9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIAL MEMBER : Appellant, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Rewari (hereinafter referred to as 'the revenue') by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 04.05.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- Rohtak qua the assessment years 2012-13 on the grounds inter alia that : "1. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.. 2,00,00,000/- ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that he has expanded its business in the year 2011-12 and commenced the operation of its MS rolling unit in khuskhera, Rajasthan. However, the assessee company failed to produce any documentary evidence regarding commencement of business operation/production from the new unit during the F.Y. 2011-12." 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on by accepting the appeal filed by the assessee. Feeling aggrieved the revenue has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. 4. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. GROUND NO. 1 5. Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal is allowed." 6. When undisputedly assessee has received the amount in question during the F.Y. 2010-11 relevant to A.Y. 2011-12 as has been duly discussed by AO at page 8 of the order and thrashed by Ld. CIT(A) at page 2 of the impugned order, there is no illegality and perversity in the finding returned by Ld. CIT(A), hence, Ground No. 1 is determined against the revenue. GROUND NO. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts Ltd. reported at 213 CTR page 320 has allowed and Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chennai Petroleum Corporation reported at 262 CTR 664 wherein it has been held that "machinery could not be put to use due to raw material paucity, assessee's claim for depreciation could not be rejected. Consequently Ground No. 2 is also determined against revenue. 9. In view of what has been di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
