आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1559/PUN/2018 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Ganesh Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., A/P. Rajangaon Khurd, Tal.-Rahata, Dist.-Ahmednagar-413719 PAN : AAEAS0636H .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – Ahmednagar ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Hanmant Dattatry Davale Revenue by : Shri S.P. Walimbe सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 19-07-2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 21-07-2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 25-06-2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Pune [‘CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2014-15. 2. The only issue is to be decided is as to whether the CIT(A) justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs.35,55,963/- on account of depreciation in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2 ITA No.1559/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2014-15 3. We note that the factory of the assessee closed during the previous year relating to A.Y. 2014-14. The assessee contended that it is entitled to claim depreciation in view of lease agreement dated 26-05-2014. We note that the CIT(A) examined the same and held the assessee is not entitled to claim depreciation due to closure of factory and no assets of factory put to use during previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration. The relevant part at Para No. 4.2 of the impugned order is reproduced as under for ready reference : “4.2 I have perused the facts of the case, Admittedly, it is a fact that factory of the appellant was totally closed during the relevant F.Y. The argument that they had entered into an agreement for leasing the factory and the issue was producing sugar in the said factory, is not found correct as because the agreement for partnership with Padmashri Dr. Vithalrao Vikhe Patil SSK Ltd. was entered into on 26.05.2014 only for the purp[ose of running of the factory. That means, the agreement for running the factory was entered into the next F.Y. and in the present F.Y., the factory was not in operation at all. Therefore, factually, the argument of the appellant is not correct and therefore, decisions cited on behalf of the appellant are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of these facts, I hold that since the factory was entirely closed during the relevant year and the assets were not put to use, therefore, the appellant is not entitled for any deprecation and according accordingly, the depreciation claimed of Rs.35,55,963/- has been rightly disallowed by the AO. The order of AO on this point is accordingly confirmed.” 4. On perusal of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and it is justified. Thus, the sole ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21 st July, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (Inturi Rama Rao) (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिनाांक / Dated : 21 st July, 2022. रदव 3 ITA No.1559/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2014-15 आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-2, Pune 4. The Pr. CIT-1, Pune 5. दवभागीय प्रदतदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, “ए” बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. गार्ड फ़ाइल / Guard File. //सत्यादपत प्रदत// True Copy// आिेशानुसार / BY ORDER, वररष्ठ दनजी सदचव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune