2008 (9) TMI 869 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of disallowance of Rs. 10 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer on account of compensation paid for vacating the premises from the earlier occupant.

Summary:

Issue 1: Deletion of disallowance of Rs. 10 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer on account of compensation paid for vacating the premises from the earlier occupant.

The facts of the case reveal that the assessee-firm, established in 2002, entered into a franchise agreement with M/s. Amalgamation Bean Coffee Ltd. (ABC) to run a Cafe Coffee Day (CCD) outlet. The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 10 lakhs paid as compensation for vacating premises. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted the familial relationships among the parties involved and concluded that the tenancy and sub-tenancy arrangements were merely paper transactions, as physical possession remained within the family. The AO deemed the payment as capital expenditure for acquiring tenancy rights, not revenue expenditure.

In the first appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) disagreed with the AO's view that the payment was for peaceful possession due to familial relationships. However, the CIT(A) accepted the assessee's contention that the payment was for renovation costs incurred by PHPL, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT v. Madras Auto Service P. Ltd. [1998] 233 ITR 468. The CIT(A) noted that PHPL had offered the Rs. 10 lakhs for taxation, indicating no tax planning.

The Revenue's representative argued that the tripartite agreements were make-believe arrangements for claiming the deduction, emphasizing the familial relationships. The assessee's counsel contended that the payment was for acquiring premises and renovation costs, supported by PHPL's financial records showing capital expenditure of over Rs. 20 lakhs on renovations.

The Tribunal examined the facts and precedents, noting the familial relationships and lack of evidence for any dispute necessitating compensation. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the payment was not for peaceful possession. However, it found that even if the payment was for renovation, it constituted capital expenditure, not deductible as revenue expenditure, per Explanation 1 to section 32. The Tribunal cited the Delhi High Court's judgment in Bigjo's India Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 293 ITR 170, which held that capital expenditure on licensed premises is not deductible as revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal rejected the assessee's argument that PHPL's treatment of the compensation as revenue receipt should dictate its treatment as revenue expenditure for the assessee, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah [1996] 218 ITR 239 that the right person must be taxed. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee could not claim the Rs. 10 lakhs as revenue expenditure and allowed the Revenue's appeal.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed.

The order pronounced on September 30, 2008.