2012 (9) TMI 483 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance of deduction towards renovation of property - AO treated the transactions as bogus - ITAT allowed it - Held that - The expenditure was incurred, according to the assessee, in anticipation of its entering into joint venture agreement with the Japanese collaborator & the premises in question over which the expenditures were made were leased to the assessee for a period of five years, the assessee further subleased the premises for the same period - it is not understandable as to why the original lease could not be cancelled when the original owner PHWA and sublessee i.e. PWH are under the same management - There is nothing mentioned in clear words in the said agreement as to why lease rental to be charged from PWH is as high as Rs. 461, 500/- per quarter as against Rs. 105, 000/-per quarter payable by assessee to PWHA, in fact in agreement dated 28-05-1996 even the basic facts would as to how assessee acquired the right to lease the premises to PW- H are not mentioned. As there is no reference of earlier agreement dated 05-04-1996 in agreement dated 28-05-1996 in spite of the fact that both agreements were signed by the same person these facts leads to the conclusion that the said arrangement of lease and sublease is not bona fide genuine - against assessee Disallowance of depreciation on renovation - ITAAT allowed it - Held that - As the transaction of lease and sub lease was proved to be bogus no question of allowance of depreciation arises here - against assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in allowing the deduction of Rs. 26,21,049/- claimed by the assessee towards renovation of the property and treating it as revenue expenditure.
2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in permitting depreciation at 100% on Rs. 11,98,600/- capitalized by the assessee as part of renovation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deduction of Rs. 26,21,049/- as Revenue Expenditure:

The assessee, engaged in leasing, hire-purchase, and finance, declared an income of Rs. 42,79,660/- for the Assessment Year 1997-98. The AO noticed that the assessee had entered into a lease agreement with PWHA and a sublease with PWH, both signed by the same person, without mentioning the original lease in the sublease agreement. The AO deemed these transactions as non-bona fide and treated them as finance/loan arrangements, disallowing the claimed renovation expenses as revenue expenditure. The CIT (A) initially set aside the assessment, directing a de novo proceeding, which led the AO to reaffirm his stance, disallowing the renovation expenses and treating the transactions as finance arrangements. The CIT (A) later found the transactions genuine and allowed the expenses as revenue expenditure, a decision upheld by the ITAT. However, the High Court found the AO's conclusions justified, noting the improbability of the transactions being genuine due to the short duration between the lease and sublease, the timing of renovations, and the lack of substantial evidence supporting the assessee's claims. The High Court concluded that the CIT (A) and ITAT's acceptance of the transactions as genuine was unsustainable, answering this issue against the assessee.

2. Depreciation at 100% on Rs. 11,98,600/-:

The AO disallowed the 100% depreciation claimed by the assessee on the capitalized renovation amount, suggesting that even if allowable, it should be at 10%. The CIT (A) and ITAT allowed the depreciation as claimed by the assessee. The High Court, however, found that the CIT (A) and ITAT's findings were contrary to the evidence and reasoning provided by the AO, who had meticulously examined the materials on record. The High Court thus answered this issue against the assessee, supporting the AO's stance on the depreciation rate.

Analysis:

The High Court scrutinized the genuineness of the lease and sublease transactions, noting the improbability of the transactions being genuine due to the short duration between the agreements, ongoing renovations before the sublease, and the substantial difference in lease rentals. The Court found the AO's conclusions justified, criticizing the CIT (A) and ITAT for uncritically accepting the assessee's arguments without substantial evidence. The High Court emphasized that the nomenclature of transactions is not determinative of their true nature, and the real nature must be examined, referencing precedents like Sundaram Finance Limited v. State of Kerala and Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal II v. Durga Prasad More. The Court concluded that the findings of the CIT (A) and ITAT were contrary to the evidence and unsustainable, answering both issues in favor of the revenue and allowing the appeals.