Court No. - 29 Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 285 of 2017 Appellant :- Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii Agra Respondent :- M/S Bharat Explosives Ltd. Counsel for Appellant :- Praveen Kumar,Manu Ghildyal Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala,J. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. We have heard Sri Pravin Kumar and Sri Manu Ghildiyal, for Department and Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate along with Sri Suyash Agarwal, for assessee. For assessment year 2007-08 while scrutinising matter under Section 143(2) of Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as Act), assessing officer found that factory was closed and since machinery was not put to use depreciation of Rs.1,84,16,000/-, on machinery under Section 32 of Act was disallowed and same was added in income of assessee. assessee, being aggrieved, filed appeal, which was allowed on strength of finding that factory was not closed and that appellant had reported net sales of Rs.559.44 lacs in its audited financial statements. appellate authority found that once plant and machinery was put to use then depreciation has to be allowed as per Section 32 of Act and, accordingly, claim of depreciation was allowed. Department, being aggrieved, filed second appeal before Income Tax Tribunal. Tribunal further found that production of banned items was stopped, which led to assessing officer believing that factory had closed whereas production activities of other (2) products continued for which net sales were depicted in audited financial statements. Tribunal found that two conditions depicted in Section 32(1) of Act were available, namely, that plant and machinery was owned by assessee and that plant and machinery was used for purpose of business. contention of revenue was, accordingly, rejected. assessee, being aggrieved, has filed present appeal under Section 260-A of Act. Having heard learned counsel for appellant, we are of opinion that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. specific finding has been given by Tribunal as well as by first appellate authority that manufacturing activity was carried out on most of products manufactured by assessee, which depicted net sales in audited balance-sheet and, therefore, machinery was put to use for business of assessee. depreciation was rightly allowed under Section 32 of Act. findings arrived are based on findings of fact, which requires no interference in appeal. appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. Order Date :- 27.10.2017 AKJ (Ajay Bhanot,J.) (Tarun Agarwala,J.) Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-Ii, Agra v. Bharat Explosives Ltd