1990 (12) TMI 141 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Rules for Assessee on Investment Allowance, Disallows Repairs Expenses

INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER. Versus RAMBAGH PALACE HOTEL (P) LTD.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the allowance of 'Investment Allowance' under section 32A, directing the Assessing Officer to grant ... - Issues:1. Allowance of 'Investment Allowance' to the assessee.2. Disallowance of repairs expenses for the assessment years.3. Allowance of 'Extra Shift Depreciation' for the assessment year.Issue 1: Allowance of 'Investment Allowance' to the assesseeThe Department contended that a Hotel cannot be considered an Industrial Undertaking eligible for investment allowance. They argued that the entire Hotel business should not be covered by the provisions of s. 32A. The Department cited precedents to support their argument. However, the assessee relied on the decision of the learned CIT(A) and a previous Tribunal decision in their favor. The Tribunal, after considering arguments from both sides, decided in favor of the assessee. They held that the assessee is entitled to the claim of investment allowance under s. 32A, subject to satisfying other conditions laid down in the section. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to examine the conditions and grant the investment allowance accordingly.Issue 2: Disallowance of repairs expenses for the assessment yearsThe Department objected to the deletion of disallowance of repairs expenses by the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the concept of repairs for a Five Star Hotel differs from that of an ordinary trader or manufacturer. For the assessment year 1983-84, the Tribunal agreed with the Department that certain items may not qualify as current repairs. However, they found no justification for a flat-rate disallowance of 20%. For the assessment year 1984-85, the Tribunal directed the matter to be restored to the Assessing Officer for a detailed examination. The Tribunal instructed the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity to explain their case and to disallow expenses, if necessary, after proper examination and recording of reasons.Issue 3: Allowance of 'Extra Shift Depreciation' for the assessment yearThe Department objected to the allowance of 'Extra Shift Depreciation' by the CIT(A) for the assessment year 1984-85. The Department argued that the hotel must be approved by the Central Government for the purpose of grant of development rebate to claim this benefit. The CIT(A) allowed the claim based on the replacement of development rebate by investment allowance and cited a Supreme Court decision in support. The Department contended that compliance with the requirements of the IT Rules was essential. The Tribunal agreed with the Department, stating that the extra depreciation allowance could not be allowed as the conditions of an approved hotel were not fulfilled. They reversed the CIT(A)'s order on this point, emphasizing that the extra depreciation could not be allowed without meeting the necessary conditions.In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed both appeals, ruling in favor of the assessee on the issue of 'Investment Allowance' but in favor of the Department on the issues of disallowance of repairs expenses and 'Extra Shift Depreciation'. The judgments were delivered collectively for the sake of convenience due to common points involved in both appeals.