the tune of=4,.04,144/- was.disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. The benefit ofdepreciation, therefore, was only about|L36,000/-. On this ground itself theappeal ought to be dismissed. 3Thus, on merits, we do not see any reason to interfere with theorder of the Tribunal. The question was whether the plant and machinery inrespect whereof depreciation was claimed had been installed on the datefrom which the depreciation has been claimed. The Tribunal found that themachinery had been installed and was put to use on 29.03.2008. As theTribunal rightly observed, the Assessing Officer had also considered theexplanation of the assessee in regard to the acquisition, installation and useof the plant and machinery in detail. In this regard, the Assessing Officerraised various queries which were answered. There is no reason to presumethat the Assessing Officer did not discharge his functions properly. ©4In these circumstances, no question of law arises.5.The appeal is accordingly dismissed. | (S.J. VAZIFDAR)ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) |JUDGE.JUDGE. 07.08 2015Amodh