TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 1222
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tune of Rs. 69,43,468/- & Rs. 45,00,394/- to that of 90% and 80%; respectively, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act". 2. It is evident at the outset that the assessee's instant appeal suffers from delay in filing of 491days. It has also filed a condonation petition. It emerges that the assessee had earlier filed ITA No.1979/Ahd/2011 against the very lower appellate order. The department conducted a survey in assessee's case on 12 & 13th December, 2011 during pendency of its abovestated appeal. The assessee's authorized person Shri Hiren A. Gandhi got recorded his statement accepting that 35% amount of repairs alike the one in hand pertaining to building plant and machinery over the period of five years ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enefits and advantages had accrued to assessee from the above two claims. He thus treated the same to be capital expenditure. 4. The CIT(A) partly upholds the Assessing Officer's action as under: "4.2 I have considered the matter. As per section 30(a)(ii)/31(i), amount incurred towards "current repairs" of buildings/plant and machinery or furniture is allowable as a deduction subject to the condition in Explanation below section 30/31 that such amount shall not include any expenditure in the nature of capita! expenditure. Further, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ballimal Naval Kishore (1997) 224 1TR 414 (SC), the test evolved by Chagla C.J. in New Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturing Co Ltd v CIT is the most appropriate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant did not submit detailed note on the works carried out as asked for nor it was elaborated as to how expenditure of such magnitude year after year constitutes 'repairs' or "current repairs'. Appellant only submitted details of bills above Rs. 50,000/- with narration in some of the cases specifying the location in the hotel where the work was carried out. Appellant has two hotels called Express Towers (H1) and Express Residency (H2). Item nos. 4, 5, 6, 1, 14, 15, 52, 60, 104, 105, 106, 109, 113, 119, 123 and 124 of the details submitted for building repairs are stated to be for Room Nos. 301 to 312 of Express Residency Hotel (H2). These items are bills above Rs. 50,000/- for purchasing material of various kinds for these roo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r : Rs. 96,000/- Expenditure for purchase of plant and machinery having independent functioning, in any case is of capital nature and not allowable as 'current repairs'. For remaining items, appellant has not specified as to where exactly in. the hotels and for what purpose the material purchased was utilized. Appellant's contention that the expenditure qualifies as 'current repairs' cannot, therefore be accepted on its face value. In this context, relevant is to note that appellant claimed following amounts under the head repairs to building and repairs to plant and machinery over the years; AY Repairs & maintenance to building (Rs.) Repairs & maintenance to plant and machinery (Rs.) 2005-06 45,84,858/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to plant & machinery,, it would be fair to consider 20% as 'current repairs' allowable u/s 31, Disallowance of balance expenditure out of Rs. 45,00,394/- claimed as repairs to plant and machinery is confirmed for the same reasons as for repairs to building. Depreciation allowed by the AO may be modified accordingly. 5. We have heard both the parties. Relevant findings perused. The sole issue between the parties is about treatment of assessee's repair claims pertaining to its hotel building and plant & machinery. Both the lower authorities except to the extent of minor fraction in lower appellate order hold the same as capital expenditure. It emerges that this tribunal's co-ordinate benches in assessment years 2005-06 to 2007-08 h....