2011 (9) TMI 212 - HC - Income Tax

Going Concern - Expenditure subsequent to closure of business - Hotel business - Expenditure towards renovation expenses, post operative rent and post, operative interest. - Held that - the assessee was carrying on hotel business. Due to labour problem he stopped the business. He wanted to sell the business as a going concern. Even though he had stopped his business, the liability to pay rent and interest continued. It was not a personal liability of the assessee. Both interest was payable on the amount borrowed for carrying on the business and rent was payable for the business premisses. Therefore, the appellate authorities were justified in allowing the said deduction.

Summary

Issues:
- Allowance of expenditure towards renovation expenses, post operative rent, and post operative interest.
- Disallowance of expenses by assessing authority.
- Appeal to Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and subsequent relief granted.
- Appeal to Tribunal and dismissal of the appeal.
- Legality of orders passed by appellate authorities.

The judgment deals with a revenue appeal against a Tribunal order allowing expenditure towards renovation expenses, post operative rent, and post operative interest. The assessee, engaged in running a hotel, stopped business due to labor problems and sold the premises as a going concern. The assessing authority disallowed various expenses, including renovation expenses, post operative rent, and post operative interest. The Appellate Authority confirmed most deductions but granted relief on the mentioned expenses. The revenue appealed to the Tribunal, which upheld the relief granted by the Appellate Commissioner. The revenue contended that expenses incurred after business closure should not be allowed without proper documentation. However, the High Court found that rent and interest were business liabilities, justifying their deduction even after business cessation.

Regarding renovation expenses, the assessee renovated the hotel premises after business closure to enhance its sale value. The expenses were incurred to attract a higher price when selling the business as a going concern. The High Court noted that payments were made to tax-assessed professionals for these renovations, justifying the deduction. The expenses were deemed to be connected to the business, even though incurred after business cessation in 1994. Therefore, the appellate authorities were justified in allowing the deduction for renovation expenses.

The revenue argued that post operative rent and interest should not be considered business expenditures after business closure in 1994. However, the High Court found that these expenses were related to the business premises and were not personal liabilities of the assessee. The rent was for the business premises, and the interest was on borrowed amounts for business operations. As such, the appellate authorities rightly allowed the deduction for post operative rent and interest, considering them as legitimate business expenses despite the business closure.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the decisions of the appellate authorities. The court found no merit in setting aside the orders allowing deductions for renovation expenses, post operative rent, and post operative interest. The substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the assessee, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the revenue.