JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by Sanjiv Khanna J.-The present appeal by Revenue pertains to assessment year 2010-11. respondent-assessee had filed return declaring income of Rs. 44,65,471 on October 14, 2010, and subsequently return was taken up for scrutiny assessment. assessee has claimed depreciation of Rs. 1.20 crores on cinematographic films at 100 per cent. assessment order records that assessee was required to file evidence in form of copies of agreement entered into with parties. Assessing Officer observed that assessee did not purchase any cinematographic films for consumption but what was purchased were broadcasting/exhibition rights, satellite rights etc. and, therefore, in terms of section 32 of Income-tax Act, 1961, depreciation should be allowed at 25 per cent. instead of 100 per cent. depreciation as claimed. There is no other discussion in assessment order though assessee had relied upon rule 9B of Income-tax Rules, 1962, and had stated that rights in feature films were sold to different parties like National Film Development Corporation, Doordarshan at Mumbai, Srinagar, Shimla and Lucknow and film rights were also sold to other distributors and parties. Assessing Officer rejected said contention by recording that assessee had not fulfilled necessary conditions of rule 9B, which obviously had reference to fact that Assessing Officer observed that assessee did not purchase cinematograph films for her own consumption but they were purchased for broadcasting/exhibition rights, satellite rights, etc. As noticed below, this finding of Assessing Officer for non-application of rule 9B is wrong and erroneous. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted assessee's plea and after reference to contention of respondent-assessee observed as under: "4.1 facts emanating from order of Assessing Officer and submissions of assessee is that assessee is in business of purchase and sale and distribution of old cinematographic films and songs. assessee purchases rights over films and songs and same are sold to various parties. During year assessee has purchased rights of films for Rs. 1,20,00,000 and same has been sold during'the year and assessee has claimed depreciation/deduction at 1000/0 (sic 100 per cent.) as cost of acquisition under rule 9B(2). Assessing Officer has allowed depreciation under section 32(1) at 25 per cent. only after treating commercial rights as intangible assets and, accordingly, Assessing Officer has allowed depreciation at 25 per cent. of Rs. 30,00,000 and has disallowed balance depreciation/deduction of Rs. 90,00,000 (Rs. 1.20,00,000 (-) Rs 30.00,000) vide order of Assessing Officer... 4.3 I have considered order of Assessing Officer and submissions of assessee and I find considerable merit in submission of assessee that in case of purchase and sale of cinematographic films and songs, etc., provisions of rule 9B is applicable and assessee is eligible to claim deduction of entire cost of purchase if films are sold in same year. In present case, assessee had made purchase of Rs 1,20,00,000 and entire films has been sold as discussed above and as such assessee is eligible for full deduction at 100 per cent. as provided under rule 9B(2). After considering all case facts and circumstances of case, I am of view that there is no merit in addition made by Assessing Officer and as such addition made by Assessing Officer are without any justification and, accordingly, same are deleted." said finding has been affirmed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by impugned order dated January 24, 2014. Before us, learned senior standing counsel has produced photocopies of order-sheet, profit and loss account, balance-sheet, etc., of respondentassessee and new factual plea is raised that assessee may not have sold films during year in question. It is also stated that rule 9B would not be applicable, if conditions of sub-rule (5) were not satisfied. It is accordingly submitted that if assessee had not sold or transferred rights of exhibition of films, etc., benefit under rule 9B(2) would not be applicable. We find that aforesaid plea cannot be and should not be permitted to be raised in appeal under section 260A of Income-tax Act, 1961, for first time as it requires examination and verification of fact before any legal opinion can be formed. As noticed above, Assessing Officer had proceeded altogether on different basis. Before Tribunal also, where Revenue was appellant, no such submission was raised and made. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in his order has specifically noted and recorded that films were sold. He has also recorded that films had been sold to different Doordarshan Kendras as also to National Film Development Authority, which are independent third parties and not closely related to respondent-assessee. These were also sales to other parties. There is no finding in assessment order that purchase and sale had not taken place and, therefore, rule 9B(2)(a) relied upon by assessee was not applicable. Assessing Officer did not dispute contention of respondent-assessee that exhibition rights in films were purchased during year and also sold. On other hand as noticed above, Assessing Officer took very narrow view on term "distribution rights" and held that exhibition rights, television rights or satellite rights cannot be treated as distribution rights. We do not agree with said view as what was purchased and sold by respondentassessee were "distribution rights". said right would include and consist of acquisition and transfer of rights to exhibit, broadcast and satellite rights. These rights are integral and form and represent rights of film distributor. Even otherwise, if rule 9B would not be applicable, purchase and sale of film would result in business transaction, i.e., sale consideration received less purchase price paid. appeal is accordingly dismissed. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Smt. Achila Sabharwal