In High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 18.11.2014 Coram Honourable Mr.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR and Honourable Mr.JUSTICE R.KARUPPIAH Tax Case (Appeal) No.867 of 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai. .... Appellant Vs. M/s.Cactus Imaging India P. Ltd., 21, South Phase Thiru-vi.ka.Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600 032.Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against order dated 15.9.2011 made in I.T.A.No.547/Mds/2011 on file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai for assessment year 2002-03. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar Standing Counsel for Income Tax JUDGMENT (Delivered by R.SUDHAKAR,J.) This Tax Case (Appeal) is filed by Revenue as against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal raising following substantial questions of law: 2 1. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that printers and scanners are eligible for depreciation at 60% at rates applicable to computers even though printer and scanner could be operated independently without computer? 2. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in directing 60% depreciation instead of 25% which is allowable on plant and machinery? 2. assessment in this case relates to assessment year 2002- 03. assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2002-03 declaring nil income after set off of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation to tune of Rs.1,01,61,875/-. Originally Assessing Officer accepted return of income and subsequently, it was reopened under Section 147 of Income Tax Act and notice was issued under Section 148 of Income Tax Act. In response to notice issued, assessee vide letter dated 29.05.2008 requested to treat income already filed by it. Assessing Officer rejected contention of assessee and held that printing machinery are to be treated as normal machinery, entitled to depreciation at 25% and hence, excess depreciation was disallowed. Aggrieved by said order, assessee filed appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who allowed appeal following earlier orders of Tribunal in respect of 3 assessee's own case. Aggrieved by same, Revenue filed appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Tribunal also following earlier orders in respect of assessee's own case, decided issue in favour of assessee, thereby dismissed appeal. Aggrieved by same, Revenue is before this Court. 3. We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned standing counsel appearing for Revenue and perused materials placed before this Court. 4. issue that arises for consideration is whether printing machinery, namely printer and scanner, should be treated as integral part of computer and eligible for 60% depreciation as against 25% as indicated by Department. There is no dispute on fact that printer and scanner is used as office equipment in business and that is part and parcel of computer system as decided by Tribunal in all subsequent assessment years viz., 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as Tribunal have consistently taken view that printer and scanner should be treated as integral part of system and cannot be used without computer and depreciation at 60% should be allowed. 5. We find that this material fact has been consistently followed by first Appellate Authority and Tribunal in assessee's own case and we 4 R.SUDHAKAR,J. AND R.KARUPPIAH,J. find no material or reason to differ from said finding of fact. Further more, we find that this issue is pure question of fact and no question of law arises for consideration in this Tax Case (Appeal). Accordingly, this Tax Case (Appeal) stands dismissed. No costs. (R.S.,J) (R.K.,J) 18.11.2014 sl To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Chennai. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company CircleI(3), Chennai. T.C.(A) No.867 of 2014 Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. M/s. Cactus Imaging India P. Ltd