^?t:E^^B31iNDIA Si¥^i:Tw6^i^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR Tax Case No. 2.3 //^TD OiV'SSiO" B^"* APPELLANT ^(Revenue) gbmmissioner of Income Tax, Raipur Vs XESPONbENT-^ ^ ^lok Ferro Alloys Ltd., 458/1, ^o'(Assess.ee') ^'" ^ y ^55.^^^^",^ 459 Urla Industrial Area, Raipur 7f^//v .^^°u'a'..^ :7rw^ ^^^ ...-"^ o ^ ll^w '...^'^vl (CG) ^,..--"0^v W"APPEAL UNQER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 1961 HTGH COIJRT OF CHHATTTSGARH AT BVIASPUR Tax Case No. 29 of2011 Aepellant (R.evenue) Commissioner of iBCome Tax Raipur. ^niiiiiiiiiiiiii^^ R^pondesit Alok Ferro Alloys Ltd. DJB.: Hon'Ne Shri Satisli K. Agnihotri & Hoii"ble Slui Radlie Shyaiii Sliaiiiia. JJ. Present: Shri Rajeev Shrivas^tava, Standmg Coiinsel for the ^pellaiil/Revenue. Shri Shasha.tik Dutey, Semor Advocate with Slm N^da-bh Dub^ 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 oflncome Tax, Raipur (heremafter referred to w 'the Re^enue') aga-mst. the order dated 14,07J010 passed by the lacome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bilaspw Bench, (for short 'the Tribunal') m I.T.(SS) A Nos. 05/Blpr/2010. 2. The appellant has raised the following spiiibstantial qiiestiom of law for consideration ofthis Court: "Whether on th@ fa.cts and m the circiims?t^iices of the case aiid m - iaw the tribimal was justified m holdmg Ihal Ihe re»poiident was enlilkd for dep'eciation 011 tbe plant and xnachinwy for the year evexi though Ihe plant 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 kl>^%. ^1 4. 5. /^^ (^ the plant and maehinery by the a-ssesse^ for the assessment year 2001-2002 on the ground that as no prodisctioQ dimng tlie previoiis year, meanmg thereby the plant and machinery was not in use. The AO, vide order dated 31.12.2008 had deleted the depreciation. Thereagaia^ an appeal was filed by the a^sessee before tfae Consmissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [^>r ^j^orf <CJT(A)] which was allowed by the order dated 19.11.2009 holdmg fhat fhe assessee did tiot pCTmaiieistly close dovm prodisctiosi m its establishment asid for a temporary p€?riod, tte fa.ct.ory and office was ron, th^refore, the? asse^ee was enit-itled for depreciation on the plant and the machmery. Bemg aggrteved, the Revemie filed an appeal before the? Tribtmal. The TribimaL vide order dat^d 14,07<2010 di^miased the appeal iipholditig the findm^ recorded by the CIT (A), On pemsal of the ord^rs passed by the airthorities below aad havmg regard to the fact that cliirmg the assessment period, there was no produetion and fiirth^ th@ AO has also assesaed tto mcome 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 maintainable as the tax effect was mt Acoordingly, the appeal is dismissed, Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sd/- R.S. Sharma Judge Amit