DCIT, CHENNAI V. Ramasays Corporation (P) Limited, CHENNAI

ITA 282/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4432 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 31-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M M BHUSARI
• Assessee Lawyers: D PALANIVEL
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . . , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 282/MDS/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1), CHENNAI 600 034. V. M/S. RAMASAYS CORPORATION (P) LIMITED, NO.18, L.G.N. ROAD, CHENNAI 600 002. PAN: AADCR8596A ( ! /APPELLANT) ( '# ! /RESPONDENT) ! $ /APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.M. BHUSARI, CIT '# ! $ /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PHILIP GEORGE & SHRI D. PALANIVEL, ADVOCATES $ /DATE OF HEARING : 24.04.2017 $ /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.05.2017 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, CHENNAI DAT ED 28.10.2016 AND PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. THERE WAS A DELAY OF 11 DAYS IN FILING THIS APPE AL BY THE REVENUE. THE REVENUE HAS FILED A PETITION FOR COND ONATION OF DELAY. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. D.R. AND LD. REPRESEN TATIVE. WE FIND 2 I.T.A. NO. 282/MDS/2017 THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE STIPULATED TIME. THEREFORE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY A ND ADMIT THE APPEAL. 3. SHRI M.M. BHUSARI, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE COST OF SPA RES AND TOOLS AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE LD.AO DISALLOWED THE CLAI M OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE TOOLS AND SPARES ARE USED FO R PRODUCING THE PARTS. THEREFORE, THE TOOLS AND SPARES ARE ACQUIRED FOR USING THE SAME AS PROFIT EARNING APPARATUS. HENCE THE COST OF ACQ UISITION OF TOOLS AND SPARES HAS TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. R EFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT AN APPEAL WAS ALR EADY FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT CORRECT IN FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HEARD SHRI PHILIP GEORGE AND SHRI PALANIVEL, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO. ACCORDING TO TH E LD. COUNSEL WHAT WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY SPARES AND TO OLS. THE COST OF SUCH PURCHASE WAS ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 BY THIS TRIBUNAL. THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 WAS FOLLOWED FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ALSO. 3 I.T.A. NO. 282/MDS/2017 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSES SEE CLAIMED THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF SPARES AND TOOLS AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2011-12 EXAMINED THIS ISSUE AND FOUND THAT IT IS ALLOWABLE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE VERY SAME ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL W AS FOLLOWED IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 . THEREFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE T HE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 31 ST MAY, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . ) ( . . . ) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (N.R.S. GANESA N) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, /DATED, THE 31 ST MAY, 2017. JR. /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. ( )/CIT(A) 4. /CIT 5. !' /DR 6. #$ /GF