M/S HINDON RIVER MILLS LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s reasoning for allowing depreciation in earlier years was sound, as even passive use of assets entitles depreciation. The Tribunal found no difference in facts from earlier years and reversed the CIT(A)'s order for the current year.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a sick industrial unit, temporarily discontinued its manufacturing activities due to heavy losses and labor problems. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) disallowed depreciation on fixed assets, stating they were not used for about 10 years and the business was not running. However, for earlier assessment years, the CIT(A) had allowed depreciation on similar facts.
What were the issues?
Whether depreciation is allowable on assets when business activities are temporarily discontinued but not closed down? Whether the CIT(A) can deviate from its own consistent findings in earlier years without any change in facts?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI S.K.YADAV & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI
O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT (A), Ghaziabad dated 28.09.2016 for the Assessment Year 2013-14, wherein, the disallowance made by the ld AO on account of depreciation of Rs. 634717/- is confirmed. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the addition/ disallowance made by Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A) is unjust, illegal, arbitrary, and bad in law.
2. The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of the ld Assessing Officer disallowing the depreciation claim of INR 6,34,717/- in respect of the fixed assets.
3. The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that the business activities of the assessee company has never been closed but only manufacturing activities were discontinued for a temporary period.
4. That the explanation filed and the material available on record has not been property considered and legally interpreted. The addition made cannot be justified by an material on record.”
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Yarn and fabrics. The manufacturing of the assessee company is discontinued temporarily because of heavy loss and labour problems. The loss of the company has also exceeded the net-worth and therefore it was declared a seek company. It filed its return of income on 29.09.2013 declaring nil income. The assessment u/s 143(3) was made at Nil income as per order dated 15.10.2015. The only disallowance made in the return of income was with respect to depreciation of Rs. 634717/-.
The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld CIT (A) who confirmed the disallowance. Therefore, the assessee in appeal before us.
The ld AR reiterated the statement made before the lower authorities as well as submitted that the ld CIT(A) in assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2011- 12 has allowed the depreciation vide para NO. 5.3 holding that the assessee has not closed down its business but temporarily discontinued the same and therefore, depreciation should be allowed to the assessee. He further referred to the order of the ld CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2012-13 wherein also the identical worded finding were given by the ld CIT(A) therefore, his submission was that except in Assessment Year 2013-14, the ld CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee. He further submitted that though the case before us for Assessment Year 2013-14 the ld CIT (A) has not followed its own order in assessee’s own case for earlier years. He submitted that there is no change in the facts of the case. He further submitted a compilation of case laws wherein, claim of depreciation is allowed to the parties to support his claim.
The ld DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities.
We have carefully considered the rival contentions. In the present case, the assessee is a sick industrial unit who was earlier engaged in the business of manufacturing of Yarn and Fabric. The business of the assessee was temporarily discontinued as no manufacturing operation could be carried out because of heavy loss, labour problems, and other factors. Therefore, the ld AO noted that the assessee has declared business loss of Rs. 200622734/- as per profit and loss account. As per the computation of the assessee, it has disallowed the expenses claimed of Rs. 24.49 crores and net income shown was Rs. 4.43 crores. The assessee further reduced the rental income of Rs. 4.55 crores. The assessee has claimed depreciation of Rs. 6.34 lacs that was disallowed by the LD AO stating that as the assets of the assessee were not used for about 10 years claimed it could not be allowed. The LD CIT (A) also confirmed the same. However, for Assessment Year 2011-12 and 2012-13 the ld CIT (A) has allowed the claim of deprecation on the same facts. The main reason for confirming the disallowance by the ld CIT (A) was that the assets have not been used during the year and the assessee does not have running business. On identical facts Page | 2
More judgments on Section 32
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Doms Industries Ltd, Valsad vs PCIT, ValsadITA 595/SRT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Aeon Formulations Private Limited, Chennai vs Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 2(1)…ITA 2481/CHNY/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Fiitjee Limited, Delhi vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 9186/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- Fiitjee Limited, Delhi vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central…ITA 9185/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026