9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the amount of Rs. 5,07,146 incurred by the assessee in reconstructing the premises is revenue expenditure or capital expenditure. Detailed Analysis: 1. Revenue vs. Capital Expenditure: The primary issue in this appeal is whether the expenditure of Rs. 5,07,146 incurred by the assessee for reconstructing the premises after a fire incident is to be treated as revenue expenditure or capital expenditure. The assessee, engaged in trading plywood and other materials, faced a devastating fire on 26th June 1993. The premises, which were old and consisted of wooden structures, were severely damaged. The assessee, a tenant, sought and received permission from the Wakf (owner) to carry out repairs, replacing wooden pillars and beams with steel and iron materials. The assessee claimed these expenses as revenue expenditure, arguing that the repairs were necessary to restore the premises to their original utility without creating any new asset or enduring benefit. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the claim, stating that the expenditure was capital in nature as it resulted in a new, permanent structure replacing the old one. The AO also rejected the claim under sections 30(a)(i) and 37 of the IT Act and denied depreciation on the grounds that only the owner of the asset can claim it. 2. CIT(A) Decision: On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the expenditure was capital in nature. The CIT(A) reasoned that the repairs resulted in a new, modern structure of a permanent nature, which constituted a capital expenditure. The CIT(A) emphasized that the expenditure was "once for all" and involved significant restructuring, thus fitting the criteria for capital expenditure. 3. Assessee's Arguments: Before the Tribunal, the assessee reiterated that the expenditure was for replacing old, worn-out and burnt materials, and thus should be considered revenue expenditure. The assessee argued that the repairs did not result in any new asset or enduring benefit and were necessary to restore the premises for business continuity. The assessee also cited several judicial precedents to support their claim that such expenditures, even if substantial, should be treated as revenue if they do not result in a new asset or enduring benefit. 4. Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal carefully examined the facts and the arguments presented. It acknowledged that the repairs were necessary due to the fire and were carried out with the permission of the owners. The Tribunal noted that no new building was constructed, and the repairs did not alter the structure's foundation. The Tribunal referred to several judicial precedents, including: - Ram Swarup Cold Storage Allied Ltd.: The Delhi Bench held that expenditure incurred for repairing damaged portions to restore the original structure is revenue in nature. - Indian Ginning & Pressing Co. Ltd.: The Gujarat High Court held that expenditure facilitating trading operations without touching fixed capital is revenue expenditure. - National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd.: The Bombay High Court emphasized that expenditure facilitating business operations, even if enduring, is revenue if it does not result in a capital asset. - Hede Consultancy (P) Ltd.: The Bombay High Court ruled that expenditure on leased premises for business advantage is revenue expenditure. - Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd.: The Supreme Court held that expenditure on leased premises for business benefit without acquiring a capital asset is revenue expenditure. 5. Tribunal's Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was for restoring the premises to their original condition and did not result in any new asset or enduring benefit. The repairs were necessary for the business's continuity and did not alter the fixed capital. Therefore, the expenditure was of revenue nature. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the expenditure as revenue expenditure. Judgment: The appeal was allowed, and the expenditure of Rs. 5,07,146 was directed to be treated as revenue expenditure.
|
