STERIL-GNE LIFE SCIENCES PVT LTD, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CORP CIR-6(2), CHENNAI

ITA 3323/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7195 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 03-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ ᭠यायपीठ, चे᳖ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI Įी महावीर ͧसंह, उपाÚय¢ एवं Įी मनोज क ु मार अĒवाल, लेखा सदèय के सम¢ BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 3323/CHNY/2018 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ /Assessment Year:2013-14 M/s. Steril-Gene Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., No.15, Gopalakrishnan Road, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. PAN: AAKCS 9783R v. The DCIT, Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : None ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Varuvooru Sreedhar, Addl.CIT स ु नवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 06.06.2022 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 15.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai in ITA No.173/CIT(A)-16/2013-14, order dated 18.09.2018. The assessment was framed by the DCIT, Corporate Circle-6, Chennai 2 ITA No.3323/Chny/2018 for the assessment year 2013-14 u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) vide order dated 31.03.2016. 2. At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal was fixed for hearing on many occasions numbering 17 and none is coming forward despite service of notice through RPAD on the assessee. The proofs of services are kept on record. Hence, we decided to hear this appeal ex-parte qua assessee and decide the appeal on merits. 3. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of AO in treating the loss arising out of foreign currency term loan as capital loss as against claimed by the assessee as revenue. For this, assessee has raised various grounds which need not be reproduced. However, one fact is to be mentioned that alternative claim made by assessee is that in case, this loss is treated as capital loss, the same will increase the cost of asset i.e., machinery and the depreciation at the appropriate rate by increasing the cost of this machinery be allowed to the assessee. 3 ITA No.3323/Chny/2018 4. Brief facts are that during the financial year 2012-13 relevant to assessment year 2013-14, assessee claimed loss on foreign currency transaction to the extent of Rs.81,66,986/- and claimed the same as revenue expenditure in the nature of financial cost. The assessee claimed this forex loss on FCTL loan availed from Indian Overseas Bank with the stipulation that the FCTL will be subject to roll over every six months. The assessee before AO and CIT(A) stated the fact that FCTL loan has been taken for purchase of indigenous assets i.e., purchase of machinery which has been used in the project and assessee has already commenced commercial business. The assessee also clarified that the depreciation already claimed on the assets on the original cost of purchase and not adjusted for forex loss. The AO has disallowed the forex loss claimed as revenue expenditure by holding that this is capital expenditure being loan availed for purchase of machinery being capital asset. The CIT(A) disallowed the claim of assessee by holding that the assessee itself has admitted in restatement of loss on long term loan obtained for purchase of indigenous assets and according to him, the loss is capital loss and not revenue. Accordingly, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4 ITA No.3323/Chny/2018 5. We have heard ld. Senior DR and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We have perused the case records and noted that foreign currency term loan sanctioned by the bank was by way of conversion of existing rupee term loan and that the FCTL was at concessional rate as compared to the rupee term loan leading to lower interest being debited in the profit & loss account. As the assessee has not represented nor made any submission before AO or before CIT(A) or in the statement of facts that in this year, the assessee has claimed forex loss and what is the treatment of any loss or gain arising in future years and whether the Department has accepted the same or not. These facts are not available on record and hence, we presume that the loan taken for purchase of machinery is rightly held by AO as capital loss. We affirm the findings of lower authorities on this issue. 6. However, we noted that alternate claim made by assessee is that in case, the effect is to be given for change in foreign exchange rates on FCTL, obtained by conversion of rupee term loan is considered to be a capital expenditure, the same ought to have been considered as the cost of asset purchased and depreciation should have been allowed on the cost of asset including this forex 5 ITA No.3323/Chny/2018 loss. We direct the AO to allow depreciation on this amount at an appropriate rate. Hence, this alternate claim of assessee is allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15 th June, 2022 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (मनोज कुमार अᮕवाल) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) लेखा सद᭭य /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (महावीर ᳲसह ) (MAHAVIR SINGH) उपा᭟यᭃ /VICE PRESIDENT चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 15 th June, 2022 RSR आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुᲦ (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयुᲦ /CIT 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध/DR 6. गाडᭅ फाईल/GF.