Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA
The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Vadodeara (‘CIT(A)’ in short), dated 22.09.2015 arising in the assessment order dated 24.02.2015 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2012-13.
The revised grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue is reproduced hereunder:
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.262.93 lakhs made on account of disallowance of claim of guarantee fees paid to Government of Gujarat disregarding the applicable statutory provisions contained under S 37 of Income tax Act,1961 which do not allow any expenditure of capital nature. The disallowance was made by disallowing the claim as revenue expenditure as it is of enduring nature in the assessee's business and hence capital in nature.
2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.42.86 lakhs made on account of disallowance of claim of cost of raising finance for specialized job as revenue expenditure. The ld.CIT(Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that as the result of this expenditure, the assessee had derived benefit of enduring nature, hence the expenditure is of capital nature."
As pointed out on behalf of the assessee, both the aforesaid grounds are covered in favour of the assessee in its own case concerning AY 2008-09 in order dated 12.06.2015. The relevant para of the order of the Tribunal is reproduced hereunder:
“29. In the Revenue's appeal, the ground no.1 of the appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.50,90,96,000/- made on account of disallowance of claim of guarantee fees paid to Government of Gujarat.
Brief facts of the case are that the AO observed that the assessee paid guarantee fee of Rs.5,69,35,000/- to the Govt. of Gujarat in consideration of guarantee issued by it for repayment of unsecured loan. Further, the assessee also claimed Rs.21,61,000/- on account of cost of raising finance under the head "cost of raising finance" as per the profit & loss account.
In reply to show cause notice to the assessee, the assessee submitted that erstwhile GEB has raised various loans, guarantee of which was given by Govt. of Gujarat, and for the guarantee given by the Govt. of Gujarat, the GEB is required to pay guarantee fees as per rules. After the split of the company, the said loan were still continued, which were guaranteed by the Govt. of Gujarat. Therefore, every year these guarantee fees become payable to Govt. of Gujarat on recurring basis. Regarding the cost of raising finance, the assessee submitted that the finance was raised during the year, and accordingly, the cost incurred for raising finance was charged to current year's profit & loss account. The AO did not accept the above explanation of the assessee on the ground that the assessee did not furnish the details of the purpose for which the loans were taken for which the guarantee fees were claimed. Further, if the fees paid for loans facility in respect of fixed assets, nature of assets, the date of put-to-use has not been submitted. The assessee also failed to furnish any agreement with the Govt. of Gujarat for charging guarantee fees and method of its computation against the loan amounts. In the absence of these details it was not possible to entertain the assessee's claim. The AO further observed that the cost of raising the finance can also not be considered as revenue expenses for want of details. He, accordingly, disallowed Rs.5,90,96,000/-.
On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that guarantee fee was an annual recurring expenditure incurred by the assessee. Guarantee fee was payable to Govt. of Gujarat every year in respect of loans taken by the assessee and guaranteed by the Govt. of Gujarat. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of India Cements Ltd., 60 ITR 52 (SC), loan cannot be treated as asset or advantage resulting in enduring benefits. Guarantee fees paid to Govt. of Gujarat was in connection with raising of loans and enduring benefit or advantage could not be said to have resulted by taking such loans. Only if the assets acquired out of such loans were not put-to-use till the end of previous year i.e. 31.3.2008, the guarantee fees to such extent i.e. in respect of such loans only could be capitalized as cost of such asset. The assessee has certified that no new project was started or commissioned during the year for which above guarantee was paid, and the guarantee fees was in respect of loans for acquisition of capital assets, which were already put-to-use prior to 1.4.2007. The guarantee fees of Rs.5,69,35,000/- is directed to be allowed as revenue expenditure, subject to verification by the AO of the certificate filed during the appellate proceedings i.e. there was no capital work-in-progress in respect of loans on which guarantee fees was paid.
Regarding cost of raising finance of Rs.21.61 lakhs is concerned, the CIT(A) observed that the same was an allowable deduction and being revenue expenditure, following the decision in the case of India Cements Ltd. (supra) disallowance of Rs.21,61,000/- was cancelled.
The DR supported the order of the AO, whereas, the AR of the assessee supported the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that the issue was now covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of assessee itself dated 8.5.2015 passed in 2974/Ahd/2010 and 3004/Ahd/2010.
We find that the Tribunal in its order dated 8.5.2015 cited supra has held as under:
"6. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the ld.CIT(A) decided these issues in paras- 5.2 & 5.3 and 6.2 respectively by observing as under:- "5.2. I have considered the submissions of the ld.AR and the facts of the case. The issue relating to whether an item of expenditure lies in the capital or the revenue field has exercised the courts in numerous cases. From an analysis of such cases a few guiding principles/tests can be identified. One of the important tests for categorizing any expenditure as capital in nature is whether the laying out of the impugned expenditure results in the acquisition of creation of any new asset. Where no such asset is created, it would be indicative of an expenditure which was not capital in nature. Another test relates to the principle of "enduring benefit". "Enduring benefit" may be in the form of long lasting use of an asset or the acquisition of a right to exploit certain commercial processes, etc. In the instant case, the assessee did not acquire any right to exploit a commercial technology or process, and neither was the benefit "enduring", since the payment of guarantee commission was an annual charge. The benefit derived from payment of such commission thus lasted for exactly one year only. Such shortlived benefit cannot be categorized as "enduring". Hence, I am inclined to the view that the payment of guarantee commission was a revenue expenditure. 5.3. Further, the jurisdictional Bench of ITAT had occasion to consider the allowability of guarantee commission paid to a Director of the company in respect of loans taken from the bank. In the case of Himalaya Machinery Pvt.Ltd. (ITA No.738/Ahd/2009) for AY 2006-07, the Tribunal held, vide order dt.5.6.2009, following the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Metalising Equipment Co.Pvt.Ltd., 8 DTR 12, that the payment of commission for guaranteeing repayment of loan was allowable as revenue expense. In the instant case, the loan has been guaranteed by the Government of Gujarat. Hence, quite apart from the other sound reasons for treating the expenditure as revenue, it would be unrealistic to say that the appellant company could derive any undue advantage or collateral benefit by making such payment to the GOG. In view of the totality of the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the AO was not justified in treating the payment of guarantee commission (Rs.8,39,04,550/-) as capital in nature. The addition is directed to be deleted. 6.2. I have considered the submissions of the ld.AR and the facts of the case. The jurisdictional Bench of ITAT has held in the case of Shri Rama Multi Tech vs. ACIT, 92 TTJ 568, that in determining the nature of expenditure incurred for obtaining loan, it is irrelevant to consider the purpose of loan. The amount spent on stamp duty, lawyer fees, etc. for obtaining loan secured by charge on its fixed assets is a revenue expenditure, because the transactions were entered into directly to facilitate the business of the company and payment of consultancy charges was made on ground of commercial expediency. In India Cements Ltd. vs. CIT, 60 ITR 52, the Supreme Court had also held that the expenditure incurred for securing the use of money for a certain period was revenue expenditure. In the instant case, the assessee has secured the loan by creating a charge (hypothecation of its assets). Hence the ratio of the above mentioned two cases would squarely apply. Accordingly, it is held that the AO was not justified in making the disallowance of Rs.45,24,582/-, which is directed to be deleted."
ITA No. 3356/Ahd/15 [DCIT vs. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corp. Ltd.] A.Y. 2012-13 - 5 - 6.1 The ld.CIT(A) has followed the decision of the Tribunal passed in for AY 2006-07 in the case of Himalaya Machinery Pvt.Ltd., dated 5.6.2009 and in the case of Shri Rama Multi Tech vs. ACIT reported at 92 TTJ 568. 6.2. The ld.CIT-DR could not distinguish the facts of the case, therefore we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the ld.CIT(A), same is hereby upheld. Thus, these two grounds raised in the Revenue's appeal are rejected."
36. DR could not point out any good reason as to why the above quoted order of the Tribunal should not be followed for the year under consideration. In the absence of distinguishing features being pointed out by the DR, and the facts being identical, respectfully following the above quoted decision of the Tribunal, we confirm the order of the CIT(A), and dismiss this ground of appeal of the Revenue.”
4. In parity with the order of the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that CIT(A) has rightly adjudicated the issue in favour of the assessee. We thus decline to interfere with the order of the CIT(A).
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
This Order pronounced in Open Court on 31/01/2020
Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 31/01/2020 True Copy S. K. SINHA आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. राज�व / Revenue 2. आवेदक / Assessee 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद ।