IN THE HI&H COURT OF JUbICATURE AT BILASPUR Tax Case N0. 1^0/2010 „. . . APPELLANT , ^•%^^ ~Raipur ^ommissioner of Income Tax, ^s^^y^ ?^A...'R^SPO^DENT (Assessee) •^- ^. A>1^. ^^^ g ^ l-1ira R^-wer A—5+ee^Ltd., ^&TT^T; Urla Industrial Area, Raipur (CG) ^"' APPEAL UNbER SECTION 260-A OF THEINCOME TAX ACT. 1961 ^< '^ €@.~,..^ I %gSI^ "^ws^s^. '^a^ "^^'sss^ HIGH CX11TRT OF CHHATTT8GARH AT BITASPITB Tax Case No.180 of2010 Appellant (Revenue) Commissioiier of Income Ta.x, Raipur. Respondeiit Hira Ferro Alloys Ltd. (Assessee) n.B.: HQn'We Shri Satish K. Aenihotri & Hoix^Me Shri Radhe SIiyam SIi^rma, JJ, Present: . Shri Rajeev 8hrivasta.va, Standmg Coimsel for the /^ppellaBl/Rev^nue. Shri Sha.sha.sik Dubey, -Semor Advocate with Shri Neelabh Dubey, Advocate fortiie respotidenVAssessee. APPRAI, TJNDRR 8ECTION 260-A OF THR INCOMR TAX ACT. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 05th day of September, 2011) Per Satish K.Agnihotri, J. i. In m^iit appeal ha-s beesi flled by the Commissioner oflticome Tax, Raipur (heremafter referred to a.s fthe Revemw ) a.gamst. the order dated 04,06.2010 passed by the hicome Ta..x Appellate Tribunal, Bilaspw Bench, (for short 'the TribunGl') m I,T.(88) A Nos» 04/Blpr/2010, The appeal ofthe Revemie was a-dmitted oa the followmg siibstantial qyestions oflaw: ^Whether on the fecte and m tfae circuni^aaces ofthe case a-nd m law tlie tribimal was justified m holding Ihal ihe respondenl was eiilill^d for depreciation on the piaiit and madiisieiy for the year even tliougli the plant coald not be nm? " 2. The fa.ct.s, m brie£ releva.nt for adjudioat.iosi oftlw sybstaiitial questioii of law, as aforestMed, are that -fhe Assessmg Officer (for short fthe AOf) had disallowed the depreciatiors daimed 031 the pla.nt. aad machisiery by the assessee for tte ass.essment. y@a,r '"^>.^ '"'%<. I 1 •••^^'.^ Wl 3. 2002-2003 ofs the groimd that as no production durmg th^ previoiis year, meamng thereby the plant aiid mai^hinery was not in use. The AO, vide order dated 31.12.2008 had deleted the d@preoia.tioii. Thereagainst^ a.n appeal was filed by the assessee before the Conimissioner of Ineome Tax (Appeal) ybr ^hort ICIT(A)] which was allowed by the order dated 19.11.2009 holdmg that the assessee did not pemia-neiitly close dowii production in its establishment and for a temporary period;, th^ fa.ctory and office was nin, therefore,, the assessee waa entitled for depreeiatioii on fhe plant and the m^chiiiery. Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed an appea! before the Tribimal. The TribuiiaL vide order dated 04,06.2010 dismis^^d the appeal ypholdmg the findmgs recordod by the CIT (A)< On penxsal of the ordei^ passed by the authoritws below asid havmg regard to the fact that during the assesBmesat perioA there was no prcKliiction and forther^ tfae AO has also ass^s^ed tto income tax as r&il, m view ofthe instniction^ No. 5 of 2008, dated 15 May, 2008, fhe above stated appsal is not mamtainable a.s the tax ^fifect. was ml, Accordmgly, the appeal is dismissect. Amit Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sd/- R.S. Sharma Judge