DCIT,CIRCLE-5(1). , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BALMER LAWRIE AND CO. LTD. , KOLKATA

The Hon'ble Court answered the question in favour of the assessee by held as under: 10. Special Bench of the Tribunal gave its view regarding advance payment of rent to be capital expenditure on findings, inter alia, that there was termination clause, by which premature termination did not provide for refund of premium, claimed to be advanced rent, there was no clause in the agreement to show that 3 the amount of Rs.2.04 crore was paid by the assessee as advance rent for all future years and the lump sum payment of future years rent had been paid to avail some concession for advance payment of rent or for some other business consideration. It is clear from our perusal of terms of leases between assessee and its lessors, such terms are not there between them. We are unable to appreciate that fact of rent being depressed rent can only be appreciated as such if there is recital about it in the lease rent. That substantial amount of money was paid as premium, claimed and shown by assessee to be advance rents and where rents reserved are as above, it follows there was no contention raised before the Tribunal regarding the rents reserved corresponding to market rate of rent. We have no hesitation to infer that rents reserved are depressed rents. 11. Finding by the Tribunal that assessee's agreements are exactly similar with the agreements before Special Bench, considered and dealt with in Mukund Ltd. (supra) is perverse as based on no material or contrary to material before it. 12. For reasons aforesaid we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of assessee.

The above decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has subsequently been followed by this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2013-14. We, therefore, respectfully following the same, dismiss this common grounds raised

The ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset stated that the issue stands covered by the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta in the assessee's own case for AY 2012-13 in dated 13.03.2023. Per contra the ld. D/R failed to controvert this contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee.

We observe that this issue raised before us relating to disallowance of prior period expenses has been dealt by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2012-13 and the relevant finding given by the Hon'ble Court in para 4 is extracted below: “..Further on perusing the details furnished by the assessee with regard to those expenses, the tribunal noted that the assessee had claimed deduction in respect of items which were revenue in nature and therefore fully allowable in arriving at its business income. Further the learned tribunal has pointed out that the revenue did not controvert the contention raised by the assessee that no deduction in respect of these expenses was allowed in the prior years and the tax rate in the earlier years and in the year under consideration were same and therefore irrespective of the year of deduction allowed, the revenue’s effect was taxed neutral. The learned tribunal also referred to the decision of the High Court of Gujarat in PCIT Versus Adani Enterprises Limited Tax Appeal No. 566 of 2016 and found the said decision to be relevant to the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, we find that the learned CIT(A) and the learned tribunal has examined the facts and granted relief to the assessee and more importantly that for the earlier assessment years i.e. 2005-2006, 2009-2010, the revenue has accepted the orders passed by the CIT(A). Though the appeal was filed before the tribunal for the assessment years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, the same were dismissed. Thus, a consistent view is required to be adopted in the absence of any material placed by the revenue before the required tribunal to show that there was any distinguishing feature in the assessment year under consideration to make a departure from the earlier view.

Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, the findings given by the Ld. CIT(A) in allowing the claim of the assessee in respect of prior period expenditure is upheld and Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16.

Now, the last issue for our consideration, is Ground No. 2 raised for Assessment Year 2018-19, which relates to claims for investment allowance of Rs.18,78,36,932/- made by the assessee u/s 35AD of the Act. 15. The facts relating to this ground are that, the assessee had set-up and commenced operations of a Temperature Controlled Warehouse (‘TCW’) at Haryana in the relevant FY 2017-18. Since said activity of TCW qualified as a ‘specified business’ as defined u/s 35AD of the Act, the whole of the capital expenditure of Rs.18,78,36,932/- incurred in relation thereto was claimed as deduction u/s 35AD of the Act. During the course of assessment, the AO observed that the trade license provide relevant details/evidence that the said business activity of TCW had commenced during FY 2017-18 and therefore it was eligible to claim deduction for the investment allowance u/s 35AD of the Act. The Assessing Officer observed that the trade license to operate the business was obtained by the assessee only on 11.07.2018, which, according to ld. AO, suggested that the business had commenced only in the subsequent FY 2018-19 (AY 2019-20) and hence the claim of the 7 Assessment Year: 2015-16 I.T.A. No. 369/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017- Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s. Balmer Lawrie and Co. Limited assessee u/s 35AD of the Act cannot be allowed for Assessment Year 2018-19.

Assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and stated that except for obtaining the trade license all the other formalities connected to the commencement of business of TCW has been completed during FY 2017-18. The same includes, the clearances from the Haryana Pollution Control Board and the Fire Department, power connection and regular bills for electricity, sales/revenue received during the year from the said business. Based on these facts, the ld. CIT(A) granted the relief to the assessee.

Aggrieved, the revenue is now in appeal before this Tribunal. Ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the order of the ld. Assessing Officer and stated that the trade license has been obtained in FY 2018- 19 and without obtaining such license assessee could not operate the business activity of TCW.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee, vehemently argued supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A) and again took us through the documents stating that all the other formalities connected with the business activity has been complied with and, therefore, the finding of the ld. CIT(A) may be confirmed.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the material placed before us. We notice that the assessee incurred capital expenditure towards setting up of a specific business of TCW at Haryana. The 8 Assessment Year: 2015-16 I.T.A. No. 369/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017- Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s. Balmer Lawrie and Co. Limited assessee claimed deduction u/s 35AD of the Act as the TCW qualified as a specific business. There is no dispute at the end of the revenue authorities that the said business is not a specified business. The only dispute is that whether the said claim is allowable for Assessment Year 2018-19 (FY 2017-18) or for Assessment Year 2019-20 (FY 2018-19). The assessee has claimed deduction u/s 35AD of the Act in AY 2018-19 claiming that the business had been commenced and statutory clearances from Haryana Pollution Control Board and the Fire Department has been obtained, copies of power bills issued by Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd (‘SEB’) from the month of May 2017 onwards to show that substantial power was being consumed to run and operate the TCW. Reference was also made to the relevant excerpts from the Management Report audited by the CAG, India which also clearly stated that the business of TCW had commenced during FY 2017-18. Further, we notice that the ld. CIT(A) allowed the said claim u/s 35AD of the Act by observing as follows:- “7.13 The appellant had installed temperature controlled warehouse for storage of agricultural products. To apply for trade license, one has to obtain NOC from Fire Department, Pollution Control Board, details of Property tax payment details, Building approval Plan, Occupation Certificate etc. These all NOCs are being issued by the municipal authorities itself. In the instant case, the appellant submitted the NOC from fire department as well as Pollution Control Board. Suffice to say that before getting NOCs from Fire department and pollution control board, the heavy machinery would have installed and building approval plan, occupation certificate, etc. had also been obtained from municipal authorities. Thus, the appellant would have got all the NOC/consent from the concerned municipal authority except trade licence. No doubt, trade licence is a necessary document/certificate that allows you the right to operate 8 your business in a particular municipal limit. The very purpose of obtaining trade licence is to ensure that no individual is carrying out unethical business practices and is following relevant rules, safety measures and guidelines. The question is not that when the trade licence was issued to appellant, the question is that during the period of 18.10.2017 (date of commencement of operation as claimed by the appellant) to 11.07.2018 (date of issuance of trade licence), whether the appellant had followed relevant rules, safety measure and guidelines or not or the business activity carried out during this period was unethical. The appellant had obtained NOCs from Fire department and Pollution Control Board which is controlled by the municipal corporation, therefore, the appellant followed the relevant rules, safety measure and guidelines and not doing any unethical business.