TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 382
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt appeal for which the petition for condonation of delay and affidavit are placed on record. From the Affidavit, we note that the assessee was out of station when the appeal memo was sent to him by the Counsel for its signature and therefore a short delay of 5 days occurred. Considering the petition and in the interest of justice and fair play, we find it proper to admit the appeal and proceed to adjudicate thereon. 3. The Grounds of appeal are reproduced as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A) erred in passing the order in the manner which he did. 2. The conditions precedent being absent, the reopening of the assessment U/s. 147 is bad in law. 3. The learned CIT(A) having not adjudicated the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted on 24.12.2010. Subsequently, the case was reopened by invoking the provision of Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act, for which the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2015. In response to the said notice, return was filed on 04.06.2015 reporting the same total income as was reported originally. In the course of reassessment proceedings, Ld. AO noted that assessee has incurred expenditure on restaurant renovation amounting to Rs. 10,57,901/- out of which Rs. 3,76,563/- were in respect of purchase of tiles and the balance in relation to labour cost and other materials including sand, cement, plumbing material etc. Ld. AO also noted that the assessee has incurred expenditure on Neon Light Sign Board of Rs. 80,000/-. Asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ties below. To buttress this submission, Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT vs. Mac Charles (India) Ltd. in ITA NO. 488/2009 dated 17.11.2014. The substantial question of law before the Hon'ble Court in the said decision is reproduced as under: 3. The appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards interior decoration and refurnishing should be treated as a revenue expenditure when the assessee gained a enduring advantage and the same constitute capital expenditure? 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in not taking into consideration that after....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... in Tax Appeal No. 72 of 2018 dated 07.01.2019 wherein the issue under consideration was in respect of treatment of expenditure towards repairs and renovation of the assessee's hotel as revenue or capital which was held to be in favour of the assessee by treating it as revenue in nature. The relevant extract of the said decision are reproduced as under: "2. The challenge in this Appeal is to the order dated 13 April, 2018 made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (ITAT), Panajji, dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant/Revenue against the order dated 30 May, 2017, made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) (Appeals) relevant to the Assessment Year 2008-09. The CIT (Appeals), as well as the ITAT, have concurrently held that the ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as simple case where the existing assets were repaired, or to some extent renovated. The CIT Appeals, as well as the ITAT, on facts, have held that this was not a case where some new asset was brought into existence or new advantage of enduring nature was obtained. Such concurrent findings of fact do not suffer from any perversity, so as to give rise to any substantial question of law." 8.3. Reference was also made by the Ld. Counsel to the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Pandiyan Hotels Ltd. vs. DCIT in Tax Case Appeal No. 226 of 2018 dated 16.07.2020. 9. Per contra, Ld. Sr. D.R pointed out to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saravana Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2007] 293 ITR 201(SC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ilding." and held the expenditure as capital in nature. It is also fact on record that no new addition of assets or facilities has come into existence in respect of the existing resort/hotel of the assessee. We note that the expenditure incurred by the assessee have been made to provide the same benefit as were available at the time of their initial installation. Further, there have been no addition to the number of rooms of the resorts/hotel or any other space to generate the additional income from that place. Thus, respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay, Bench at Goa in the case of Goa Tourism Development Ltd. (Supra) and also of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Mac Charles (India) Lt....