2016 (7) TMI 1085 - AT - Income Tax

Expenses incurred towards Capacity Builder - revenue or capital expenditure - nature of expenditure - Held that - As per para-7(1) of the agreement, the main responsibility of capacity builder was to provide a handbook to each MSPC containing various information and also to provide information for readymade mixes. Considering these facts, in our considered opinion, whatever benefit is accruing to the assessee from the capacity builder cannot be considered as a capital asset and therefore, the impugned expenditure cannot be considered as capital expenditure. We find no merit in the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT and we quash the same. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Nature of expenses incurred towards Capacity Builder - Capital or Revenue?
2. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Nature of expenses incurred towards Capacity Builder - Capital or Revenue?
The appeal pertains to the classification of expenses incurred towards a Capacity Builder as either capital or revenue expenditure. The assessee argued that the expenses should be considered revenue in nature, emphasizing that the Capacity Builder's role was more akin to that of a packer than that of a machinery, plant, or building. The assessee contended that the expenditure was necessary for equipping and facilitating the MSPCs to commence operations, rather than creating a capital asset. The assessee also cited a decision stating that audit objections cannot solely justify invoking Section 263. The ITAT analyzed the agreement between the parties, noting the responsibilities outlined for the Capacity Builder. The ITAT observed that the expenses incurred were towards setting up the MSPC as a production unit, providing enduring benefits in terms of technical knowledge, training, and capacity building. The ITAT concluded that the expenses were capital in nature, not ordinary running expenditures, and directed the disallowance of the expenses debited to the P&L account. The ITAT held the AO's assessment as erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests, enhancing the assessment by the amount in question.

Issue 2: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal
The appeal was filed late by the assessee, with a delay of 33 days. The assessee submitted an application for condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit citing the illness of the society's President as the reason for the delay. Medical certificates were provided as evidence. The ITAT, considering the circumstances, granted condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. This decision allowed the appeal to be heard despite the delay, recognizing the valid reasons presented by the assessee for the late filing.

In conclusion, the ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal and quashing the order passed by the ld. CIT. The judgment highlighted the capital nature of expenses incurred towards the Capacity Builder, emphasizing the enduring benefits and the creation of a new asset in the form of a production unit. The decision also underscored the importance of condoning the delay in filing the appeal due to valid reasons presented by the assessee.