Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

PER R.P. GARG, Sr.VP This is an appeal by the revenue against the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2006-07 against the allowance on the additon of Rs.28,53,085 made by the Assessing Officer on account of pant and machinery.

2. The Assessing Officer observed that the business of the assessee has gone through a substantial downfall which is reflected by the sale turnover and has decreased from Rs.8,32,92,504 to Rs.6,69,54,450. The scrap generated from 289 tons as against 535 tons in finished products in financial year 2005-06 and the inspector's report stating that most of the machines were not in use and that only one unit was in progress only in which poly-printing for the company M/s Procter & Gamble Ltd., Goa under the brand name Whisper was going on. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of the assessee in absence of use of the plant and machinery by following the decisions in the case of Dinesh Kumar Gulab Chand Aggarwal vs. CIT (2004) 267 ITR 768; CIT vs. Oriental Coal Co. Ltd. (1994) 2006 ITR 682 and 76 Taxman 240 (Cal.); and Liquidators of Paisa Ltd. vs. CIT (1945) 251 ITR 265 (SC). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the claim of the assessee by observing as under: