2017 (6) TMI 243 - AT - Income Tax

Addition being replacement of some portion of the machinery to the income of assessee - nature of expenditure - revenue or capital - Held that - ITAT in 2012 (3) TMI 581 - ITAT CHENNAI already settled this issue and the Tribunal has given a categorical finding that the expenditure is capital expenditure and the assessee is only entitled for depreciation on it. Now, the ld.A.R cannot re-argue the settled issue and this Tribunal has no power to review the earlier Order of Tribunal, which was reached the finality. Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee is rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directing the addition of a specific amount to the income of the assessee as a replacement of machinery.

Analysis:
The main issue in this case revolves around the treatment of an expenditure claimed by the assessee as a replacement of machinery. The Assessing Officer initially allowed this expenditure but later, a direction was given by the CIT to add this amount to the income of the assessee. The Tribunal, in its earlier order, examined the details of the expenditure and concluded that it was capital in nature, not revenue. The Tribunal highlighted that the replacement of machinery provided an enduring benefit of better production over time, making it a capital expenditure. The Tribunal emphasized that the provisions of section 263 could be invoked if the order passed by the Assessing Officer is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's decision that the expenditure was capital in nature and allowed for depreciation on it.

Subsequently, the Assessing Officer passed an order in line with the CIT's direction, which was challenged by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the treatment of the expenditure as capital and directed the allowance of depreciation. The Tribunal, in the present appeal, reiterated its earlier findings that the expenditure was capital in nature and only depreciation was allowable. The Tribunal emphasized that the issue had already been settled in the previous order and could not be re-argued. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed, and the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) was upheld.

In conclusion, the Tribunal maintained that the expenditure on the replacement of machinery was capital in nature, entitling the assessee to depreciation only. The Tribunal emphasized the finality of its earlier decision on the issue, rejecting any attempt to re-argue the settled matter. The appeal of the assessee challenging the treatment of the expenditure was dismissed, affirming the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) and upholding the capital nature of the expenditure.