2014 (12) TMI 753 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules expenses claimed by assessee are revenue, not capital expenditure.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s decision, ruling that the expenses claimed by the assessee were revenue in nature, as they ... Deletion of disallowance of expenses on repairs – Capital expenses or not – Held that:- Held that:- No material was brought on record to show that any new asset was acquired by the assessee – in ACIT vs. Desai Bros. [1974 (9) TMI 9 - GUJARAT High Court] it has been held that even replacement of the petrol engine by a diesel engine would not bring into existence a new asset and was allowable as current repairs - replacement of parts of a machine, even if such replacement was more than cost of the machine itself, would qualify for deduction as revenue expenditure as no new asset or advantage of enduring benefit was brought into existence by any such expenditure - CIT(A) was rightly of the view that after treating 55% of the expenditure of ₹ 71,86,752/- as revenue, there was no justifiable basis for the AO to arbitrarily treat 45% of the same expenditure as capital in nature - The expenditure incurred can be either capital or revenue but it cannot be partly Revenue and partly capital - In respect of balance amount of ₹ 24,25,216/-, the CIT(A) found that the same was incurred for replacing the existing asset and not for acquiring any new asset – there was no material to show that any new asset which was not existing earlier was acquired by the assessee incurring the expenditure of Rs. ₹ 24,25,216/-, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) – Decided against revenue. Issues Involved:1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 56,59,254/- made by the Assessing Officer by treating the expenses on repairs as capital expenditure.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of Disallowance for Rs. 56,59,254/- as Capital Expenditure:The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee claimed an expenditure of Rs. 1,11,58,688/- on building repairs. The assessee stated that the company extended the existing showroom and workshop, capitalizing amounts on the respective asset head as per the balance sheet. The details included additions to fixed assets in buildings, electric fittings, furniture & fixtures, air conditioners, and computers.The assessee argued that the expenses were for repairs and maintenance, incurred to increase efficiency and promote business prospects as per the norms of Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. They claimed that these expenses were wholly and exclusively for business purposes, maintaining that no new capital asset was created, and the expenses were operational in nature.The AO, however, was not convinced and treated Rs. 24,25,216/- as capital expenditure. Additionally, for the expenditure of Rs. 71,86,752/-, the AO held that 45% of this amount (Rs. 32,34,038/-) should be disallowed as capital expenses, arguing that the expenditures were for renovation rather than repair.On appeal, the CIT(A) allowed the entire expenditure of Rs. 1,11,58,689/- as revenue expenditure. The CIT(A) noted that the appellant had been carrying on the same business at the same premises since 1998 and incurred expenses to meet Honda Company's standard specifications without adding new areas. The CIT(A) emphasized that the expenses did not result in acquiring a new capital asset and that the AO's partial disallowance lacked a legal basis. The CIT(A) referenced several judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decisions, which supported the view that such expenses are revenue in nature if they do not bring new assets into existence.The CIT(A) also highlighted that the AO's reliance on the decision in the case of Punj Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. was misplaced, as the expenses were for preserving or maintaining an already existing asset, not creating a new one. The CIT(A) further cited various judgments, including those of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, which supported the classification of such expenses as revenue.The Departmental Representative supported the AO's order, while the Authorized Representative of the assessee supported the CIT(A)'s order.The Tribunal, after hearing the rival submissions and perusing the records, found no material evidence to show that any new asset was acquired by the assessee. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that there was no justifiable basis for the AO to treat 45% of the expenditure as capital. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the expenses were for replacing existing assets and not for acquiring new ones, confirming the order of the CIT(A) and dismissing the Revenue's appeal.Conclusion:The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, holding that the expenses incurred by the assessee were revenue in nature as they were for maintaining or preserving existing assets without acquiring any new capital assets. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.