2013 (11) TMI 158 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of repairs and maintenance expenses The expenditure was incurred by the assessee to carry out fixing of the water tank, construction of partition and fixing of doors, fixing of granite and concrete work and construction of false ceiling from plaster of paris - Held that - Following Nathmal Bankatlal Parikh and Co. v. CIT 1979 (8) TMI 46 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court The expenditure incurred on replacement of old part by a new one in the asset used and kept by the assessee for its own business is a revenue expenditure - The assessee has incurred the expenditure for renovating the existing building which is used by the assessee for its business purposes - No new asset has been created by the assessee Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Dispute over classification of expenditure as capital or revenue - Assessing Officer disallowed sum as capital expenditure - Confirmation by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - Appeal filed challenging the decision.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding the disallowance of a sum of Rs. 10,29,880 as capital expenditure instead of revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer considered the expenditure not as revenue but as capital due to the enduring benefit it provided to the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld this decision, stating that the repairs and construction work carried out by the assessee resulted in the creation of new assets, even in rented premises. The Commissioner emphasized that the nature of the expenditure was non-recurring and fell under the category of capital expenditure. The depreciation was allowed on a portion of the amount, with the balance disallowed and added to the business income of the assessee.

The contention of the assessee was that the expenditure was incurred for repairing existing premises, not for creating new assets, and thus should be treated as revenue expenditure. The authorized representative argued that no new asset was created by the expenditure, which included repairs like fixing water tanks, construction of partitions, and carpentry work. The authorized representative highlighted that similar expenditures had been treated as revenue in past judgments. The Tribunal noted that the expenditure was indeed for renovating existing premises used for business purposes, aligning with precedents where such expenses were treated as revenue expenditure.

Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal emphasized that the enduring benefit obtained from the expenditure did not automatically classify it as capital expenditure. Drawing from legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the expenditure of Rs. 10,29,880 should be treated as revenue expenditure and allowed in the assessment year under consideration. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to reverse the depreciation allowed and treat the expenditure as business expenditure for the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, overturning the decisions of the authorities below.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis considered the nature of the expenditure, the precedents set by previous judgments, and the distinction between capital and revenue expenditure. By aligning the facts of the case with legal principles, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the disputed expenditure as revenue expenditure for the assessment year in question.