TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (2) TMI 213
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rightly disallowed the claim of depreciation on the ground that the sugar mill had stopped functioning and was not in operation. It is submitted that the mill could not have been put into operation as it was incapacitated by lack of funds etc. 3. We have examined the said contention but do not find any merit in the same. For the assessment year 2002-03, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee‟s mill/factory had remained closed during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer refers to the reply furnished by the assessee. In the reply it was stated that efforts were made for revival and restarting the company and subsequently, mill/factory re-started on 19.12.2006. Before the Assessing Officer, the responden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed. The findings recorded by the tribunal read as under:- "10. It was also submitted that there is no dispute that the mill remains closed because of the fact that the company had becomes sick and a Scheme of Rehabilitation was sanctioned by BIFR and the Scheme of Rehabilitation was under implementation. It is also submitted that the mill remained closed due to non availability of sugar cane and because of this reason also that due to non payment of wages to the workers, they had stopped working in the mill. It is also submitted that due to non availability of funds, electricity was disconnected and working capital was not available with the company. It is also submitted that the efforts were made by the company for its revival and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowed. 11. We have heard the rival submissions and have gone through the material available on record. We find that there is no dispute regarding these facts that the mill was stopped working on 29.2.2000 and since then, it was not functional till it was again started on 19.12.2006. In its meeting held on 27.2.2002, BIFR recommended winding up to the company and referred the matter to Hon'ble Delhi High Court. These facts are noted by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its judgment date 31.3.2006. As per this judgment, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that normally in the circumstances as in this case, the rehabilitation scheme of the company could have been dismissed but in view of some other aspects, Their Lordships held that an att....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Out of depreciation claim of the assessee also of Rs. 1.32.69.049/- as per the computation of income available on page No.2 of the paper book, the Assessing Officer has disallowed depreciation on plant & machinery to the extent of Rs.1,29,13,240/- and it means that the Assessing Officer has allowed depreciation on remaining assets of the assessee company. Remaining assets of the assessee company include residential building, factory building, furniture and fixture, tube well, vehicles, fire fighting equipments, computers etc. It means that except depreciation on plant and machinery, the Assessing Officer himself has allowed deduction on account of all other expenses and depreciation on all other assets." 5. Thereafter, the tribunal has re....