2002 (9) TMI 94 - HC - Income Tax

Capital Or Revenue Expenditure - Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that payment of Rs. 45 lakhs for purchase of the unit was a capital expenditure and if it was a capital expenditure as held by the Tribunal then whether the Tribunal was justified in directing apportionment of the said amount as advance rent over a period of 71 years at the rate of Rs. 63, 380 per annum as rent relatable to each year? - we hold as follows (a) That payment of Rs. 45 lakhs by the assessee was a capital expenditure and therefore the Tribunal erred in directing the Department to apportion/spread over the said amount for 71 years on proportionate basis relatable to each year at the rate of Rs. 63, 380 per annum for 71 years. Consequently the direction to that extent in para. 16 of the impugned order is set aside. Therefore the appeal stands allowed. (b) Consequently the cross-objections filed by the assessee stand dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the payment of Rs. 45 lakhs for the purchase of the unit was a capital expenditure.
2. If it was a capital expenditure, whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the apportionment of the said amount as advance rent over a period of 71 years.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Capital Expenditure Determination
The main contention revolves around whether the payment of Rs. 45 lakhs by the assessee was a capital expenditure or revenue expenditure. The Tribunal concluded that the payment was for the purchase of the whole unit, thus constituting a capital expenditure. The Department supported this view, arguing that the payment was for acquiring leasehold rights, which are capital in nature. The assessee, however, contended that the payment was made to secure the benefit of reduced rent and should be treated as revenue expenditure under section 37 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee relied heavily on the judgment in CIT v. Madras Auto Service (P.) Ltd. [1998] 233 ITR 468, arguing that the payment was made to save future revenue expenditure.

Issue 2: Apportionment of Capital Expenditure
The Tribunal, while holding that the payment was a capital expenditure, directed the apportionment of Rs. 45 lakhs as advance rent over 71 years at the rate of Rs. 63,380 per annum. The Department challenged this apportionment, arguing that it was contradictory to the Tribunal's own finding that the payment was a capital expenditure. The Department contended that if the payment was indeed capital expenditure, it could not be apportioned as advance rent.

Findings:

Capital Expenditure
The court agreed with the Tribunal's initial finding that the payment of Rs. 45 lakhs was a capital expenditure. The court emphasized that the true character and purport of the payment should be determined by the substance of the transaction, not by the manner in which the assessee allocated the items for accounting purposes. The payment was made for acquiring leasehold rights, which allowed the assessee to carry on business, thus constituting a capital expenditure.

Apportionment Not Justified
The court found merit in the Department's appeal against the apportionment. It held that the Tribunal's direction to apportion the amount over 71 years was self-contradictory, given its own finding that the payment was a capital expenditure. The court stated that such apportionment could only be justified if the payment was considered revenue expenditure, which was not the case here.

Cross-Objections by the Assessee
The court dismissed the cross-objections filed by the assessee, which argued that the payment was made to save future revenue expenditure and should be treated as revenue expenditure. The court distinguished the present case from the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT v. Madras Auto Service (P.) Ltd., noting that in the present case, the assessee acquired a capital asset by spending Rs. 45 lakhs, unlike in the Madras Auto Service case where no capital asset was acquired.

Conclusion:

1. The payment of Rs. 45 lakhs by the assessee was a capital expenditure.
2. The Tribunal erred in directing the Department to apportion the said amount over 71 years as advance rent. This direction was set aside.
3. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed.

Final Order:
The appeal by the Department was allowed, and the cross-objections by the assessee were dismissed. No order as to costs.