Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI
ORDER
Per N. K. Saini, AM:
This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 17.06.2014 of ld. CIT(A)-XVIII, New Delhi.
Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: “Ground no. 1 The impugned order is wrong in law and on facts and circumstances of the case. The same has been passed arbitrarily on erroneous facts without bringing out the relevant material fact on record. Ground no. 2 Whether the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and facts of the case by confirming the disallowance of deferred revenue expenditure of Rs. 62,46,183/- as capital expenditure being 1/3rd of Rs. 1,87,38,550/- 2 Rose Advertising Pvt. Ltd. incurred by the assessee on account of construction of dhallows. Ground no. 3 The assessee retains the right to add/delete/modify any of the above grounds of appeal at any stage.”
3. From the aforesaid grounds, it is gathered that only grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the disallowance of 1/3rd of the deferred revenue expenditure incurred by the assessee on account of construction of dhallows.
During the course of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset stated that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee vide earlier order dated 13.09.2016 in & 2294/Del/2013 for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 in assessee’s own case. It was also stated that the aforesaid order of the ITAT now has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court (copies of the said orders were furnished which are placed on record).
In her rival submissions the ld. CIT DR although supported the order of the AO but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee.
6. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that a sum of Rs.1,87,38,550/- was 3 Rose Advertising Pvt. Ltd. incurred by the assessee on account of construction of dhallows during the financial year 2007-08. The said expenditure was treated as deferred revenue expenditure and hence 1/3rd of the same was written off in the assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11. The AO disallowed the said expenses and the ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO. However, the ITAT vide aforesaid referred to order dated 30.09.2016 deleted the disallowance for the preceding assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, the relevant findings have been given in paras 9 to 9.5 which read as under: “9. Now we take up the issue of allowability of this expenditure. The contract as per the agreement is for the period of three years. The assessee was required to incur expenditure on certain property which was not owned by the assessee. The assessee earned revenues for incurring this expenditure. The benefit that accrues to the assessee for incurring this expenditure is spread over a period of three years. Under these circumstances the conclusion of the Ld. CIT(A) that the expenditure is in the capital filed, in our view is not correct. The assessee, as a contractor and agreement holder has incurred certain expenditure wholly and exclusively for the purpose of his business. The nature of the expenditure is construction and renovation of Dhallows, on a property which does not belong to him. There is no enduring benefit that arises to the assessee. The expenditure is in the revenue field. 9.1. The CBDT in its Circular no.09/2014 dt. 23rd April, 2014, on the issue of construction of expenditure incurred for the development of road/ highways, which assets do not belong to the assessee at para 4, 5 and 6 held as follows.
4 Rose Advertising Pvt. Ltd. “4. There is no doubt that where the assessee incurs expenditure on a project for development of roads/highways, he is entitled to recover cost incurred by him towards development of such facility (comprising of construction cost and other preoperative expenses) during the construction period. Further, expenditure incurred by the assessee on such BOT projects brings to it an enduring benefit in the form of right to collect the toll during the period of the agreement. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT in 225 ITR 802allowed spreading over of liability over a number of years on the ground that there was continuing benefit to the company over a period. Therefore, analogously, expenditure incurred on an infrastructure project for development of roads/highways under BOT agreement may be treated as having been made/incurred for the purposes of business or profession of the assessee and same may be allowed to be spread during the tenure of concessionaire agreement. 5. in view of above, Central Board of Direct Taxes, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119 of the Act hereby clarifies that the cost of construction on development of infrastructure facility of roads/highways under BOT projects may be amortized and claimed as allowable business expenditure under the Act.
The amortization allowable may be computed at the rate which ensures that the whole of the cost incurred in creation of infrastructural facility of road/highway is amortized evenly over the period of concessionaire agreement after excluding the time take for creation of such facility.” 9.2. In our view, the spirit of this Circular applies to the facts of the present case, as there is no doubt that the assessee has incurred expenditure in pursuance of a contractor on an asset 5 Rose Advertising Pvt. Ltd. not owned by it the benefit of which is for a period of three years. 9.3. The CBDT relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs.CIT (1997) 225 ITR 802. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Shreyas Shipping Ltd. (2002) (5) TMI 203-ITAT Bombay H Bench in its order dt. 24th May, 2002 had at para 17 held as follows. “17. From the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs we find that the legal position in nutshell is that computation of income under the heads 'Profits and gains of business or profession' or 'Income from other sources' should be made in accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee as long as the method of accounting is such as income may properly be deduced therefrom. In such a scenario we find it hard to accept the proposition that under the Income-tax Act there is watertight compartmentalisation of expenditure to be either allowed in one single year as revenue expenditure or to be disallowed altogether as capital expenditure. As a matter of fact, the complexities and variety of businesses that assessees do carry on would simply militate against such inflexible approach. There are hundreds of assessments being completed in the cases of builders and construction firms based on' Project Completion Method'. Under this method, even revenue expenditure incurred by the assessee year after year is simply carried forward as "Work-in-progress" to be finally reckoned with in the year when the project is substantially completed or sales are substantially executed. These cases are standard examples of deferred revenue expenditure. There can be myriad similar situations. Having regard to this, Hon'ble Supreme Court have held in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd., that the general rule that revenue 6 Rose Advertising Pvt. Ltd. expenditure must be allowed in its entirety in the year in which it is incurred admits of exceptions and on the contrary there may be cases where rigid observations of the general rule may result into a very distorted picture of the profits of a particular year.” 9.4. The concept of deferred revenue expenditure is not new to Income Tax law. When the income is to be matched with the expenditure year wise, the expenditure is spread over the period of contract. 9.5. In view of the above discussion and taking strength on the Circular of the CBDT no.09/2014, and as the claim of the assessee is apread over three years, we are of the considered opinion that the claim of the assessee for deduction of only 1/3rd of the expenditure for each year should be allowed.”
The aforesaid order dated 30.09.2016 was challenged before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in to 240/2017 wherein vide order dated 18.04.2017 in para 4, it has been held as under: “4. Having heard learned counsel for the Respondent, the Court is of view that the orders of the CIT(A) as well as the ITAT on the above issues turned purely on facts. Cogent reasons have been given by the CIT(A) for permitting additional evidence to be led. The impugned order of the ITAT does not give rise to any substantial question of law in regard to any of the above issues.”
From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that now the issue is settled by the Hon’ble High Court, therefore, by respectfully following the aforesaid referred to order dated 30.09.2016 in ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/Del/2013 for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, the 7 Rose Advertising Pvt. Ltd. impugned addition made by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is deleted and the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 16/06/2017)