The Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax -4 v. Gemscab Industries Ltd

$~5 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA 996/2018 THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4..... AppellantThrough:Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, Adv. versus GEMSCAB INDUSTRIES LTD...... RespondentThrough:Ms.Umang Luthra, Adv. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANIO R D E R%07.12.2018 Learned counsel for the Revenue has filed and produced before us acopy of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal' forshort), which is taken on record. Soft copy of the same would be uploadedand attached with the appeal paper book. This appeal by the Revenue in the case of M/s. Gemscab IndustriesLtd. relates to the assessment year 2010-11 and arises from the order of theTribunal made on 06.04.2018. The Revenue has raised two separate issues. First issue relates toadmission of additional evidence by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) under Rule 46A (3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The secondissue relates to deduction under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961(‘Act’ for short). On the first issue, impugned order by the Tribunal confirms factualfinding of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) that the respondent- assessee had filed documents before the Assessing Officer to show thatproduction in the second unit had commenced on or before 30.09.2009, butthe same were ignored. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) hadverified this fact and the order passed by him specifically states that thedocuments filed by the respondent-assessee were available in the file of theAssessing Officer. Referring to the documents, the Commissioner ofIncome-Tax (Appeals) had observed that the respondent-assessee hadproduced evidence of payment of excise duty, sales tax and issue ofstatutory sales tax forms to the suppliers to show and establish thatproduction in the second unit had commenced on 24.08.2009. Hence, therespondent-assessee was entitled to depreciation for the entire year. These findings are factual. There is no ground or reason to hold thatthe said findings were wrong or incorrect. Accordingly, we are not inclinedto issue notice on the first issue as no substantial question of law arises forconsideration. The second issue does not arise from the order of the Tribunal as thisissue was not raised by the Revenue in the appeal preferred by them beforethe Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals). The appeal is dismissed. SANJIV KHANNA, J. DECEMBER 07, 2018/neelam ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.