SMT T MAHESWARI,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1230/CHNY/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 September 2018AY 2013-143 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decisions. Since the assessee failed to provide any material to disprove the findings, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed Rs. 23,15,000/- for repairs and maintenance of an office building. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim, treating it as capital expenditure, and allowed depreciation on a portion. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for lack of supporting bills and vouchers.

What were the issues?

Whether expenditure claimed as repairs and maintenance is indeed revenue expenditure or capital expenditure, and the requirement of supporting evidence for such claims.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

For Respondent: Shri G.D. Jayanthi Angayarkanni, JCIT
Hearing: 30.08.2018Pronounced: 25.09.2018

आदेश/ O R D E R

PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai in dated 31.01.2018 for assessment year 2013-14.

2.

Smt. T. Maheswari, the assessee, an individual deriving income from salary and other sources. While completing the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.

153A, the assessee’s claim of Rs. 23,15,000/- under the head Repairs and Maintenance/ office building was rejected by the Assessing Officer for the reason that on verification of earlier and subsequent assessment records, the assessee has not reported any business income which clearly indicated that the assessee is not indulged in running regular business. In sworn statement also the assessee confirmed that she derives income from salary, house property and income from other sources. Thus, if any expenditure incurred during the year under consideration towards repairs should be capitalised.

Further, the expenditure routed through banking channel alone cannot be treated as the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards repairs of the said office premises. It may be cost of improvement of the said property.

Hence, the AO refused to allow assessee’s claim of such expenditure.

However, the AO held such expenditure as a capital expenditure, and hence added to the asset value and on the resultant sum computed depreciation at applicable rate and allowed it. The AO disallowed the balance sum.

Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During the appellant proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) required the assessee to submit bills/ vouchers in support of her claim. Since, the assessee could not produce any proof to cross-verify with reference to breakup of the impugned expenditure, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the assessee filed this appeal.

3.

At the time of hearing, none appeared from the assesse’s side, though the hearing notice was served on assessee on 29.06.2018 and its acknowledgement was placed on the record.

4.

We heard the Ld. DR and gone through the records. Since, the assessee has not placed any material before us to dislodge the findings recorded by the lower authorities, the appeal is dismissed.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 5.

Order pronounced on Tuesday, the 25th day of September, 2018 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →