OSWAL WOOLLEN MILLS LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

207

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

ITA-111-2003 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.08.2024

Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd.

…Appellant

V/S Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana …Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present Mr. B.M. Monga, Advocate and

Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondent.

***

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1.

This appeal was admitted on 09.02.2004, but no substantial question of law was framed by the Court. 2.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration of this Court:- “3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the claim of depreciation of assessee in respect of plant and machinery which were kept ready for use was sustainable in the light of decision given by learned Tribunal in earlier year as well as the view expressed by this Hon’ble Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation ? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the tribunal was right in setting aside the order of learned CIT (A) in respect of addition of Rs.4,53,442/- on account of revenue RAJESH KUMAR 2024.08.09 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.

ITA-111-2003 e a 3.

L noticed above of the decisio [2002] 121 T followed cons 1 T 2 ( 3 T 4 [ 4.

L the questions examine the f would be allo (units) which by the Assess wrongful to g 5.

I CIT vs. Peps observations:-

[2] 3 (O&M) expenditure incurred in the u activity was done ? Learned counsel submits that the e are no more res-integra and st on of this Court in CIT vs. PEPS Taxman 232 (Punjab & Haryan sistently by this Court in followin 1. CIT (Central) Ludhiana vs. N Taxman 518 (Punjab and Haryan 2. CIT vs. Oswal Agro Mills (Delhi(. 3. National Thermal Power C Taxman 89 (Delhi). 4. CIT-1, Chennai vs. Chenna [2013] 37 Taxman 332 (Madras) Learned counsel appearing for t have been decided in favour of facts of the present case as to wh owed in favour of the assessee in was never put to use during the sing Officer since they were no rant depreciation benefit to the a In Nahar Exports Ltd. (supra), su Road Transport Corporation - units where no manufacturing e substantial questions of law as tand finally adjudicated in terms SU Road Transport Corporation na HC) and the same has been ng cases:- Nahar Exports Ltd. [2007] 163 na HC). Ltd. [2011] 197 Taxman 25 Corp. Ltd. vs. CIT [2012] 28 ai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. . the revenue submits that largely f the assessee but this Court may hether the claim for depreciation n respect of plant and machinery year at all, as has been observed ot put to use at all, it would be assessee. this Court by relying upon the n (supra), made the following

g s s n n 3 5 8 . y y n y d e e g RAJESH KUMAR 2024.08.09 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.

ITA-111-2003 “ O i m t w c ju [ o f t s i 4 m H C h c d e d b r

[3] 3 (O&M) “During the course of assessme Officer disallowed depreciation nvestment made in the garmen machinery so set up was not used he Assessing Officer, disallow was upheld. However, in further claim made by the assessee w udgment of this Court in CIT v [2002] 121 Taxman 232. While a observed that the machinery was fact actually used by the assessee he assessee had received orders supply of garments. The same co n question on account of non-rec 4. Learned counsel for the rev machinery is actually used, no d However, we find that similar co Court in Pepsu Road Transport held that even where the machi could not be put to use, the depreciation as everything ages even if the machinery is kept re depreciation of value. According by the judgment of this Court, w revenue and in favour of the asse ent proceedings, the Assessing n claimed by the assessee on nt unit on the ground that the d. In appeal, the order passed by wing the claim of depreciation, r appeal before the Tribunal, the was accepted relying upon the v. Pepsu Road Transport Corpn accepting the claim, the tribunal s kept ready for use and was in e during the last two years when s from foreign customers for the ould not be used during the year ceipt of orders. enue submitted that unless the depreciation should be allowed. ontention was considered by this Corpn. (supra) wherein it was inery is kept ready for use and assessee would be entitled to s with the passage of time and eady for use, there is a normal gly, the question being covered we answer the same against the essee.”

g n e y , e e n l n n e r e . s s d o d l d e RAJESH KUMAR 2024.08.09 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.

ITA-111-2003 6.

I which were k different cate available to th 7.

A addition of R appeal is acco 8.

06.08.2024 rajesh

1 2

[4] 3 (O&M) In view of above we find that kept ready for use but could n egories and the benefit of cla he assessee. Accordingly, the order passed by Rs.4,53,442/- on account of reve ordingly allowed. All pending misc. application(s)

(SANJ

the plant and machinery (unit) not be used, would not fall in aim for depreciation would be y the CIT (Appeals) in respect of enue expenditure is upheld. The also stand disposed of. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No

) n e f e RAJESH KUMAR 2024.08.09 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.