Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai
Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)
The revenue has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 26-08-2016 passed by Ld CIT(A)-51, Mumbai and it relates to the assessment year 2009-10. The revenue is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made out of Repairs & Maintenance expenses.
The present assessment was completed by the AO u/s 153A of the Act consequent to the search operations conducted upon the assessee u/s 132 of the Act on 14.3.2013. The AO disallowed Repairs & Maintenance expenses to the tune of 56,40,625/- (Rs.59,37,500 less depreciation) treating the same as capital in nature. It is pertinent to note that the assessing officer has made the addition by following the order originally passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, wherein similar disallowance was made. Even though the said disallowance had been deleted by the ITAT, yet the AO made identical disallowance in the present sec.
153A assessment also on the reasoning that the decision rendered by the Tribunal has been challenged by the revenue by filing appeal before Hon’ble Bombay High Court.
In the appellate proceedings, the Ld CIT(A) deleted the addition by following the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the earlier proceeding. Aggrieved, the revenue has filed this appeal.
I heard the parties and perused the record. We notice that identical addition made in the original proceedings was deleted by the Tribunal, vide its order dated 17-09-2013 passed in by making following observations:- “... Obviously, the expenditure is incurred on maintaining the road to wind farms in remote areas and no new asset came into existence. Having regard to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate (P) Ltd (203 ITR 0556), which was relied on by Ld CIT(A), the expenditure for repairs in respect of road is revenue in nature.”
I notice that the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal has already taken a view on this matter in the original proceeding and the same has been followed by the Ld CIT(A) in the present proceedings. Hence I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue.