CIT vs. BHARAT GEARS LTD

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . ITA 509/2012 . . . CIT ..... Appellant . Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra, Sr. Standing Counsel. . versus . BHARAT GEARS LTD ..... Respondent . Through: . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR . O R D E R . 03.09.2012 . . . The appellant is aggrieved by the order of the ITAT dated 23.03.2012 in ITA No.1787/Del/2011. The question of law sought to be urged is the correctness of the order of the CIT(A) directing deletion of the allowance to the extent of `35,88,652/- originally disallowed by the AO, under the head of ?current repairs of plant and machinery?. . The facts are that inter alia the assessee had, for the relevant assessment year 2007-08 claimed expenditure incurred on current repairs of plant and machinery to the extent of `38,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer held it to be capital expenditure and added back the same to the income but at the same time granted depreciation of 15%. The assessee appealed to the CIT (Appeals) who deleted the disallowance. The CIT (Appeals) did note all the previous year?s assessment in this regard and its own order in ITA No.1600/2010 one of which was confirmed by the Tribunal on 03.06.2011. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT (Appeals) following the previous decision dated 03.06.2011 (in ITA No.1600/2010 and 1670/2010), stated as follows: - . ?8. Regarding Income Tax Act No.14/2005 Hon?ble High Court observed that where the expenditure was for the purpose of securing a benefit of enduring nature and even if technically, new asset has not come into existence or the capacity of the overhauled machine after reconditioning was not enhanced, the fact remains that after prolonged use, this machine . was lying idle in a broken down condition, totally unfit for the production. Therefore, by subsequent reconditioning carried out had resulted in imparting useful life to old and unfit machinery. This resulted into a benefit of enduring nature. This benefit of enduring nature would be very much in the capital field. In so far as alternate submission of the assessee is concerned that also does not cut ice in this favour, with the above observation, Hon?ble High Court concluded that the expenditure incurred by the assessee in Assessment Year 1994-95 was of enduring nature, giving a new life to idle machine. Therefore the revenue rightly held it as expenditure capital nature and in the result, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. . . . 9. In the second part of the order of the Hon?ble High Court the appeals filed by the Revenue were also dismissed with the observation that form Assessment Year 1995-96 to Assessment Year 2004-05, similar expenses were allowed by the ITAT Delhi Bench as revenue in nature and all these orders were accepted by the department. As there as no appeals from the Revenue against the order of the ITAT pertaining to above Assessment Year therefore Hon?ble High Court further observed that in respect of Assessment Year 2005-06 and 2006-07 the expenditure of same nature incurred on current repairs for which deduction would be admissible u/s 31 (i) of the Act, it is not capital expenditure but revenue expenditure nature incurred for business purpose which would qualify as deduction u/s 37 of the Act as well. Therefore the appeals of the Revenue were also dismissed.? . . . This Court has considered the submissions and materials on record as well as the previous judgment in ITA No.14/2005, 1600/2010 and 1670/2010 the position at least as far as in law with regard to the expenditure has remained unchanged. It does not confer a material advantage as held by the Assessing Officer in this case. Consequently this Court is of the opinion that the reasoning which persuaded this Court in ITA No.1600/2010 and 1670/2010, has to prevail. There is no infirmity with the Tribunal?s order. The appeal is therefore, dismissed. . . . S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J . . . . . R.V.EASWAR, J . SEPTEMBER 03, 2012/hs . . . . . $ 44 .