2021 (7) TMI 259 - HC - Income Tax

Prior period expenditure - Whether Tribunal is right in holding that the expenditure was crystalized during the relevant previous year when the assessee hijmself has classified the expenses as prior period expenditure ? - Tribunal held that one time payment made by the assessee towards prepayment premimum and interest compense is business expenditure in the nature of revenue Expenditure - HELD THAT - Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, following the ratio laid down in SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA 2012 (9) TMI 621 - SC ORDER the questions of law are decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging disallowance of expenses claimed by the assessee - Revenue's appeal against the Tribunal's order allowing the assessee's appeal - Interpretation of expenses as capital or revenue expenditure.

Analysis:
1. The assessee, a sugar manufacturer, filed a return of income for the Assessment Year 2007-2008, declaring NIL income. During scrutiny, the Assessing Officer disallowed an expense of &8377; 4,20,60,863 claimed as extraordinary expenses, including a payment of &8377; 10,00,000 for research study. Another claim of &8377; 4,08,22,374 was made towards pre-payment premium and interest to banks under a Corporate Debt Restructuring agreement. The Assessing Officer considered these expenses as capital in nature, leading to their disallowance. The assessment was completed on 24.11.2009 under section 143(3).

2. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and then to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which allowed the appeal on 20.03.2015. The Revenue challenged this decision by filing the current appeal before the High Court.

3. The substantial questions of law admitted for consideration were whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the expenses were crystallized during the relevant year and whether the one-time payment made by the assessee was a business expenditure in the nature of revenue expenditure.

4. During the hearing, the Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a similar case, where it was held that prepayment premium paid by the assessee was to be allowed as a deduction in the year of accrual as revenue expenditure. The Counsel submitted that based on this judgment, the questions of law should be decided against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee.

5. The counsel for the respondent-assessee concurred with the submission based on the Supreme Court's judgment, requesting the appeal to be dismissed.

6. Following the Supreme Court's decision, the High Court decided the questions of law against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee, ultimately dismissing the Tax Case Appeal with no costs.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the final decision rendered by the High Court based on the precedent set by the Supreme Court's judgment in a similar case.