2023 (2) TMI 841 - AT - Income Tax

Nature of expenses - repairs and maintenance expenses - revenue or capital expenditure - whether there was no enduring benefit emerging out of the said expenditure? - HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact that assessee has purchased adjacent factory shed. After purchasing the factory, the assessee carried out renovation and repairs. On going through the list of expenses and vouchers submitted by the ld.AR in the paper book, it is observed that assessee has carried out flooring work i.e. assessee changed the flooring of the factory shed. It has also carried out plumbing work, painting work. It has also carried out the renovation of the compound wall. It is not the claim of the AO that a new asset has been created. It is a fact that there was an existing factory shed. The assessee has merely renovated it to suit for his purposes. By doing so, no new asset has been created. It was merely repairs of the existing asset to make it suitable for the purposes of the assessee. As relying on Oxford University Press case 1975 (7) TMI 19 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT the expenditure incurred on repairs and renovation was revenue in nature and hence, allowable as revenue expenditure. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of Rs. 50,54,779 sustained by the CIT(A).
2. Classification of repairs and maintenance expenses of Rs. 53,20,820 as capital in nature.

Issue 1 - Addition of Rs. 50,54,779:
The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) sustaining the addition of Rs. 50,54,779 made by the Assessing Officer. The Assessee contended that the addition was erroneous both in law and in fact. The Assessee argued that the repairs and renovation expenses were not capital in nature as they did not result in any enduring benefit. The Assessee presented bills and photographs of the repairs carried out, emphasizing that the expenditure was aimed at renovating the existing asset rather than creating a new one. The Assessee cited various legal decisions to support their case. The Departmental Representative for the Revenue, however, maintained that the repairs had increased the life of the asset, thus providing an enduring benefit. After hearing both parties and examining the records, the Tribunal observed that the Assessee had renovated an existing factory shed without creating a new asset. The Tribunal referred to a decision of the Bombay High Court to support their finding that the expenditure on repairs and renovation was revenue in nature. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee and held that the expenditure was allowable as revenue expenditure.

Issue 2 - Classification of repairs and maintenance expenses:
The Tribunal analyzed the nature of the repairs and renovation carried out by the Assessee on the newly purchased factory premises. The Assessee had changed the flooring, done plumbing work, painting work, and renovated the compound wall. The Assessing Officer considered these expenses as capital expenditure, a view upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). However, the Tribunal found that the repairs and renovation were aimed at maintaining and preserving the existing asset rather than creating a new one. By referring to a previous decision of the Bombay High Court, the Tribunal concluded that the expenditure incurred by the Assessee on repairs and renovation was revenue in nature. The Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal, holding that the expenditure was to be treated as revenue expenditure and hence, allowable. The appeal of the Assessee was allowed by the Tribunal.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune, comprising Judicial Member Shri S. S. Godara and Accountant Member Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, ruled in favor of the Assessee, allowing the appeal and holding that the expenditure on repairs and renovation of the factory premises was revenue in nature and therefore, allowable as revenue expenditure.