2014 (2) TMI 364 - AT - Income Tax

Nature of expenses Revenue or capital - Relief granted on rehabilitation expenses Held that - The expenditure has been incurred by the assessee in the normal course of its regular activity of mining - the assessee has incurred the expenditure in relation to the property in respect of which it has only leasehold rights - The expenditure incurred by the assessee for shifting the railway station, track, etc. i.e., to remove an obstruction to facilitate the business of mining, in accordance with the terms of lease, was held to be of revenue nature - such expenditure did not bring into existence any advantage of an enduring nature - The evacuation from the danger zone has been done in accordance with the lease agreement and in discharge of the statutory obligations imposed, as a pre- requisite for the assessee to carry on the mining operations on the lease hold lands - There was no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in holding that rehabilitation expenditure incurred by the assessee is revenue expenditure and it is not a capital expenditure the order of the CIT(A) upheld Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rehabilitation expenses treated as revenue or capital expenditure.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad involved the issue of rehabilitation expenses claimed by the assessee as revenue expenditure, which was challenged by the Revenue as capital expenditure. The Revenue raised multiple grounds of appeal, contending that the CIT(A) erred in granting relief to the assessee on the rehabilitation expenses issue. The CIT(A) had held that the rehabilitation expenses were revenue in nature, despite being compensation paid to villagers for enduring benefits in mining, which the Revenue argued was capital in nature. The CIT(A) based its decision on the Tribunal's previous orders in the assessee's case for assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04, and 2004-05, where similar expenses were treated as revenue expenditure.

The factual background revealed that the assessee had claimed a substantial amount towards rehabilitation expenditure, incurred to clear the "danger zone" of inhabitants as per the Mines Act. The Assessing Officer initially proposed to disallow this expenditure as capital expenditure. However, the assessee cited the Tribunal's previous favorable orders in its own case to support the revenue treatment of these expenses. Despite this, the Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure, citing non-receipt of the Tribunal's order and ongoing legal proceedings.

On appeal, the CIT(A) relied on the Tribunal's past decisions in the assessee's case and ruled in favor of the assessee, classifying the rehabilitation expenditure as revenue. The Tribunal, in line with the CIT(A) and the previous orders, upheld the revenue treatment of the expenses. It noted that the expenditure was incurred as a statutory obligation for mining activities and did not create an enduring benefit, aligning with the principles established in relevant case law. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the nature of the rehabilitation expenses as revenue expenditure.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s ruling that the rehabilitation expenses incurred by the assessee were revenue in nature and not capital expenditure, based on the precedent set by previous Tribunal orders in the assessee's case. The Tribunal found no fault in the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the treatment of the expenses as revenue expenditure.