TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 1340
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....furnish proper details of such expenses. 3. It is prayed that the order of the CIT(A) be set aside and that the AO restored. 4. The appellant requests for leave to add or amend or alter the ground of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed of." 3. In ITA No.218(Asr)/2013 -A.Y.2009-10, the Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has erred in : 1. Deleting addition of Rs. 8,72,976/- made on account of catering expenses without appreciating the facts of present case and without considering the observations made by the AO and material placed on records. 2. Deleting the addition of Rs. 19, 75,000/- i.e. out of total addition of Rs. 25,06,308/- made by the AO treating these expenses as capital expenses ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mangayarkarsi Mills (SC) 315 ITR 114 which has been considered by the Ld. CIT(A), Jlandhar, in another case in appeal No.154 and 147/09-10/CIT(A)//Jal. 3. It is prayed that the order of the CIT(A) be set aside and that the AO restored. 4. The appellant requests for leave to add or amend or alter the ground of appeal bef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 80 or at Rs. 30, how the assessee was paying to the hotel at Rs. 146 and Rs. 125 per meal. In the result, she disallowed an amount of Rs. 7,65,534/- being 25% of the expenses claimed under this head. She also disallowed 25% out of other hotel bills claimed under conference expenses for the reasons mentioned in the assessment order. 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted the written explanation and additional evidence which was forwarded to the AO, who submitted the report which was received by the ld. CIT(A) on 16.11.2012. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence and after considering the same deleted the disallowances. 8. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and argued that the assessee could not co-relate the catering expenses viz-a-viz each patient. Moreover, billing has been done at a higher side which is over and above the market rate. As regards the expenses on conference and medical camp, no detail in bills is there and therefore, the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the addition and accordingly requested to reverse the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 9. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Mr. Y.K. Sud, CA argue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce of any specific defect when the AO accepts such expenditure has been incurred, no addition is warranted on estimation basis. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Hence, grounds No. 1 & 2 of revenue are dismissed. 11. Grounds No. 3 & 4 are general in nature, therefore, do not require any adjudication. 12. Now we take up appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.218(Asr)/2013 for the assessment year 2009-10. As regards ground No.1, the AO has disallowed Rs. 8,72,976/- on account of catering expenses, which have been deleted by the ld. CIT(A). 13. Since the facts and circumstances of the present case are identical to the facts of the case in ITA No.217(Asr)/2013 for the assessment year 2008- 09 decided by us in assessee's own case hereinabove and following our said order in ITA No.217(Asr)/2013 for the A.Y.2008-09, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute, who has rightly deleted the addition. Accordingly, ground No.1 of the Revenue is dismissed. 14. As regards ground No.2, the brief facts as arising from the order of the AO are reproduced for the sake of convenience as under: "During the examination of books of account,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....000/- for repair color Duppler Scanner. This is replaceable items and have got very short life period life so accordingly we have charged it to maintenance a/c. Copy of installation of the supplier M/s. Trivitron Medical is enclosed. 4.3. I have considered the reply of the assessee and the facts of the case, I find that: i) Dura 352-X-ray Tube for CT scanner of Rs. 19,75,000/- has a long life of 2 lacs seconds and after that it is replaced. Further the assesse could not furnishing any evidence that it was replaced any time earlier after purchase of CT Scanner of 11.4.04. Therefore, even if it is treated as replacement of part of machine, it is of extensive nature having durability of 4 or 5 years. ii) PGS 3 KVA online UPS is a separate machine having long life and therefore, its replacement cannot be treated as revenue in nature. iii) Water flow PCS is also a separate machine having long life and therefore, its replacement cannot be treated as revenue in nature. iv) PCB INJ LV control is a separate machine and therefore, its replacement cannot be treated as revenue in nature. v) UST-5209 has a long life and after that it is replaced. Therefore, even if it is treated a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be capital in nature and the assessee's appeal was dismissed. Hence, the sum and substance of the aforesaid judgments is that the repair of a part of a complete machine may be considered as current repairs, but the replacement of the machines cannot be termed as "current repairs". Further extensive renovation is not of the nature of current repairs and also cannot be considered for deduction as a revenue expenditure." 4.5. In view of above discussion, the expenditure of Rs. 25,06,308/- on purchase of machine/machinery parts as discussed above is not allowable as revenue expenditure as these are capital in nature. However, depreciation on it of Rs. 3,75,946/- @ of 15% is allowable and therefore an addition of Rs. 21,03,362/- shall be made to the total income of the assessee." 15. The Ld. CIT(A) accepted the contention of the assessee with regard to the Dura 352-X-Ray Tube for CT Scanner amounting to Rs. 19,75,000/- and deleted the disallowance and confirmed the rest of the disallowance for the reasons mentioned in his order. 16. The Ld. DR, relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. 17. The Ld. counsel for the assessee, Mr. Y.K. Sud, CA invited our attention to the explanati....