Itta/327/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii, Hyderabad v. M/S. Singh Poultry Private Limited

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAHAND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAMINCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No.327 OF 2006 JUDGMENT:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram) 01. This Income Tax Tribunal Appeal is filed under Section260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), against the order dated24.10.2005 in I.T.A. No.535/Hyd/2002 on the file of the Income TaxTribunal, Hyderabad. 02. The following substantial questions of law were raised in this appeal for consideration. 01. Whether the order of the Tribunal dismissing theappeal filed by the Revenue without considering thefacts and merits of the case and without any reasoning issustainable in law? 02. Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officerwith regard to ‘Bad Debts claimed to have been writtenoff’ by the Assessee u/section 36(2) is not sustainable inlaw? 03. Whether the finding of the Appellate Authority thatthe Appellate is entitled for depreciation at the rate of25% against @ 10% allowed by the Assessing Officer onPoultry Sheds, is sustainable in law in view of section43(3) r/w.Section 32 of the Income Tax Act and thedecision of the Apex Court reported in 244 ITR 192? 03. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellantsubmitted that the assessee company has filed its return of income forthe assessment year 1998-99 declaring a total income ofRs.75,73,563/-. The assessment year was processed under Section143(3) of the Act determining a total income of Rs.1,06,73,551/-. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed appeal before theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) IV, Hyderabad. The same was allowed. It was challenged before the Income Tax Tribunal by theRevenue and the same was dismissed, thereby challenged the samebefore this Court. 04. The main controversy that arise in this case for consideration is,whether the poultry shed should be treated as plant, thereby allowingthe assessee company a higher rate of depreciation as applicable toplant and not the rate of depreciation as applicable to building? 05. Both the learned counsel have fairly submitted that the issueinvolved in this appeal is covered to be disposed of in view of the orderpassed by this Court in R.C.No.135 of 1997 and batch, dated03.11.2010. 06. Following the aforesaid order passed by this Court in R.C.No.135of 1997 and batch and for the reasons recorded therein, this appealalso stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 07. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions pending in this Appeal, ifany, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH 03.12.2013bv _________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM