2019 (4) TMI 1788 - HC - Income Tax

Expenditure incurred on DSRM trial run - nature of expenditure - revenue expenditure - expenditure has been incurred before commissioning - HELD THAT - The issue arises out of the return of income by the assessee for the assessment year 1997-98. The Assessing Officer had disallowed certain expenditure treating as preoperative expenditure. CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal ruled in favour of the assessee coming to the conclusion that the assessee was not starting a new business. The assessee was already engaged in the same line of forging business since financial year 1993-94. The assessee had installed new machinery for better management of the business. The assessee had thus employed improved technique for production as the part of existing business. These finding of facts are not seriously controverted by the revenue. Concurrent findings of the CIT(Appeals) and the Tribunal thus are the assessee had incurred expenditure not for starting of new business, but for improving output in the existing business. No question of law arises. Income Tax Appeals are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Allowance of expenditure on DSRM trial run as revenue expenditure before commissioning.

Analysis:
The High Court addressed the issue of whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing the expenditure of a significant amount incurred on DSRM trial run as revenue expenditure before commissioning. The respondent, a limited company, had faced a challenge regarding the disallowance of certain expenditure treated as preoperative expenditure in the assessment year 1997-98. The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure, but the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee. They concluded that the assessee was not starting a new business but was already engaged in the forging business since the financial year 1993-94. The assessee had installed new machinery to enhance business management and employed improved techniques for production within the existing business framework. The High Court noted that the revenue did not seriously contest these factual findings. The concurrent findings of the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal established that the expenditure was incurred to enhance output in the existing business, not to initiate a new business venture. Consequently, the High Court concluded that no question of law arose in this matter, leading to the dismissal of the Income Tax Appeals.

In summary, the High Court's judgment emphasized that the expenditure incurred on the DSRM trial run was considered a revenue expenditure rather than a preoperative expense. The court highlighted that the assessee's actions were geared towards improving the existing business operations through the installation of new machinery and the adoption of enhanced production techniques. By clarifying that the expenditure was directed at enhancing output within the current business framework, the court determined that the expenditure was justifiable as a revenue expenditure. The court's decision was based on the understanding that the assessee's activities did not constitute the initiation of a new business but rather the enhancement of the existing business operations, leading to the dismissal of the Income Tax Appeals.