Taxc/29/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Alok Ferro Alloys Ltd

^?t:E^^B31iNDIASi¥^i:Tw6^i^^IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPURTax Case No.2.3 //^TDOiV'SSiO" B^"*APPELLANTgbmmissionerofIncomeTax,^(Revenue)RaipurVsXESPONbENT-^ ^ ^lokFerroAlloysLtd.,458/1,"y^o'(Assess ^55^^^^,^.ee') ^'^^^ ^459 Urla Industrial Area, Raipur7f^//v.^^°u'a'..^ :7rw^^ '...^'^vl...-"^[o] ll^w (CG)^,..--"0^vW"APPEAL UNQER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAXACT. 1961 ^niiiiiiiiiiiiii^^ HTGH COIJRT OF CHHATTTSGARH AT BVIASPURTax Case No. 29 of2011 Commissioner of iBCome TaxRaipur. Aepellant(R.evenue) R^pondesitAlok Ferro Alloys Ferro Alloys Alloys Ltd.DJB.: Hon'Ne Shri Satisli K. Agnihotri &Hoii"ble Slui Radlie Shyaiii Sliaiiiia. JJ. Alok Ferro Alloys Ferro Alloys Alloys Ltd. Present: ShriRajeevShrivas^tava,StandmgCoiinselforthe^pellaiil/Revenue.Shri Shasha.tik Dutey, Semor Advocate with Slm N^da-bhDub^ Advocate for Ae re-spo.ndexil/Asse^see,^pellaiil/Revenue.Shri Shasha.tik Dutey, Semor Advocate with Slm N^da-bhDub^ Advocate for Ae re-spo.ndexil/Asse^see, APPEAT, I JNDRR 8ECTTON 260-A OF ^TiR 1NCOMR TAX ACT.ORAL OSDER (Passed on 05ttl day ofSeptember, 2011) Per Satish K.Agnihotri, .1. 1.In m^arrt. appeal. has been filed by t.he Commissioner oflncomeTax, Raipur (heremafter referred to w 'the Re^enue') aga-mst. theorder dated 14,07J010 passed by the lacome Tax AppellateTribunal, Bilaspw Bench, (for short 'the Tribunal') m I.T.(SS) ANos. 05/Blpr/2010.Tax, Raipur (heremafter referred to w 'the Re^enue') aga-mst. theorder dated 14,07J010 passed by the lacome Tax AppellateTribunal, Bilaspw Bench, (for short 'the Tribunal') m I.T.(SS) ANos. 05/Blpr/2010. 2.The appellant has raised the following spiiibstantial qiiestiom oflaw for consideration ofthis Court:law for consideration ofthis Court: "Whether on and m thecirciims?t^iices of the case aiid m - iawthe tribimal was justified m holdmgIhal Ihe re»poiident was enlilkd fordep'eciation011tbeplantandxnachinwy for the year evexi though Iheplant coiild not be nm?" 3..The facts^ in brie£ relevant for adjudieation ofthe subgtaiitial qiiestion of law^ as aforestated, are that the A^se^mg Officer(for short 'the AOf) had disallowed the ctepreciation daimed on(for short 'the AOf) had disallowed the ctepreciation daimed on kl>^%. ^1 Amit the plant and maehinery by the a-ssesse^ for the assessment year2001-2002 on the that as no dimng tlie ground prodisctioQprevioiis year, meanmg thereby the plant and machinery was notin use. The AO, vide order dated 31.12.2008 had deleted thedepreciation. Thereagaia^ an appeal was filed by the a^sesseebefore tfae Consmissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [^>r ^j^orf<CJT(A)] which was allowed by the order dated 19.11.2009holdmg fhat fhe assessee did tiot pCTmaiieistly close dovmprodisctiosi m its establishment asid for a temporary p€?riod, ttefa.ct.ory and office was ron, th^refore, the? asse^ee was enit-itledfor depreciation on the and the machmery.Bemg plantaggrteved, the Revemie filed an appeal before the? Tribtmal. TheTribimaL vide order dat^d 14,07<2010 di^miased the appealiipholditig the findm^ recorded by the CIT (A),On pemsal of the ord^rs passed by the airthorities below aadhavmg regard to the fact that cliirmg the assessment period, therewas no produetion and fiirth^ th@ AO has also assesaed ttomcome tax a-s ml, m view of the mstroctiom No. 5 of 2(X)8,dated 15tfa May, 2008, fhe above stated appsa! is not maintainableas the tax effect was mt 5.Acoordingly, the appeal is dismissed,Sd/-Satish K. AgnihotriJudgeSd/-Satish K. AgnihotriJudge Sd/-R.S. SharmaJudge