Taxc/180/2010 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax,Raipur v. Hira Ferro Alloys Ltd

IN THE HI&H COURT OF JUbICATURE AT BILASPURTax CaseN0. 1^0/2010 „. ..APPELLANT ,~Raipur^ommissionerofIncomeTax,^•%^^^. A>1^.^^^ g ^?^A...'R^SPO^DENT^s^^y^•^-l-1iraR^-wer A—5+ee^Ltd.,^&TT^T;(Assessee)Urla Industrial Area, Raipur (CG)^"'APPEAL UNbER SECTION 260-A OF THEINCOME TAXACT. 1961 ^< '^€@.~,..^'^a^ I %gSI^"^ws^s^."^^'sss^ HIGH CX11TRT OF CHHATTT8GARH AT BITASPITB Tax Case No.180 of2010 Commissioiier of Income Ta.x,Raipur. Appellant(Revenue) Respondeiit(Assessee) Hira Ferro Alloys Ltd. n.B.: HQn'We Shri Satish K. Aenihotri &Hoix^Me Shri Radhe SIiyam SIi^rma, JJ, Present:.ShriRajeev8hrivasta.va,StandmgCoimselforthe/^ppellaBl/Rev^nue.Shri Sha.sha.sik Dubey, -Semor Advocate with Shri NeelabhDubey, Advocate fortiie respotidenVAssessee. APPRAI, TJNDRR 8ECTION 260-A OF THR INCOMR TAX ACT.ORAL ORDER (Passed on 05th day of September, 2011) Per Satish K.Agnihotri, J. i.In m^iit appeal ha-s beesi flled by the Commissioner oflticomeTax, Raipur (heremafter referred to a.s fthe Revemw ) a.gamst. theorder dated 04,06.2010 passed by the hicome Ta..x AppellateTribunal, Bilaspw Bench, (for short 'the TribunGl') m I,T.(88) ANos» 04/Blpr/2010, The appeal ofthe Revemie was a-dmitted oathe followmg siibstantial qyestions oflaw:Tax, Raipur (heremafter referred to a.s fthe Revemw ) a.gamst. theorder dated 04,06.2010 passed by the hicome Ta..x AppellateTribunal, Bilaspw Bench, (for short 'the TribunGl') m I,T.(88) ANos» 04/Blpr/2010, The appeal ofthe Revemie was a-dmitted oathe followmg siibstantial qyestions oflaw: ^Whether on the fecte and m tfaecircuni^aaces ofthe case a-nd m lawtlie tribimal was justified m holdingIhal ihe respondenl was eiilill^d fordepreciationonthepiaiitandmadiisieiy for the year even tliougli theplant coald not be nm? " 2.The fa.ct.s, m brie£ releva.nt for adjudioat.iosi oftlw sybstaiitialquestioii of law, as aforestMed, are that -fhe Assessmg Officer(for short fthe AOf) had disallowed the depreciatiors daimed 031the pla.nt. aad machisiery by the assessee for tte ass.essment. y@a,rquestioii of law, as aforestMed, are that -fhe Assessmg Officer(for short fthe AOf) had disallowed the depreciatiors daimed 031the pla.nt. aad machisiery by the assessee for tte ass.essment. y@a,r '"^>.^'"'%<. Wl Amit 2002-2003 ofs the groimd that as no production durmg th^previoiis year, meamng thereby the plant aiid mai^hinery was notin use. The AO, vide order dated 31.12.2008 had deleted . Thereagainst^ a.n appeal was filed by the assesseebefore the Conimissioner of Ineome Tax (Appeal) ybr ^hortICIT(A)] which was allowed by the order dated 19.11.2009holdmg that the assessee did not pemia-neiitly close dowiiproduction in its establishment and for a temporary period;, th^fa.ctory and office was nin, therefore,, the assessee waa entitledfor depreeiatioii on fhe plant and the m^chiiiery.Beingaggrieved, the Revenue filed an appea! before the Tribimal. TheTribuiiaL vide order dated 04,06.2010 dismis^^d the appealypholdmg the findmgs recordod by the CIT (A)<On penxsal of the ordei^ passed by the authoritws below asidhavmg regard to the fact that during the assesBmesat perioA therewas no prcKliiction and forther^ tfae AO has also ass^s^ed ttoincome tax as r&il, m view ofthe instniction^ No. 5 of 2008,dated 15 May, 2008, fhe above stated appsal is not mamtainablea.s the tax ^fifect. was ml, Accordmgly, the appeal is dismissect. Sd/-R.S. SharmaJudge Sd/-Satish K. AgnihotriJudge