1992 (3) TMI 127 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Nature of expenditure incurred on repairs and maintenance.
2. Classification of expenditure as capital or revenue in nature.
3. Entitlement to depreciation on capital expenditure.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Nature of Expenditure Incurred on Repairs and Maintenance:

The primary issue in this case revolves around the nature of the expenditure incurred by the assessee on repairs and maintenance of a property purchased from the NOIDA Authority. The assessee claimed that the expenditure of Rs. 1,07,229 was for repairs and maintenance, which should be classified as revenue expenditure. The breakdown of the expenses included Rs. 46,072 on building repair, Rs. 44,655 on electrical fitting and maintenance, and Rs. 16,502 on sanitary fitting and maintenance. The assessee argued that these expenses were necessary for the running of the business and maintaining the standard and prestige of the restaurant.

2. Classification of Expenditure as Capital or Revenue in Nature:

The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed the deduction, classifying the expenditure as capital in nature, but allowed depreciation on the same. The CIT (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appeal. The assessee contended that the expenses were not capital in nature and pointed out that any capital expenses were not claimed as revenue expenditure. The departmental representative supported the CIT (Appeals), arguing that the major expenditures on painting, plastering, bricks, stones, earthwork, and PVC pipes provided enduring benefits and were therefore capital in nature.

Upon review, it was found that Rs. 14,762 spent on bricks, stones, earthwork, asbestos sheet, and steel tube for building renovation provided an enduring benefit and was capital in nature. However, other expenses were minor and classified as revenue expenditure. The electrical and mechanical repairs were deemed necessary for business operations and thus were revenue expenditure. Similarly, most sanitary fitting expenses were revenue in nature, except for Rs. 6,329.44 on brass fittings, wash basin, steel tube, and other items, which were capital in nature. Consequently, Rs. 21,092 was classified as capital expenditure, and the remaining was revenue expenditure.

3. Entitlement to Depreciation on Capital Expenditure:

The ITO's decision to allow depreciation on the capital expenditure of Rs. 21,092 was upheld. The judicial member concluded that barring the capital expenditure, all other expenses should be allowed as revenue expenditure. However, the accountant member disagreed, asserting that the entire expenditure of Rs. 1,07,229 was capital in nature due to the large-scale improvements that resulted in enduring benefits and were part of the initial outlay for starting the restaurant business.

Third Member Decision:

The matter was referred to a third member due to the differing opinions. The third member agreed with the judicial member, stating that the expenditure was for interior decoration, which is temporary and does not provide a lasting benefit. The aim was to make the restaurant attractive to customers, and such expenses are not capital in nature. The third member cited the Supreme Court's decision in the British India Corporation case, emphasizing that the nature and advantage of the expenditure must be considered from a practical point of view. The expenditure on interior decoration was deemed revenue expenditure, as it did not provide a permanent benefit.

Conclusion:

The majority opinion held that Rs. 86,137 of the expenditure was revenue in nature, while Rs. 21,092 was capital in nature. The appeal was partly allowed, directing the assessing officer to allow deductions accordingly and uphold the depreciation on the capital expenditure.