&) ^•^ ^^^' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUbICATURE AT BILASPUR Tax Case (ITA) N0. 11J /2010 OMsionBeneh APPELLANT ^.r ,,,^ Commissioner of Income Tax, (ReY?.nu8-)"A^^/ Raipur Hira Power <& Steel Ltd., 557A, Urla Industrial Area, Raipur (CG) ^^y.^^ RESPONDENT (Assessee) APPEAL UNDER SECTION260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 1961 ^^ ^:^1^ HX»HCQ!IBTOFOmATTysGAMHATffl^^ Tax Case No.179 of2010 Appellaiit (Reveaue) Respondent versus CotiimiBsioiier of 'lBCome Ta-x, Raipur. Hira Power &. Steel Ltd. D.B.: Hon'Ne Shri Satish K. Agniliotri & Hoii!'Me SIxri Radlie Sliy^sw ^mx^ia, .IZ PreKent: Shri Rajeev Sliriva^ta-va,. Standmg Coiimel tbr the AppelIanl/Revaiue. Shri Shashank Dvbey, Semor Advocate witfa Sliri Neelabli Dubey, Advooaie for Ihe respoiiden,l/A,asesi!$€^. APPRAI, IJNDER SECTTON 260-A OF THR TNCOMF; TAX ACT. ORAL OSDER (Passed on 05th day of Sq)tember, 2011) Per Satish K.Agnthotrt, J. .1, Iii mstaiit appeal has beeii fited by the Commisaiosier oflacome Tax, Raipur (heremafter referred to w 'theRev^muc') agaiast. the order dated 03.062010 by the Incom.e Ta<x A?pella.te Tribunal, Bilaspur Bench, ffor short 'the Tribmal') m I.T.(SS) A Nos, 01 (Blpr) of 2010, The appeal ofthe Reveaae w^s admitted oii the followifig sisbst.aiitial qBestions oflaw: "Whether on the fa.crt.s aad m the circBroMances ofthe aad ia law tfae tribimal was jisstified m lioldmg flie respotident w^. eiititled for depreciat.ion on tfae. plaiit aad machmery for llie year evesi Ihough Ibe pla.nt coiild not be nm? " 2, The fact.s, m brief, relevaat tor adt^dScatioii of ttse siibstaiitial qBestioja of law, as aforest^ted, a.re that th^ Assessmg Officer .(for short tthe AO?) ha.d disallowed the d^preciatioa claimed on. the pla.nt, and machmery by the assessee for the a-ssessmait yea-r ^^\ ^ '^, "'•v::y' ^ ^HH»»^- 3. 3. -1- 2001-2002 on tte groimd tiiat w no prodiicrtion dwmg ttie previous year, mea.nmg tha-eby the plant aiid macNsiery was aot in use. The A0< vide order dated 31.12.2008 Iwd deieted Ae depreciation,.Therea.gamst. an a.ppeal was filed by the assessee before the Commissioner of Inoome Tax (Appeal) |^r ^orf 'CmA}] which was allowed by the order dated 17.11.2009 holding tliat the assessee did aot pemiatieatly dose down production in its e^ablishment axid for a temporary period, the factory a.nd office was mii^ th.CTefore< the assessee wa.$ ^tititled fbr depreciation on the plairt and the madimery, Beisig a.ggrieveA the Revemie filed an appeal before the Tribimal^ The Tribimai vide order dated 03.06.2010 dismissed tlie upholdmg the flndmgs recorded by the CIT (A), On pemsal of the ordtei^ passed by the a.uthoriti^ below hamog regard to the foct that durmg fhe a,ss@s{iment< periocl^ there wa.s no prodiiction and farther, the AO has also a^^aed the mcome tax as ml^ m view of the mstnictioiis No. 5 of 200;8^ dated 15 May, 2008, l3ie above stated appea! is not maintaintible as the tax effect was nil, 4. Accordmgly, the a.ppea-1 is dismiss^d. Aiml Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sd/- R.S. Sharma Judge T