2015 (6) TMI 900 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - disallowance on account of deferred revenue expenditure - CIT (A) deleted the disallowance - Held that - The hon ble jurisdictional High Court in DCIT vs. Core Healthcare Ltd., (2008 (10) TMI 74 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) holds that an expenditure incurred at the time of installation of machinery in existing line of business resulting in enduring benefits cannot be held to be capital expenditure merely because some direct or indirect benefits; immediate or a period of time, flow from the same. The Revenue does not quote any case law to the contrary. We take cue therefrom and treat the entire expenses as revenue expenditure. An assessee can adopt the two ways of giving different accounting treatment to an expenditure in its books and claim the entire sum as revenue expenditure in the relevant assessment year. Therefore, we uphold the CIT(A) s order deleting the impugned disallowance/addition of deferred revenue expenditure. The Revenue s ground fails. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Disallowance of deferred revenue expenditure for A.Y. 2004-05.
2. Validity of reopening taken by the assessing authority.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Disallowance of Deferred Revenue Expenditure:
The appeal and cross objections arose from the order of CIT(A)-VI, Ahmedabad, regarding the disallowance of Rs. 1,70,17,652 on account of deferred revenue expenditure for the assessment year 2004-05. The Revenue sought restoration of the disallowance made in the re-assessment framed on 30.12.2009, while the Assessee challenged the validity of the reopening of the assessment. The assessing officer reopened the assessment as he believed that the assessee wrongly treated enduring benefits as deferred revenue expenditure, leading to the disallowance. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, stating that the expenses were revenue in nature and should be allowed in the first year itself. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing relevant case law and the treatment of expenses in the books of accounts.

2. Validity of Reopening:
The assessing authority reopened the assessment based on the belief that the assessee's taxable income had escaped assessment due to the treatment of deferred revenue expenditure. The assessee objected to the validity of the reopening and reiterated its deduction claim. The assessing officer finalized the re-assessment, disallowing the expenditure as it was considered to provide long-term benefits. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, but the Tribunal disagreed, emphasizing that the expenses were revenue in nature and should be allowed in the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal also referenced a recent Supreme Court decision to support its conclusion that accounting treatment in books does not determine the allowability of expenses under the Income Tax Act.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross objections, upholding the deletion of the disallowance of deferred revenue expenditure for the assessment year 2004-05. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the nature of the expenses, the treatment in the books of accounts, relevant case law, and the principles governing the allowability of expenses under the Income Tax Act.