IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No. 584 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 30.11.2009 The Shahabad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. .... APPELLANT Versus CIT, Aayakar Bhawan, Karnal ..... RESPONDENT CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant-assessee. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The assessee has filed this appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), against the order dated 25.5.2009, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench A, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the ITAT') in ITA No. 21/Chd/2009, pertaining to the assessment year 2005-06, raising the following substantial questions of law :- (i) Whether the ITAT was not justified in rejecting the claim of deduction being revenue/business expenditure on account of labour charges ignoring the documentary evidence on record being allowable as per the express provisions of law enunciated u/s 37 (1) of the Act? (ii) Whether the ITAT was not justified in rejecting the claim of deduction being business expenditure on account of erection and commissioning of machinery charges ignoring the documentary evidence on record? ITA No. 584 of 2009 -2- We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the impugned order. In this case, the Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure of Rs. 1,15,000/- on account of installation of machinery as revenue expenditure and the said expenditure was treated as capital expenditure. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Karnal [hereinafter referred to as `the CIT (A)] as well as the ITAT have affirmed the finding of the Assessing Officer that the said expenditure was not on account of repair and maintenance, as claimed by the assessee, but the same was on account of installation of machinery. It has been held that as per the details filed, the expenditure was charged to erection/commission head on account of multitudes supplied Rs. 1 lac and S.S. Polly baffle Type Rs. 15,000/-. It is stated that in reply, the assessee could not explain as to how the said expenditure is on account of repair and maintenance and not on account of installation of machinery. In view of the aforesaid finding of fact recorded by the CIT (A) as well as the ITAT, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises from the order of the ITAT. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE November 30, 2009 ( MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR ) ndj JUDGE