2019 (10) TMI 509 - AT - Income Tax

Deletion of disallowance of business expenses of ₹ 188.75 lakhs made by the AO - pre-construction expenses - HELD THAT - Since the assessee is in the process of implementing a project, which is in the nature of Construction of project, the question of examining the setting up of business or commencement of business does not arise in this case. Since the assessee is constructing a project, all the expenses are incurred in connection there with are called pre-construction expenses and they are required to be capitalised as per the decision rendered by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CHALLAPALLI SUGARS LIMITED HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AP COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL) , CALCUTTA 1974 (10) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT . The Ld A.R has raised a new contention that the other income should not be assessed separately, but it has to be reduced from the pre-construction expenses. However, this claim of the assessee requires examination of facts relating to other income and also the law explained by Hon ble Supreme Court/High Courts in this regard, which is also dependent upon the facts relating to Other income . The assessing officer did not examine this claim of the assessee with regard to other income, even though he has observed that the expenses can be capitalised - Accordingly, this claim of the assessee requires examination at the end of the AO - the issue is restored to the file of the AO for examining the above said claim of the assessee. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Disallowance of business expenses by AO, Allowability of business expenses by CIT(A), Capitalization of expenses for construction project, Treatment of "Other income" in relation to business expenses

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Bangalore concerned the disallowance of business expenses amounting to ?188.75 lakhs by the Assessing Officer (AO) for the assessment year 2013-14. The AO contended that the expenses were not allowable as deduction since the assessee had not commenced operations and suggested capitalization of the expenses. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] allowed the deduction of business expenses, stating that the assessee had indeed commenced operations.

Upon hearing both parties, the Tribunal observed that the expenses might need to be capitalized against fixed assets as the assessee was in the process of implementing a high-speed rail link project, which constituted a construction project. The Tribunal noted that the AO and CIT(A) primarily focused on the commencement of business, but the AO had also mentioned capitalization of expenses. The assessee argued that the "Other income" earned was linked to the project implementation and should offset the pre-construction expenses, disagreeing with the separate assessment of "Other income."

The Tribunal upheld the AO's view, emphasizing that since the assessee was engaged in a construction project, all expenses were considered pre-construction expenses and required capitalization based on a decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a previous case. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on this issue, supporting the capitalization of expenses for the project.

In response to a new contention raised by the assessee regarding the treatment of "Other income," the Tribunal determined that this claim necessitated a detailed examination of facts related to the income and relevant legal precedents. As the AO had not previously addressed this aspect despite suggesting capitalization of expenses, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for further examination and decision in accordance with the law.

Ultimately, the appeal of the revenue was considered allowed for statistical purposes, and the case was remanded to the AO for a fresh assessment regarding the treatment of "Other income" in relation to the pre-construction expenses.