Taxc/181/2010 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Raipur v. Hira Power And Steel Ltd

Cl'^\s'IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUbICATURE AT BILASPURTax CaseN0. l^ \/201 OAPPELLANT .1 Y^ .CommissionerofIncomeTax,Raipur:...&%A'"^•RESPONbENTHira Power<& SteelLtd., 557A,(Assessee)Urla Industn'al Area, Raipur (CG)APPEAL UNbER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAXACT. 1961 .^^^.^^,A,^^ t.:-.^^i^[^em^-^]v\^ HIGH C'OTJRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BTTASPURTax Case No.181 of2010 C'ommissiotier of Iiicome TaxRaipur. Aopellant(Revenue) versys Respondent(Assessee) Hira Power & Steel Ltd. D.B.: Hon'We Shn Satish K. Agnihotri &Hyii'jble Shri Sadhe Shvsun Sharma, JJ. Present:ShriR-ajeevShrivaMava.,StaiidiiigCoimsel-[']forthoAppel.iant/.Revenue:Shri Shashank Dubey, Semor Advooate witli Shri NeelabhD-abey, Advocate fbr the respondenVAssessee. APPRAT, IJNDRR 8RCTION 260-A OF THR INCOMR TAX ACT.ORAL ORDER (Passed[on][ 05U1][ day][ ofSeptember,][ 2011)] Per Satish K.Agnihotri, J. 1«In instant appeal ha.s been filed by t.te Commissioiier of IncomeTax, Raipiir {hereinafter referred to 03['the]Revenuey) a.ga.m^. theorder dated 03,06.2010 passedAy the Income Ta,x AppellateTribunal, Bilaspw Bench, (forshort['the]TribunaiF) in I.T.(SS) ATax, Raipiir {hereinafter referred to 03['the]Revenuey) a.ga.m^. theorder dated 03,06.2010 passedAy the Income Ta,x AppellateTribunal, Bilaspw Bench, (forshort['the]TribunaiF) in I.T.(SS) ANos. 02 (Blpr) of2010. The appeal ofthe Revenue was admittedontlie followisig sub^Dtial questions oflaw:ontlie followisig sub^Dtial questions oflaw: "Whether on thefactea,nd m thecircumsltances of the ca.se and m lawthe tribimal was jiistified m holdmgIhal the reBpondeiil was enlilled fordepreciatioii011thepla.nta.ndmadiiiieiy-for.the year wen tfao'u^h theplant[could][ not][ be][ mn?"] 2,The fa.ot.s, m brief, releva.srt. for adjudicatioB ofthe substaiitialqiie^tion[of][ law,][ as][ aforestated,][ are][ that][ tli^][ Ass^ssing][ Officer](for short['the]AO') ha.d disallowed the depredatiosi olaimed (MIthe pla.nt and machmery by the a^sessee for the a-ssessment yea-r /^.• ^p^A(ij iy;^' Asmt 2002-2003<MI Ihe fhat as ?x> diirixig tiie groiixsd productiosiprevious y@ar, meamng tliereby the plant aiid maohixiay was aotin use. The AO, vide ordw dated 31.12.2008 had deleted thedepreciation, Therea.ga.mst;, aa appeal wa.s filed by the asses^eebefore the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) {^?r ^Aor?'CIT(A)] which was allowed by the order dated 17.11.2009holding that' the assessee did siot ctose downproductio!! in its e^taUishm^nt assd for a temporary period, ttefajctorv and offioe wa.s nin, th@refore, the assessee was entitledfor depreciatioii on the plant and the maAmery.Beiiigaggrieved, the Revenue. filed an appeal before the Trib'aiial. TheTribimal, vide order dated 03.06.2010 dismissed tte appailiiipholdmg the fmdmgs recorded by the CIT (A)* On penisa! af tfae ordei^ passed by ihc a^stiKxities below aisdhaving regard to Ifae fa.ot that diiring tfae asse^^xieint period^ terewa.s 110 prodiiiction and forther, the AO has also a^sessed tlie;'iis^ome tax as ml, m' vi@w of tfae mstructioiis No» 5 of 2008,dated 15th May, 2008, the above stated appeal is not mairrtainableas the tax effect wa-s ml. Accordingly, the appeal is disniissed. Sd/-Satish K.AgnihotriJudge Sd/-R.S. Sharmajudge