2018 (2) TMI 1625 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal directs detailed examination of claimed expenditures and upholds disallowance of excise duty penalty.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, directing the Assessing Officer to conduct a detailed examination of the ... Revision u/s 263 - nature of expenditure incurred towards repairs and maintenance of the building - Held that:- The nature of expenditure incurred towards repair and maintenance of the building, whether capital or revenue, requires thorough enquiry and investigation at the end of the Assessing Officer. Without being influenced by the observations of the PCIT, AO is directed to examine the claim of the assessee by calling for necessary and relevant details and making independent enquiry. He has to ascertain whether by incurring such expenditure any structural change to the building/factory premises has been made by the assessee which may result in an enduring benefit or the expenditure are of regular nature. As regards the payment of excise duty, the Assessing Officer after ascertaining the facts from the assessee and verifying the same must disallow the payment made towards penalty as it is not allowable under section.37(1). With the aforesaid observations, we uphold the order of the ld.PCIT to the extent indicated above. Issues:1. Revision of assessment order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2012-13.2. Allowability of expenditure on repair and maintenance of building under the head 'manufacturing expenses.'3. Treatment of excise duty penalty as business expenditure.4. Justification of revisional jurisdiction exercised by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT).Issue 1: Revision of assessment order under section 263:The appeal was filed against an order passed by the PCIT under section 263 of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The PCIT found the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue due to certain discrepancies in the treatment of expenditures by the Assessing Officer. The PCIT called for an explanation from the assessee regarding the revision of the assessment order.Issue 2: Allowability of expenditure on repair and maintenance of building:The PCIT observed that the assessee had debited a substantial amount towards repairs and maintenance of the building under the head 'manufacturing expenses.' The PCIT considered this expenditure to be of a capital nature as it resulted in a new enduring benefit to the assessee. The assessee contended that the repairs were necessary for the continuous operation of the manufacturing activities and did not result in an enduring benefit. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to conduct a thorough enquiry to determine the nature of the expenditure.Issue 3: Treatment of excise duty penalty as business expenditure:The PCIT noted that the assessee had debited an amount towards excise duty penalty under 'sales and administrative expenses,' which the PCIT deemed as not allowable as business expenditure. The assessee argued that the penalty amount was wrongly coded and only a portion of it was an actual penalty. The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's decision to disallow the penalty amount as business expenditure.Issue 4: Justification of revisional jurisdiction by PCIT:The Tribunal found that the assessment order was cryptic and non-speaking, lacking detailed discussions or examination of the claimed deductions. The Assessing Officer had not conducted a thorough enquiry into the nature and allowability of the expenditures, leading to errors in the assessment order. The Tribunal agreed with the PCIT's decision to revise the assessment order under section 263, emphasizing the need for a proper examination of expenditures and disallowances where necessary.In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, directing the Assessing Officer to conduct a detailed examination of the expenditures claimed and make necessary adjustments based on the nature and allowability of the expenses. The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's decision regarding the disallowance of the excise duty penalty as business expenditure.