9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g JJ. Sanjeev Bansal, Advocate for the appellant. JUDGMENT Delay of 465 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application. 1. The revenue has filed this appeal under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961( for short "the Act" ) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'A' , Chandigarh, passed in ITA No. 282/Chandi/2002 dated 5.8.2005 for the assessment year 1998-99 raising the following substantial question of law: " Whether on the facts and law, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified to ignore clause (b) of section 41(2) of I. T. Act, when the entire machinery of an independent unit no.1 as owned and used by the respondent for busin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1)(i) of the Act. 3. Section 50 of the Act was not applicable to the facts of the case as the block of the assets existed at the opening as well as at the closing of the financial year. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the revenue filed an appeal before the Income Tax ( Appeals ) Tribunal Chandigarh . The said appeal has been dismissed by the Tribunal as it did not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) vide its order dated 5.8.2005. 5. Sh. Sanjeev Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-revenue has argued that the entire machinery, owned by the respondent and used for independent business of unit no.1 in respect of which depreciation was claimed was sold in the previous year. 6. Accordingl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,856 /-. Thus, it was found by the Tribunal that the Plant and Machinery had not been sold totally. There was addition as well as sale but the Plant and Machinery as a whole remained in existence and therefore, it cannot be said that the block of assets under the head " Plant and Machinery" was sold and the difference was chargeable to tax. 8. On the basis of this finding, the Tribunal found that depreciation was claimed under the provisions of Section 32(1) of the Act as prescribed. Thus, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner, Income Tax ( Appeals ) and dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. 9. There is no material on the record of the case to arrive at a different finding of fact than the one given b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
