Bama Balasubramanyam, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1981/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6185 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 30-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AWJIT RAKSHIT
• Assessee Lawyers: N DEVANATHAN
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Depreciation; Difference of opinion; Commercial expediency; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Revenue expenditure; Reassessment proceedings; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . , . , BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO. 1981/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR :20 0 7 - 0 8 MS. BAMA BALASUBRAMANYAM, NEW NO. 7, OLD NO. 5, II MAIN ROAD, CIT NAGAR (EAST), CHENNAI 600 035. [PAN: A A JPB2978H ] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX , BUSINESS CIRCLE 1 / DCIT/ACIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE I CHENNAI . ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI N. DEVANATHAN , ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : S HRI AWJIT RAKSHIT, J CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 3 0 . 0 8 .201 7 / DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 22 . 09 .201 7 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER : TH I S APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) 2 , CHENNAI DATED 3 1.0 3 .201 6 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 0 8 . IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, BESIDES CHALLENGING REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [ ACT IN SHORT], THE ASSESSEE ALSO CHALLENGED CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE I.T.A. NO . 1981 /M/ 1 6 2 CLAIMED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE AS WELL AS CONFIRMING OF ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION RATE. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND PROPRIETOR OF CONVEX SYSTEMS, WHICH PROVIDES SERVICES RELATED TO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE. THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF .1,09,58,470/ - . THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT AND SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY. THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED WITH AN ASSESSED INCOME OF .1,09,95,200/ - . SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT BY RECORDING REASONS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO CONSIDERED ASSESSE E S OBJECTION. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEE S OBJECTION TO THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT HOLDING THAT MERE PRODUCTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT FULL AND FAIR DISCLOSURE, BY REFERRING TO VARIOUS DECISIONS , THE ASS ESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED BY HOLDING THAT THE EXPENSES ON INTERNAL PARTITION, PROVISION OF WORK STATION AND ELECTRICAL FACILITATIONS, ETC., ARE NOT SUBSUMED IN THE YEAR OF INSTALLATION AND RENDERED PROLONGED BENEFITS UNLESS IT IS DISMANTLED, THEREBY CATEGORIZED THESE ITEMS AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND ALLOWED 10% OF DEPRECIATION ON THESE ITEMS. I.T.A. NO . 1981 /M/ 1 6 3 3. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND CHALLENGED REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS ON MERITS OF THE ISSUES. BY DISCUSSING VARIOUS CASE LAW WITH REGARD TO REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT IS LEGALLY VALID AND ALSO SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON MERITS. 4. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. AS PER THE RETURN OF IN COME, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXPENDITURE UNDER THE HEAD REPAIRS TO THE EXTENT OF .4,70,845/ - . THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED A SUM OF .7 LAKHS UNDER THE HEAD OTHER REPAIRS , OUT OF WHICH .1,57,986/ - WAS REVENUE IN NATURE. SINCE THE BALANCE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED WAS CAPITAL IN INATURE FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE ONLY FOR DEPRECIATIO N AT THE RATE OF 10%, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. 5.1 IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE REASSESSMENT WAS DONE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SAME SET OF FAC TS, WHICH WERE ALREADY AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND IT CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL, PRIMA FACIE, AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, OPINED THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX I.T.A. NO . 1981 /M/ 1 6 4 HAS ESCAPED A SSESSMENT CAN BE FORMED. THE WORD REASON IN THE PHRASE REASON TO BELIEVE WOULD MEAN CAUSE OR JUSTIFICATION. IN CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS A CAUSE OR JUSTIFICATION TO KNOW OR SUPPOSE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, ACTION U NDER SECTION 148 OF TH E ACT CAN BE TAKEN. BUT OBVIOUSLY, THERE SHOULD BE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON WHICH A REASONABLE MAN COULD HAVE FORMED A REQUISITE BELIEF. WHETHER THIS MATERIAL(S) WOULD CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IS NOT THE CONCERN AT THAT PARTICULAR STAGE. SO WHAT IS REQUIRED IS THE SUBJECTIVE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BASED ON OBJECTIVE MATERIAL EVIDENCE. IN THE GIVEN CAS E, ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 3 0 . 1 0 .20 09 UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE REASON FOR REOPENING WAS RECORDED AS DISC USSED ABOVE. THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR IS THAT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT IN CASE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS COMPLETED U NDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT , AS HAS BEEN DONE IN THIS CASE, NO ACTION COULD BE TAKEN AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF T HE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR UNLESS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR, INTER ALIA. IN THIS CASE, AS PER SECTION 149(1)(B) OF THE ACT, TIME LIMIT UPTO 6 YEAR IS AVAILABLE FOR I SSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, WHERE THE INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT IS LIKELY TO AMOUNT TO .1 LAKH OR MORE FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR. IN THE PRESENT, AS THE INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT EXCEEDS .1 LAKH, THE SAID CONDITION IS SATISFIED AND THEREFORE, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE LD. COUNSEL CANNOT SURVIVE. I.T.A. NO . 1981 /M/ 1 6 5 5.2 FURTHER, T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE C ONTENDED THAT , IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE NO TANGIBLE FRESH MATERIAL FOR THE REASSESSMENT FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR. AS SEEN FROM THE REASONS RECORDED WHICH GIVES A CLEAR PICTURE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GOT MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO FORM HIS OPINION THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT THAT IS WHY HE REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT AND ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THERE CANNOT BE TWO OPINIONS. AT THAT POINT OF TIME OF REOPENING WHEN THE REASONS ARE RECORDED AFTER FORMING OPINION OF ESC APEMENT OF INCOME IS ONLY RELEVANT. HENCE, THE PLEA OF THE LD. AR IS NOT TENABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. UNDER SECTION 147, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN EITHER ASSESS OR RE - ASSESS BUT FOR TAKING ACTION THERE UNDER, HE HAS TO RECORD REASONS THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IT IS ALSO MANDATED BY SECTION 148(2) TO RECORD REASONS IN WRITING. THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 ARE FURTHER SUBJECT TO SECTIONS 148,149,150,151,152 AND 153. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO SEE IF THE CONDITIONS LAID IN EXPLANATION 2(C) BECAUSE IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U NDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ARE SATISFIED OR NOT. IN CASE, (I) INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS BEEN UNDER ASSESSED; OR (II) SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN ASSESSED AT TOO LOW RATE; OR (III) SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN MADE THE SUBJECTIVE OF EXCESS RELIEF UNDER THIS ACT; OR (IV) EXCESSIVE LOSS OR DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE OR ANY OTHER ALLOWANCE UNDER THIS ACT HAS BEEN COMPUTED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD HAVE VALID COGNIZANCE U NDER SE CTION 147 OF THE ACT. THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE I.T.A. NO . 1981 /M/ 1 6 6 ASSESSING OFFICER CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE DISCREPANCY NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN ONLY BE POINTED OUT THAT DUE DILIGENT OF ASSESSING OFFICER. AS SUCH, THE PRODUCTION OF BOOKS ITSELF CANNOT CONSTITUTE FULL DISCLOSURE OF ALL MATERIAL FACTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT. BEING SO, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN THIS CASE, TH E INCOME ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THIS FACT CONFERS JURISDICTION ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT. THE POWER UNDER SECTION 147 TO RE - ASSESS THE INCOME POST 1ST APRIL, 1989 ARE MUCH WIDER THAN THESE USED TO BE BEFORE. BUT STILL THE SCHEMATIC INTERPRETATION OF THE WORDS REASON TO BELIEVE FAILING WHICH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT WOULD GIVE ARBITRARILY POWERS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT ON THE POWER TO AN ASSESSING OFFICER TO REOPEN ANY AND EVERY ASSESSMENT ORDE R WHICH WOULD SIMPLY AMOUNT TO A REVIEW. THE CONCEPT CHANGE OF OPINION IS AN IN - BUILT TEST TO CHECK THE ABUSE OF POWER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE BASIS OF CHANGE OF OPINION , WHICH CANNOT BE PER SE A REASON TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT. IN OUR OPINION , AS SEEN FROM THE ABOVE REASONS RECORDED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD HAVE ASCERTAINED THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ALSO ONLY WITH DUE DILIGENT. HENCE, THE REOPENING IS HELD TO BE VALID. EVEN OTHERWISE, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO BRING ALL THE FACTS TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND ONLY JUST FILING OF DOCUMENTS AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT IS I.T.A. NO . 1981 /M/ 1 6 7 NOT ENOUGH AND HE SHOULD BE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALL NECE SSARY MATERIAL. 5.3 AFTER EXHAUSTIVELY EXAMINING THE ISSUE OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT, IN THE CASE OF KALYANJI MAVJI & CO. V. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287, THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT, RENDERED ITS JUDGEMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 34(1)(B) OF THE 1922 ACT, WH ICH IS PARI MATERIA WITH THE EXTENT PROVISION (147) ARE AS UNDER: SECTION 34(1)(B) WOULD APPLY TO THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES OF CASES: (1) WHERE THE INFORMATION IS AS TO THE TRUE AND CORRECT STATE OF THE LAW DERIVED FROM RELEVANT JUDICIAL DECISIONS; (2) W HERE IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT THE INCOME LIABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT DUE TO OVERSIGHT, INADVERTENCE OR A MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER; (3) WHERE THE INFORMATION IS DERIVED FROM AN EXTERNAL SOURCE OF ANY KIND: SUCH EXTERNAL SOURCE WOULD INCLUDE DISCOVERY OF NEW AND IMPORTANT MATTERS OR KNOWLEDGE OF FRESH FACTS WHICH WERE NOT PRESENT AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT; AND (4) WHERE THE INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED EVEN FROM THE RECORD OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT FROM AN INVESTIGATI ON OF THE MATERIALS ON THE RECORD OR THE FACTS DISCLOSED THEREBY OR FROM OTHER ENQUIRY OR RESEARCH INTO FACTS OR LAW. WHERE, HOWEVER, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER GETS NO SUBSEQUENT INFORMATION, BUT MERELY PROCEEDS TO REOPEN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WITHOUT ANY FRESH FACTS OR MATERIALS OR WITHOUT ANY ENQUIRY INTO THE MATERIALS WHICH FORM PART OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, SECTION 34(1)(B) WOULD HAVE NO APPLICATION. IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER A MATERIAL, WHI CH CANNOT BY ITSELF, STOP HIM FROM CONSIDERING THE SAME TO I.T.A. NO . 1981 /M/ 1 6 8 FORM A REASON TO BELIEVE AN ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. WHERE, THEREFORE, THERE IS A LIVE AND CLEAR NEXUS BETWEEN THE SAID INFORMATION AND THE REASONS TO BELIEVE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME, FORMED ON THAT BASI S, THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION TO REASSESS CANNOT BE CALLED INTO QUESTION AS WAS SOUGHT TO BE CANVASSED BEFORE US. THUS, WE HOLD THAT THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE IS VALID AND THEREFORE, THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS UPHELD. 6. THE NEXT GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF REVENUE EXPENDITURE IN REGARD TO REPAIRS AND OTHER REPAIRS. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT UNDER THE HEAD REPAIRS OF .4,70,845/ - , THE ASSESSEE HAS SPENT THE AMOUNT NOT FOR CURRENT REPAIRS, BUT FOR PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF NEW EQUIPMENTS LIKE PANEL BOARDS, CABLES, CIRCUITS, CONDU ITS, TELEPHONE AND NETWORK CABLING. SINCE THE ABOVE EXPENDITURE WAS CAPITAL IN NATURE, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED 10% DEPRECIATION AND BALANCE AMOUNT OF .4,23,761/ - WAS BROUGHT TO TAX. 6.1 SIMILARLY, UNDER THE HEAD OTHER REPAIRS , THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXPENDITURE OF .7,00,000/ - OUT OF WHICH .1,57,986/ - WAS REVENUE IN NATURE. SINC E THE BALANCE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS USED FOR CREATING FALSE CEILING, LAY OUT WORKSTATION, ETC. AND ARE CAPITAL IN NATURE, HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION OF 10% AND HENCE , THE BALANCE EXPENDITURE OF .4,87,813/ - WAS BROUGHT TO TAX . I.T.A. NO . 1981 /M/ 1 6 9 6.2 THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND FILED DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF REPAIRS AND OTHER REPAIRS AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS CASE LAW RELIED ON AND BY RELYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6.3 ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6.4 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MAT ERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED UNDER REPAIR AND OTHER REPAIRS SHOULD BE TREATED AS REVENUE IN NATURE . TO DECIDE THE ABOVE EXPENDITURE AS TO WHETHER REVENUE IN NATURE OR CAPITAL, WE SHOULD CONSIDER THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE PREMISES IN QUESTION VIDE SALE DEED DATED 18.05.2006 DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREAFTER, SHE PROCEEDED TO CARRYOUT VARIOUS INTERIOR WORKS SUCH AS PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF NEW EQUIPMENTS IN THE FORM OF PUTTING UP OF PARTITION, CREATING WORK STATION, ELECTRICAL FACILITATION, ETC. ON PERUSAL OF INVOICES FILED IN THE FORM OF PAPER BOOK, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CARRIED OUT REPAIR OF EXISTING FLOORING BY REMOVING THE EXISTING UNLEVELLED FLOORING AND RELAYING THE SAME IN AN AREA OF 3463 SQ.FT. , BESIDES GYPSUM FULL HT PARTITIONS, WALL PANELLING, LAMINATE SKIRTING/TRIMMER/BAND & I.T.A. NO . 1981 /M/ 1 6 10 PAINTING INCLUDING PURCHASE OF INSTALLATION OF ELECTRICAL FITTINGS REQUIRED FOR THE ENTIRE AREA TO MEET OUT THE BUSINESS REQUIREMENT AND SMOOTH WORKING ENVIRONMENT OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY THE ASSESSEE . FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY MINOR OR MISCELLANEOUS REPAIRS OF WEAR S & TEAR S TO SAY THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS IN THE NATURE OF REVENUE, BUT IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLETELY RENOVATED THE ENTIRE PREMISES FROM GROUND ONWARDS AFTER PURCHASING THE PREMISES TO HA VE ENDURING VALUE . 6.5 THE TEST THAT WAS LAID DOWN BY LORD CAVE L.C. IN ATHERTON V. BRITISH INSULATED AND HELSBY CABLES LTD. [1925] 10 TC 155, 192 (HL), WHERE THE LEARNED LAW LORD STATED: ........ WHEN AN EXPENDITURE IS MADE, NOT ONLY ONCE AND FOR ALL, BUT WITH A VIEW TO BRINGING INTO EXISTENCE AN ASSET OR AN ADVANTAGE FOR THE ENDURING BENEFIT OF A TRADE, I THINK THAT THERE IS VERY GOOD REASON (IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO AN OPPOSITE CONCLUSION) FOR TREATING SUCH AN EXPENDITURE AS PROPERLY ATTRIBUTABLE NOT TO REVENUE BUT TO CAPITAL. IN THE PRESENT CASE, AFTER PURCHASING THE PREMISES, THE ASSESSEE HAS CARRIED OUT EXTENSIVE MODIFICATIONS, REINFORCEMENT WORK, ETC. WHICH ARE FOUND TO HAVE ENDURING VALUE TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER BROUGHT THE ABOVE MAJOR EXPENDITURES IN THE CAPITAL FIELD, WHICH WAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THUS, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. I.T.A. NO . 1981 /M/ 1 6 11 7. THE NEXT GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION OF 100% ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PUT TEMPORARY STRUCTURE. THE ASSESSEE HAS CARRIED OUT EXTENSIVE RENOVATION BY REMOVING THE EXISTING FLOOR AND RELAYING THE SAME AS WELL AS ERECTION OF COMPLETE ELECTRICAL FIXTURES AND FITTINGS BESIDES MAKING GYPSUM FULL HT PARTITIONS IN THE PREMISES, WHICH CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A TEMPORARY STRUCTURE TO CLAIM 100% DEPRECIATION . ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAT EGORIZED THE ABOVE WORKS INTO THREE MAJOR ITEMS AND ALLOWED DEPRECIATION AT THE RATE OF 10%. WE HAVE PERUSED THE DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE AND ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED DEPRECIATION AT 10% ON THE EXPENDITURE I NCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THUS, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 8 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 22 ND SEPTEMBER , 201 7 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 22 . 09 .201 7 VM/ - / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT , 2. / RESPONDENT , 3. ( ) / CIT(A) , 4. / CIT , 5. / DR & 6. / GF.