IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUbICATURE AT BILASPUR Tax Case N0. l^ \ /201 O APPELLANT .1 Y^ . Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur :...&%A'" ^•RESPONbENT (Assessee) Hira Power <& SteelLtd., 557A, Urla Industn'al Area, Raipur (CG) Cl'^\s' APPEAL UNbER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 1961 .^^^.^ ^,A, ^ t.:-.^^i^ ^ ^em^-^ v \^ HIGH C'OTJRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BTTASPUR Tax Case No.181 of2010 Aopellant (Revenue) Respondent (Assessee) versys C'ommissiotier of Iiicome Tax Raipur. Hira Power & Steel Ltd. D.B.: Hon'We Shn Satish K. Agnihotri & Hyii'jble Shri Sadhe Shvsun Sharma, JJ. Present: Shri R-ajeev ShrivaMava., Staiidiiig Coimsel- ' for tho Appel.iant/.Revenue: Shri Shashank Dubey, Semor Advooate witli Shri Neelabh D-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 Income Tax, Raipiir {hereinafter referred to 03 'the Revenuey) a.ga.m^. the order dated 03,06.2010 passedAy the Income Ta,x Appellate Tribunal, Bilaspw Bench, (forshort 'the TribunaiF) in I.T.(SS) A Nos. 02 (Blpr) of2010. The appeal ofthe Revenue was admitted ontlie followisig sub^Dtial questions oflaw: "Whether on the facte a,nd m the circumsltances of the ca.se and m law the tribimal was jiistified m holdmg Ihal the reBpondeiil was enlilled for depreciatioii 011 the pla.nt a.nd madiiiieiy-for.the year wen tfao'u^h the plant could not be mn?" 2, The fa.ot.s, m brief, releva.srt. for adjudicatioB ofthe substaiitial qiie^tion of law, as aforestated, are that tli^ Ass^ssing Officer (for short 'the AO') ha.d disallowed the depredatiosi olaimed (MI the pla.nt and machmery by the a^sessee for the a-ssessment yea-r /^. A( i • ^p^j i y;^' 2002-2003 <MI Ihe groiixsd fhat as ?x> productiosi diirixig tiie previous y@ar, meamng tliereby the plant aiid maohixiay was aot in use. The AO, vide ordw dated 31.12.2008 had deleted the depreciation, Therea.ga.mst;, aa appeal wa.s filed by the asses^ee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) {^?r ^Aor? 'CIT(A)] which was allowed by the order dated 17.11.2009 holding that' the assessee did siot perma.3i@at.ly ctose down productio!! in its e^taUishm^nt assd for a temporary period, tte fajctorv and offioe wa.s nin, th@refore, the assessee was entitled for depreciatioii on the plant and the maAmery. Beiiig aggrieved, the Revenue. filed an appeal before the Trib'aiial. The Tribimal, vide order dated 03.06.2010 dismissed tte appail iiipholdmg the fmdmgs recorded by the CIT (A)* On penisa! af tfae ordei^ passed by ihc a^stiKxities below aisd having regard to Ifae fa.ot that diiring tfae asse^^xieint period^ tere wa.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 mairrtainable as the tax effect wa-s ml. Accordingly, the appeal is disniissed. Asmt Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge Sd/- R.S. Sharma judge