Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH
आदेश /O R D E R PER D.S. SUNDER SINGH, Accountant Member: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], Kurnool vide I.T.A.No.0077/CIT(A)/KNL/2015-16 dated 09.08.2016 for the assessment year 2006-07.
2 ITA No.433/Viz/2016 Kunda Venkateswara Rao, Tiruvuru
All the grounds of appeal are related to the disallowance of expenditure of Rs.3,00,000/- claimed by the assessee as a revenue expenditure and capitalizing the same. The assessee owns the rice mill and also carrying on the business of retail outlet of petrol bunk. During the year under consideration, the assessee claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards licence fee which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer (AO) and held the expenditure as capital expenditure. It is observed by the AO from the details that the assessee has got a letter of intent for Retail outlet(RO) of Reliance petrol vide letter dated 27.07.2004 which was agreed, accepted and signed by the assessee on 13.08.2004 and paid the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards signing fee on 07.08.2004 and claimed the same as licence fee in the Profit and loss account for the impugned assessment year. The amount was paid in the financial year 2004-05 but not during the current financial year of 2005-06. Therefore, the AO held that the expenditure is neither incurred nor accrued in the impugned assessment year, hence the same was not allowable as revenue expenditure in the year under consideration. The Ld.AO also observed that the expenditure was incurred for the purpose of setting up of Retail outlet, therefore, the expenditure was capital
3 ITA No.433/Viz/2016 Kunda Venkateswara Rao, Tiruvuru
in nature, thus treated the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as capital expenditure and allowed the depreciation @5% and disallowed the balance amount.
Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO.
Against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee carried the matter to the Tribunal. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR argued that the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid towards signing fee to meet the expenditure towards training of the dealer, the staff and for supervision of the company during the construction of retail outlet which is non -refundable and one time expenditure. Though the assessee has made the payment on 13.08.2004, it was the advance payment but the expenditure was relatable to the impugned assessment year. Thus, argued that the expenditure should be treated as accrued in the impugned assessment year, hence allowable as revenue expenditure. The assessee also furnished the copy of the dealership agreement which was dated 25.01.2005 and argued that since the agreement was signed on 25.01.2005 and the signing fee was paid to meet the expenses as per the agreement such as training of dealers and
4 ITA No.433/Viz/2016 Kunda Venkateswara Rao, Tiruvuru
his staff and supervision and coordination of the construction of the said retail outlet, the same is allowable as revenue expenditure in the year under consideration. The assessee also relied on the decision of Knight Riders Sports Private Limited Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-29, Mumbai in ITA No.1307/Mum/2013 for the assessment year 2009-10 dated 29.12.2017.
On the other hand, Ld.DR argued that the expenditure was neither incurred nor accrued during the year under consideration. The income has to be computed and assessed each year independently. In this case, the assessee is following the mercantile system of accounting.Since the expenditure claimed to be paid for signing fee, was not relatable to the year under consideration, the expenditure is not allowable as per the system of accounting followed by the assessee. Secondly, the Ld.DR submitted that the payment of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid towards signing fee and as per the agreement, the payment was made towards training of the dealer and its staff and supervision and coordination of the construction of the retail outlet of petrol bunk. Therefore, the expenditure was incurred in connection with the setting up of the retail outlet during the period of construction and before commissioning the unit. Therefore, the
5 ITA No.433/Viz/2016 Kunda Venkateswara Rao, Tiruvuru
expenditure required to be capitalized and the AO has rightly capitalized the expenditure and allowed the depreciation which was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A). Thus, the Ld.DR argued that no interference is called for in the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 5.1. The Ld.DR further argued that the case law relied upon by the assessee in Knight Riders Sports Private Limited is related to the payment of franchise fee for franchisee rights of IPL team with home ground in accordance with the agreement with the BCCI, for owning the IPL team. Whereas in IPL team, the payment was made for annual benefits, not extending beyond one year. The right to operate and manage the team is subject to prior payment of annual franchisee fee. If the assessee fails to make the payment, then, it would not be allowed to participate in IPL. Therefore, the Ld.DR argued that the payment of franchisee fee is annual payment to acquire the right to manage and operate the team. Whereas in the case of the assessee, the payment is one time payment incurred towards training of the dealers, its staff and supervision and coordination of the construction of the said retail outlet, while the franchisee fee was annual expenditure. Whereas, in the case of the assessee, the expenditure was one time payment for setting up of the retail outlet. Thus, the facts of
6 ITA No.433/Viz/2016 Kunda Venkateswara Rao, Tiruvuru
the case of the assessee are clearly distinguishable and have no application in the assessee’s case, hence argued that the case law relied upon by the assessee has no application in the case of the assessee.
We have heard both the parties, perused the material placed on record. In this case, the assessee is following the mercantile system of accounting and the assessee has paid the sum of Rs.3 lakhs on 13.08.2004 as a signing fee for the training of the dealers and its staff and supervision and coordination of the construction of the retail outlet. The payment was made to the Reliance Industries on 07.08.2004 relevant to the A.Y.2005-06 and the expenditure is related to the setting up of the retail outlet incurred before commencement of the business. For a query from the Bench, the Ld.AR submitted that the retail outlet of the Reliance unit was commissioned from 01.10.2005, whereas the expenditure was incurred on 07.08.2004 and the relevant assessment year was 2005-06, but not the year under consideration. Since the unit was commissioned on 01.10.2005 and the expenditure was incurred during the construction period before commencement of the business, the said expenditure cannot be related to the expenditure of the impugned assessment year. The Ld.AR did not
7 ITA No.433/Viz/2016 Kunda Venkateswara Rao, Tiruvuru
provide details with regard to the dates of training given by the Reliance Industries to dealers and the staff. Similarly no break up of the expenses incurred for the training and construction related activities were submitted. The signing fee was one time payment which was related to the setting up of construction of Reliance petrol pump unit and the expenditure was incurred prior to the commencement of the business, therefore, we are unable to accept the contention of the assessee that the expenditure be treated as revenue expenditure for the year under consideration. Since the expenditure was incurred before the commencement of business, the expenditure required to be capitalized in respect of relevant asset and allow the depreciation or the same should be amortized as per section 35D of the Act. The Ld.AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai, ‘A’ Bench in Knight Riders Sports Private Ltd. (supra). The facts of the case are distinguishable as argued by the Ld.DR and has no application in this case. Therefore, we hold that the AO has rightly treated the expenditure as capital expenditure and allowed the depreciation and we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld. The appeal of the assessee on this ground is dismissed.
8 ITA No.433/Viz/2016 Kunda Venkateswara Rao, Tiruvuru
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
The above order was pronounced in the open court on 3rd Aug ,2018.
Sd/- Sd/- (िी.दुगाा राि) (धड.एस. सुन्दर ससह) (V. DURGA RAO) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER धिशाखापटणम /Visakhapatnam ददिांक /Dated : 03.08.2018 L.Rama, SPS आदेशकीप्रधिधलधपअग्रेधर्ि/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. ननर्ााररती/ The Assessee- Kunda Venkateswara Rao, 125-273, Ashok Nagar Tiruvuru 2. राजस्व/ The Revenue –The ITO, Ward-1(3), Vijayawada 3. The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Kurnool 5. धिभागीयप्रधिधिधि, आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम /DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam 6.गाडाफ़ाईल / Guard file आदेशािुसार / BY ORDER // True Copy //
Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM