IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.204 of 2010 Date of decision: 6.1.2011 Commissioner of Income-tax. -----Appellant. Vs. Jind Co-p. Sugar Mills Ltd. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 24.4.2009 in I.T.A. No.2399/Del/08 for the assessment year 2003-04 raising following question of law:- (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in law in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of subscription and contribution made to the State Federation of Co-operative Sugar Mills without appreciating the facts that this contribution is not relating to the assessee’s business. I.T.A. No.204 of 2010 ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition amounting to Rs.72,35,140/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of repair and maintenance of plant and machinery without appreciating the facts that the said addition was made after discussion with the assessee for which the assessee had changed its stand before the Ld. CIT(A)?” 2. Learned counsel for the revenue fairly states that question (i) is covered against the revenue by order passed today in I.T.A. No.969 of 2008 in CIT v. The Jind Coop Sugar Mills Ltd. Accordingly, the said question is decided against the revenue. 3. As regards question (ii), the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee on account of repair and maintenance of plant and machinery holding the expenditure to be capital expenditure. The CIT(A) following its earlier order for the assessment year 2002-03 in the case of the assessee held the expenditure to be revenue expenditure. This view has been affirmed by the Tribunal. 4. It is not disputed that the finding of the CIT(A) with regard to assessment year 2002-03 on the issue has become final. No reason has been shown why a different view should have been taken for the next year i.e. 2003-04. Moreover, the expenditure having been incurred on repair and maintenance of plant and machinery, was revenue expenditure. 2 I.T.A. No.204 of 2010 5. Learned counsel for the revenue only submitted that the finding of the Assessing Officer was after discussion with the assessee. The fact remains that the finding of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal that the expenditure is revenue expenditure, is not shown to be perverse. The question has to be answered against the revenue. 6. No substantial question of law arises. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE January 06, 2011 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) ashwani JUDGE 3