CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 4(2), MUMBAI

The sole issue raised in the grounds of appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.1,17,93,430/- by the ld.CIT(A) as made by the assessing officer on account of expenditure incurred on the leasehold premises on the ground that the benefit of said expenditure would extend to the assessee over a period of time.

The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30.9.2008 declaring a total income of Rs.6,94,12,48,982/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the notices u/s 142(1) and 143(2) of the Income Tax act, 1961 was issued and served upon the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee had incurred a sum of Rs.1,17,93,430/- on repairs and maintenance of the leasehold premises the details whereof was incorporated in para 3.2 of the assessment order. The AO added the same to the total income of the assessee by rejecting the plea of the assessee that the said nature of expenditure was of revenue in nature and did not result in creation of any asset with enduring benefit of long term nature. The said expenditure did not create any asset of enduring nature but was incurred to make leasehold premises more habitable and workable so that it could be put to use. Moreover, the assessee submitted before the AO that the term of the lease did not permit the assessee company to carry out any infrastructural changes or install any permanent furniture of fitting. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who in turn dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.

At the outset, the ld.Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee pointed out that the issue raised in this appeal is covered by the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in the earlier assessment year in ITA No.829/Mum/2012 (AY-2007-08) dated 28.9.2015 which was not opposed by the ld. DR. The ld. Counsel for the assessee finally submitted that a similar issue being covered and therefore the addition of Rs.1,17,93,430/- be deleted.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available before us. We find that the similar issue of disallowance of repairs and maintenance of the leasehold premises arose in the assessment year 2007-08 in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 829/Mum/2012 (supra) and it was decided by 3 the co-ordinate Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in favour of the assessee. For the sake of convenience, the relevant para No. 23 of the said order is extracted below:

We, therefore, respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal delete the addition of Rs.1,17,93,430/- by allowing the plea of the assessee. The AO is directed accordingly. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed.

ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्ड पाईर / Guard file. आदेशान सार/ BY ORDER,उऩ/सहायक ऩुंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.