2009 (9) TMI 633 - HC - Income Tax

Tools and dies expenditure of Rs. 10.56 crores allowed as revenue expenditure despite high cost and lifespan

Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Sunbeam Auto Ltd.

The Delhi HC ruled in favor of the assessee regarding expenditure of Rs. 10,56,69,367 on tools and dies claimed as revenue expenditure. The Commissioner ... Revision - assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 - erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue - Nature of the expenditure on tools and dies - tools and dies had a very short span of life - Revenue or capital expenditure - Held That:- Learned counsel for the assessee is right in his submission that one has to keep in mind the distinction between “lack of inquiry” and “inadequate inquiry”. If there was any inquiry, even inadequate that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 of the Act, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter. It is only in cases of “lack of inquiry” that such a course of action would be open. We find that the Assessing Officer had called for explanation on this very item, from the assessee and the assessee had furnished his explanation vide letter dated September 26, 2002. This fact is even taken note of by the Commissioner himself in paragraph 3 of his order dated November 3, 2004. This clearly shows that the Assessing Officer had undertaken the exercise of examining as to whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee in the replacement of dies and tools is to be treated as revenue expenditure or not. It appears that since the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the aforesaid explanation, he accepted the same. Thus, even the Commissioner conceded the position that the Assessing Officer made inquiries, elicited replies and thereafter passed the assessment order. The grievance of the Commissioner was that the Assessing Officer should have made further inquiries rather than accepting the explanation. Therefore, it cannot he said that it is a case of “lack of inquiry”. The present case proceeded on the controversy right from the order of the Assessing Officer till the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal as to whether this expenditure was revenue or capital in nature. Even before us, the arguments rested on this aspect. Likewise, whether the Commissioner should have recorded a definite finding or not, may not be very relevant factor in the present case where on the facts of this case we have found that the opinion of the Assessing Officer in treating the expenditure as revenue expenditure was plausible and thus there was no material before the Commissioner of Income-tax to vary that opinion and ask for fresh inquiry. Thus, from whatever the matter is to be looked into, the conclusion would be that the order of the Tribunal does not call for any interference as the question of law has rightly been decided. We, thus, answer this question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, consequence whereof this appeal is dismissed with costs. The core legal issue considered by the Court was whether the Commissioner of Income-tax correctly assumed jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to revise the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. This raised subsidiary questions regarding the nature of the expenditure on tools and dies-whether it should be treated as revenue expenditure or capital expenditure-and whether the Assessing Officer had applied his mind adequately while allowing the expenditure as revenue expenditure.The Court examined the following key issues:Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax was justified in invoking section 263 to revise the assessment order on the ground that it was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.The nature of expenditure on tools and dies: revenue expenditure or capital expenditure.The adequacy of the inquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer before allowing the expenditure as revenue expenditure.The legal principles governing the exercise of revisional powers under section 263, including the requirement of a definite finding that the order sought to be revised was erroneous and prejudicial.The applicability of relevant precedents relating to 'current repairs' and the distinction between capital and revenue expenditure.In addressing the first issue, the Court referred to the statutory framework of section 263 of the Income-tax Act, which empowers the Commissioner to revise an assessment order only if it is 'erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.' The Court emphasized that this power is not arbitrary but must be exercised on the basis of materials on record, and that the Commissioner cannot substitute his judgment for that of the Assessing Officer merely because he disagrees with the conclusion reached. The Court relied on authoritative precedents which establish that an order cannot be deemed erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law, and that mere dissatisfaction with the Assessing Officer's conclusion does not warrant revision under section 263.Regarding the adequacy of inquiry by the Assessing Officer, the Court distinguished between 'lack of inquiry' and 'inadequate inquiry.' It held that the Assessing Officer had indeed made inquiries into the nature of the expenditure, sought explanations from the assessee, and accepted the explanation provided. The Commissioner's grievance that the inquiry was inadequate did not amount to lack of inquiry, and therefore, did not justify exercise of revisional powers under section 263. The Court quoted the detailed explanation furnished by the assessee regarding the short life span of the dies, their consumption in the manufacturing process, and the inclusion of their cost in the sale price, which was accepted by the Assessing Officer.On the nature of the expenditure, the Court noted that the dies and tools were parts of the manufacturing machines with a short life span (approximately one year), requiring frequent replacement to maintain accuracy and production quality. The replacement did not bring into existence a new asset, nor did it enhance the life or capacity of the existing machines. The Court referred to the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Mysore Spun Concrete Pipe P. Ltd., where replacement of moulds, parts of machinery, was held to be revenue expenditure. The Court found that the view taken by the Assessing Officer treating the expenditure as revenue expenditure was one of the possible views and thus could not be held to be erroneous or prejudicial to the Revenue.The Court also addressed the argument that the Commissioner had not recorded a definite finding that the expenditure was capital in nature. It held that while a definite finding is generally desirable, it is not mandatory in every case, especially where two views are possible. The Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. which held that when two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one, the order cannot be held to be prejudicial to the Revenue. Thus, the Commissioner's order remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer without a final conclusion was not sustainable under section 263.In considering the precedents relied upon by the Revenue, the Court distinguished the facts of the present case from those cases. In particular, the Court noted that the Supreme Court's decision in Saravana Spg. Mills P. Ltd., which dealt with 'current repairs,' involved replacement of an entire machine or a major independent machine part, whereas in the present case the dies were parts of machines and their replacement was akin to maintenance rather than acquisition of a new asset. The Court also noted that the accounting practice followed by the assessee, consistently debiting the cost of tools and dies to the profit and loss account, had been accepted by the Revenue in earlier and subsequent years, which reinforced the legitimacy of the Assessing Officer's view.The Court further clarified that the Assessing Officer is not required to give detailed reasons in the assessment order for each item of expenditure allowed, and acceptance of the assessee's explanation after inquiry suffices to demonstrate application of mind. The Commissioner's dissatisfaction with the adequacy of inquiry or the accounting practice does not justify revision under section 263 unless the order is shown to be erroneous and prejudicial on the basis of record materials.In conclusion, the Court held that the order of the Assessing Officer allowing the expenditure as revenue expenditure was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Commissioner of Income-tax had no jurisdiction to revise the assessment order under section 263 merely because he held a different opinion or found the inquiry inadequate. The Tribunal's decision allowing the assessee's appeal was upheld, and the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed with costs.Significant holdings include the following verbatim excerpts:'From a reading of sub-section (1) of section 263, it is clear that the power of suo motu revision can be exercised by the Commissioner only if, on examination of the records of any proceedings under this Act, he considers that any order passed therein by the Income-tax Officer is 'erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue'. It is not an arbitrary or unchartered power, it can be exercised only on fulfilment of the requirements laid down in sub-section (1).''If an Income-tax Officer acting in accordance with law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because, according to him, the order should have been written more elaborately.''The Assessing Officer had undertaken the exercise of examining as to whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee in the replacement of dies and tools is to be treated as revenue expenditure or not. It appears that since the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the aforesaid explanation, he accepted the same.''When two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible views, then the order cannot be held to be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.''The accounting practice followed by the assessee is questioned. However, that basis of the order vanishes in thin air when we find that this very accounting practice, followed for a number of years, had the approval of the income-tax authorities.'Core principles established include:The Commissioner's power under section 263 is circumscribed and cannot be exercised merely because the Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's conclusion.An order is 'erroneous' under section 263 only if it is not in accordance with law or is based on incorrect or incomplete interpretation of facts or law.The Assessing Officer's acceptance of the assessee's explanation after inquiry amounts to application of mind, and the absence of detailed reasons in the assessment order does not render it erroneous.The nature of expenditure on replacement of parts that do not create new assets or enhance the life or capacity of existing assets is revenue expenditure.Where two views are possible, the Assessing Officer's view cannot be held to be erroneous or prejudicial to Revenue for the purpose of section 263.The final determination was that the Commissioner of Income-tax did not correctly assume jurisdiction under section 263 to revise the assessment order, as the order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the Revenue. The Tribunal's decision allowing the assessee's appeal was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed with costs.