IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH B, CHENNAI B E F O R E DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. ITA NO.1867(MDS)/2010 & C.O. NO.168(MDS)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER M/S.MAD RAS FERTILIZERS LTD., OF INCOME-TAX, VS. MANALI, COMPANY CIRCLE IV(1), CH ENNAI-600 068. CHENNAI. PAN AAACM5918E. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT/CROSS OBJECTOR) APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.B.SEKARAN, CIT , DR. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI V.CHANDRAMOULI, A DDL.MANAGER, CORPORATE ACCOUNTS & TAXATION, MADRAS FE RTILIZWERS LTD. O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT: THE APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT A SSESSMENT YEAR IS 2002-03. THE APPEAL AND THE CROSS OBJECTION ARE DI RECTED AGAINST THE ITA NO.1867/10 & CO 168/10 2 ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-V AT CHENNAI DATED 17-8-2010 AND ARISE OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT COM PLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE FIRST GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN D ELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 27,335/- ON ACCOUNT OF BELATED PAYMENT OF ESI FOR TRAINEES AND TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY PAID THE SAID AMOUNT BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF TH E RETURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ESI PAYMENT. 3. THE SECOND GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN D ELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF ` 54,69,370/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON NEW CARBONATE PUMP ON THE GROUND THAT E VIDENCES ARE AVAILABLE ON RECORD ON THE COMMISSIONING AND FUNCTI ONING OF THE CARBONATE PUMP. WE FIND THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS MADE A CLEAR FINDING THAT THE NEW HP CARBONATE PUMP HAS BEEN COMMISSIONED AND CERTIFIED FOR FUNCTIONING BY THE ITA NO.1867/10 & CO 168/10 3 COMPETENT AUTHORITIES BEFORE THE END OF THE RELEVAN T PREVIOUS YEAR. ONCE THE PUMP IS ERECTED AND MADE FUNCTIONING, IT I S TO BE TREATED AS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSE E IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR ITSELF. ACCORDINGLY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS JUSTIFIED IN ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF DE PRECIATION OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 4. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 5. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN T HE CROSS OBJECTION ARE EFFECTIVELY SUPPORTING THE DECI SION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). AS THE APPEA L FILED BY THE REVENUE IS HELD LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED, THIS CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS. 6. IN RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND T HE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO.1867/10 & CO 168/10 4 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON MONDAY, THE 27 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2011 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 27 TH JUNE, 2011. V.A.P. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) D.R. (6) G.F.