Marketing expenses without corresponding revenue must be classified as work-in-progress not revenue expenditure under Section 147

The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging reopening of assessment under Section 147. The petitioner claimed deductions for advertising/marketing expenses and loan processing charges. The court held that since no corresponding revenue was recognized, marketing expenses should be classified as work-in-progress rather than revenue expenditure. The Section 148 notice was issued within four years before income escaped assessment, making reopening valid. The court found no final tax liability determination in the impugned order and granted liberty to raise objections before the Assessing Officer during reassessment proceedings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Reopening of assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2017-2018.
2. Classification of expenses as capital or revenue.
3. Capitalization of Loan Processing Charges.

Summary:

Issue 1: Reopening of Assessment under Section 148

The petitioner challenged the reopening of the assessment for the Assessment Year 2017-2018, arguing that a regular Return of Income was filed under Section 139 and a Scrutiny Assessment Order was passed under Section 143(3) on 27.11.2019. The petitioner contended that all relevant information was already provided, leaving no scope for reopening under Section 148, thus constituting a jurisdictional error. The respondents maintained that the reopening was justified as the income had escaped assessment, and the notice under Section 148 was issued within the permissible period of four years.

Issue 2: Classification of Expenses

The petitioner objected to the classification of Rs. 11,00,19,005/- incurred for Model Flat and New Sales Office Expenses as capital expenditure instead of revenue expenditure. The respondents argued that since no income was recognized from the project during the relevant financial year, these expenses should have been capitalized as work in progress. The court noted that the previous assessment had already considered some of these expenses and partially disallowed them, but the reopening was justified as the full amount was not addressed.

Issue 3: Capitalization of Loan Processing Charges

The petitioner also contested the capitalization of Rs. 2,81,66,330/- towards Loan Processing Charges, arguing these were incurred for switching over loans and should be treated as revenue expenditure. The respondents countered that these charges were directly attributed to the project and should be capitalized since no income was recognized from the project. The court found that this specific issue was not raised in the original assessment order and thus warranted reopening.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the reopening of the assessment under Section 148. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all objections before the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) r/w 147 & 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court directed the Assessing Officer to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within six weeks. No costs were imposed, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

---