Judgment :- i. formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein ii. allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in ITA No. 124/Bang/2003 dt. 13.5.2004 confirming the order passed by the commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I. Bangalore and confirm the order passed by the Asst. Commnr., of Income Tax, Company Circle-4(1), Bangalore etc.) The revenue has come up in this appeal challenging the concurrent findings of the order passed by the commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which has been confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 124/Bang/2003 dt. 13.5.2004. 2. The facts of this case are as hereunder: The respondent-assessee is engaged in the manufacture and sale of Indian made foreign liquor. For the assessment year 1994-95 the assessee filed a return of income declaring a loss of Rs. 4,65,540/-. The matter was taken up for scrutiny assessment. During the course of scrutiny, the Assessing officer noticed that for the year ending 31.3.1994, the assessee had not carried on the manufacturing activities and that the business was closed on account of the local problems. The assessee had claimed the depreciation on the assets amounting to Rs. 2,09,536/- on plant and machinery. The Assessing Officer had not granted the depreciation on the ground that the assessee had not carried on the business activity. Accordingly, the order passed by the Assessing officer on 31.1.1997. On an Appeal, the Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals), came to be conclusion that the assessee was forcibly closed his business activities on account of local problems. Consequently, he allowed the appeal by his order dt. 16.10.2002. Being aggrieved by the same, the revenue filed an Appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which appeal came to be rejected by the Tribunal confirming the order passed by the commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Challenging the legality and correctness of the same, the present appeal is filed raising the following questions of law: 1) Whether, the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that the Assessee would be entitled to claim depreciation as well as expenditure under Section 32 and Section 37 of the Act respectively, even when admittedly no business activity is carried on by the Assessee during the current assessment year. 2) Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that if there is a lull in the business activity or the same is likely to be continued in future, the business can be deemed to have been continued and all expenditure, depreciation can be allowed and the loss accumulated loss should be permitted to be carried forward. 3. We have heard the counsel for the parties. 4. The main contention of the appellants counsel before us is since the business activities of the assessee had been closed for the relevant assessment year, the assessee was not entitled to claim depreciation as well as expenditure under section-32 and 37 of the Income Tax Act. To support his arguments, he has relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in 1966 ITR page 1 (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. LAHORE ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. Relying upon this Judgment, he requests the Court to set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), as well as the Tribunal. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee contends that the facts involved in the present case are different from the case involved in LAHORE ELECTRIC SUPPLY LTD. According to him, the aforesaid Judgment has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In order to substantiate the same, he contends that the assessee had no intention to close its business. Business was closed on account of the local problems and not on account of the any dispute between the employer and employees. Considering the problems in the locality not only the business of the assessee but also the business of others were closed and later on the same has been revived and it is functioning. He further contends that if the business had been closed not on account of the negligence or attributable to the assessee, the revenue cannot contend that the assessee had closed its business, and it cannot claim depreciation. In the circumstances, he requests the Court to dismiss the appeal. 6. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are view that the questions of law raised in this appeal are to be answered against the revenue for the following reasons: It is not in dispute that assessee was carrying on the business in manufacturing the Indian made foreign liquor and the activities of the assessee is continued even today. 6. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are view that the questions of law raised in this appeal are to be answered against the revenue for the following reasons: It is not in dispute that assessee was carrying on the business in manufacturing the Indian made foreign liquor and the activities of the assessee is continued even today. The business premises of the assessee is situated in Punjab. On account of the riots and other activities in the place, where the factory of the assessee is situated, the assessee was forced to close down the activity till the peace was restored in the locality. This fact is not disputed by the revenue. If for the reasons which were beyond the control of the assessee, its business activities was closed, such closure cannot be treated as a closure with an intention to close the business once for all and such closure has to be treated as an act of god or Vismajeour. The Assessing officer has failed to take note of the fact that the assessee did not close its business activities on its own. But it was on account of unforeseen circumstance. such closure will not disentitle the assessee to claim the depreciation. The facts involved in LAHORE ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED are entirely different. There the business was closed with an intention to close the business once for all and it had no intention to revive its business and the company itself was sold and the company was not a viable company. Therefore, we are of the view that the decision relied upon by the revenue has no application to the facts of this case. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal as well as the commissioner of income Tax, were justified in granting relief to the assessee. Accordingly, we hold the substantial questions of law arises in this appeal against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.