9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 1176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uted for the delay is that company was under financial constraints and there was a turnover of employees. One Mr. Teekaram was appointed, to take care of tax matters, also left the company. Mr. Teekaram who received the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) s order, did not inform the management about the receipt of the said order. Only when the penalty notice dated 13.3.2008 for A.Y. 2003-04 was received the assessee became aware of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) s order. This lead to the delay in filing the appeal. We have carefully considered the submissions. In the substantial interest of justice, we condone the delay and admit the appeal holding that the reasonable cause attributed for the delay is a cogent one. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant sold more than 55% of the fixed assets i.e. assets to the tune of Rs. 3,62,31,918/- had been sold off out of total written down value of Rs. 6,54,98,898/- leaving a balance of Rs. 2,92,66,980/- out of which Rs. 1,39,04,737/- pertains to the building account only. The statement of deduction from fixed assets i.e. Annexure 2A has also been filed by the appellant. On going through the same, it has been noticed that the appellant has sold the building at Sahibabad, an industrial building along with plant and machinery in the month of July/August/September, 2002. From the details filed with regard to the sale of assets it is clearly discernible that the appellant has no intention to temporarily stop the business activities. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not been initiated. Under the circumstances, we find very difficult to hold the stoppage of manufacturing activity is due to temporary lull in the business. We further find that assessee s contention is that since assessee has carried out trading activity, depreciation on plant and machinery should be allowed. We find this plea unsustainable as trading activity has nothing to do with the manufacturing activity. After a lapse of several years the assessee had not been able to start the manufacturing activity. Under the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the authorities below in rejecting the claim of the assessee with regard to the depreciation. Hence, we uphold the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
