2020 (2) TMI 414 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT Bangalore dismisses revenue's petition on agreement date, upholds capital expenditure for cricket academy.

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5 (1) (1), Bangalore. Versus M/s. Royal Challenger Sports Pvt. Ltd.

The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Bangalore dismissed the revenue's Misc. Petition seeking rectification of apparent mistakes in the order regarding the date of ... Rectification of mistake u/s 154 - characterisation of income - HELD THAT:- This fact is very much noted by the Assessing Officer that the date of Agreement itself is not in the period relevant to the Asst. Year in question. But even after noting this aspect of the matter, addition was not made by him on the basis of date of Agreement but on the basis that the amount in question is capital in nature. Hence the contention raised in the present M.P. that there is apparent mistake in the Tribunal order because the Tribunal has not considered the date of Agreement is devoid of any merit. Under these facts and circumstances, we hold that there is no mistake apparent in the Tribunal order on this aspect. Issues:1. Rectification of apparent mistakes in the order regarding the date of the agreement with Karnataka State Cricket Association.2. Disallowance and addition of an amount towards the creation of a cricket academy as capital expenditure.Issue 1: Rectification of Apparent Mistakes:The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Bangalore addressed a Misc. Petition filed by the revenue seeking rectification of certain apparent mistakes in the order. The revenue contended that the agreement with Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA) was dated 14.09.2011, which was after the relevant financial year of F.Y. 2009-10 for Assessment Year 2010-11. The Departmental Representative argued that this oversight by the Tribunal constituted an apparent mistake that needed rectification. However, the Assessee's Authorized Representative countered by pointing out that the Assessing Officer had acknowledged the agreement's post-relevance date but proceeded to examine the liability of the payment made during the relevant financial year. The Tribunal considered these arguments and held that the decision was based on the payment's liability and not solely on the agreement's date, thus dismissing the revenue's Misc. Petition.Issue 2: Disallowance of Amount as Capital Expenditure:The revenue filed a Misc. Petition challenging the disallowance and addition of an amount towards the creation of a cricket academy as capital expenditure. The revenue argued that the agreement with KSCA was dated after the relevant financial year, and no evidence of the academy existed at the time of payment. The Assessing Officer noted this discrepancy but allowed the examination of the payment's allowability based on the payment date. The Tribunal reviewed the assessment order and observed that the academy was yet to be established, and the expenditure was considered capital in nature due to enduring benefits to the assessee company. Despite the agreement's post-relevance date, the Tribunal found that the decision was justified based on the capital nature of the expenditure and the benefits accruing to the company. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's Misc. Petition, upholding the disallowance and addition of the amount as capital expenditure.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Bangalore, in the judgment, thoroughly analyzed the issues raised by the revenue regarding apparent mistakes in the order and the disallowance of an amount as capital expenditure. The Tribunal's decision emphasized the assessment of liability and the capital nature of the expenditure, ultimately dismissing the revenue's Misc. Petition in both instances.