CENTURY TEXTILES AND INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT RG 6(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3948/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3883 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 1 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 05-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIT KUMAR SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: Y P TRIVEDI SH S S AGGARWALAR
• Keywords: Revenue expenditure
• Section: 10B; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH C, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3948/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 CENTURY TEXTILE AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED , CENTURY BHAWAN, WORLI MUMBAI.-40 PAN: AAACC2659Q VS. DCIT CIRCLE 6(2), AAYKAR BHAWAN MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. Y.P. TRIVEDI SH. S.S.AGGARWAL(AR) REVENUE BY : SH. AMIT KUMAR SINGH (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 06.05.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.8.2016 O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH, JM: 1. THE PRESENT IS FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 27/02/2009,IN RESPECT OF AYS 2005 06 AND RAISED T HE FOLLOWING BASIC GROUNDS: A. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10 B OF THE ACT CONSISTING OF (I)SALES OF HOOPS AND WRAPPERS,(II) DISCOUNT/ BONUS ON STORE ITEMS,(III) STAFF AGREEMENT DEPOSITS FORFE ITED ,(IV) RECOVERY AGAINST DAMAGED PROPERTY, (V)NOTICE PERIOD SALARY RECEIVED FROM STAFF AND (VI) SUNDRY BALANCE WRITTEN OFF TOTAL OF RS. 17,67,229/- B. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF LEASEHOLD AMOUNT WRITTEN OFF RS. 1,70,865/- ITA NO.3948/MUM/2009 2 C. CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ONLY 1/20 TH OF MINING AND LEASE EXPENSES INCURRED AS AGAINST 1/10 OF WRITTEN OFF BY THE APPELLANT. D. DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS ON ABANDONMENT OF CAPITAL JOB OF RS. 31,01,677/- E. DISALLOWANCE OF PROJECT EXPENSES ON IRON AND STEE L OF RS. 4,58,90,095/- 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A PUBL IC LTD COMPANY. THE COMPANY IS IN MANUFACTURING OF DIVERSE PRODUCTS AND ALSO ROSE IN THE SHIPPING, POWER GENERATION AND BUILDING. ASSESSEE C OMPANY HAS SEVERAL UNITS LOCATED IN DIFFERENT PART OF THE COUNTRY. ONE OF THE UNITS OF ASSESSEE COMPANY IS 100% EXPORT-ORIENTED UNIT AND IS ELIGIBL E FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT. THIS UNIT HAS INCURRED LOSS AMOUNTING TO RS. 4, 24, 05,301/- WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT THE AO MADE A NUMBER OF ADDITION/ DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS CLAIMS IN DIFFER ENT UNITS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO ASSE SSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), AND THEREAFTER APPROACHED THIS TRIBU NAL IN RESPECT OF ABOVE REFERRED GRIEVANCES RAISED IN THE FORMS OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS MENTIONED IN PARA 1 OF THIS ORDER. 3. WE HAVE HEARD LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND DR FOR REV ENUE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AR OF ASSESSEE FI LED WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN THE FORM OF A CHART AND SUBMITTED/ ARGUED THAT A LL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE EITHER COVE RED BY THE DECISIONS OF ASSESSEES OWN CASE OR BY OTHER ORDER OF HONBLE HI GH COURTS. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR CONTROVERTED THE SUBMISSION OF LD . AR AND ARGUED THAT FACT OF EACH AND EVERY SUCCESSIVE YEAR HAS TO BE DE CIDED ON THE BASIS OF FACTS OF THE CASE. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CON TENTIONS OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 4. NOW WE SHALL CONSIDER THE VARIOUS GROUND RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. 1 ST GROUND FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS VARIOUS DISALLOWANC E OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10 B OF THE ACT, WHICH INCLUDES SALE OF HOO PS AND WRAPPERS, DISCOUNTS/ BONUS ON THE STORE ITEM, STAFF AGREEMENT DEPOSIT FORFEITED, ITA NO.3948/MUM/2009 3 RECOVERY AGAINST DAMAGE PROPERTY, NOTICE PERIOD SAL ARY RECEIVED FROM STAFF AND SUNDRY BALANCE WRITTEN OFF TOTAL OF WHICH IS RS. 17,67,229/-. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL A RE HAVING 6 COMPONENTS OF VARIOUS DISALLOWANCE OUT OF WHICH THE TWO COMPON ENTS I.E. RECOVERY AGAINST DAMAGED PROPERTY AND NOTICE PERIOD SALARY I S NOT PRESSED AND HENCE BOTH THE CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED. ISSUE / CLAIM OF SALE OF HOOPS AND WRAPPERS IS STATED TO BE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE D ECISION IN ITA NO. 1073/M/2008, FOR AY 2004-05, VIDE GROUND NO. 1(I) W HILE DEALING WITH THE SIMILAR ISSUE THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIB UNAL HELD AS UNDER: WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LD AR T O THE EXTENT THAT HOPES AND WRAPPERS ARE THE PECKING MATERIALS LIKE OTHER STORE BARDANA. THE INCOME FROM SALE OF SAID PECKING MATER IAL HAS CONSISTENTLY BEEN ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE EA RLIER YEARS. THE LD DR BEFORE US COULD NOT BRING ANY POINT TO THE EF FECT THAT SALES FROM HOPES AND WRAPPERS IS DIFFERENT FROM THE SALES OF THE STORE BARDANA SALES. ACCORDINGLY THE INCOME DERIVED FROM THE SALES OF HOOPS AND WRAPPERS SALES IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO BE A LLOWED . 5. CLAIM IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 1(II) IN RESPECT DIS COUNT/BONUS ON STORE ITEMS IS COVERED VIDE GROUND NUMBER 1(II) IN ITA NU MBER 5935/M/2006 FOR AY 2003-04. WE HAVE SEEN THAT IN ITA NUMBER 593 5/M/2006 THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER: WITH REFERENCE TO ITEM NUMBER, 2 ND AND 5 TH THAT IS BONUS RECEIVED AGAINST PURCHASE OF SPEARS, THE LD CIT(A) RELIED O N THE ORDERS IN EARLIER YEARS. IN HOLDING THAT THIS ITEM CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME DERIVED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. HOW EVER, IT SEEMS FROM THE ORDERS ITAT IN AY- 2002-03 IN ITA NUMBER 6365/M/2005. THIS ISSUE WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH EXAMINATION. IT WAS HELD AS UNDER:- (II) REGARDING BONUS RECEIVED AGAINST PURCHASE OF I MPORTED SPARE OF AUTO CORNERS M/C AMOUNTING TO RS.24693/- IT IS ITA NO.3948/MUM/2009 4 SEEN FROM THE PERUSAL OF APPELLATE ORDER AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THAT THIS ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN PROP ERLY EXAMINED BY EITHER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THEREF ORE, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. THIS ISSUE IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR CONSIDERING IT REFERENCE AFTER G IVING A OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THIS ISSUE IS TR EATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE THE REMAINING CLAIMS IN RESPECT OF STAFF AGREEMENT DEPOSIT FORFEITED AND SUNDRY BALANCE WRITTEN OFF WAS DISALLOWED VIDE GROU ND 1(III) IN ITA NO. 5935/M/06 FOR AY 2003-04 AND GROUND NO 1(VI) IN IT A NO. 3926/M/05 FOR AY 2001-02 RESPECTIVELY. 6. KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPAL OF CONSISTENCY AND RE SPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF COORDINATE BENCH(S) IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, FOR AY 2001-02, 2002-03 AND IN AY 2004-05, THIS GROUND/ ISSUE ARE DECIDED ACCORDINGLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATION. 7. NEXT GROUND FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS DISALLOWANCE O F LEASEHOLD AMOUNT WRITTEN OFF OF RS. 1,70,685/- ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS CAPITAL IN NATURE. AR OF ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED BY TH E DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT, MUMBAI IN ITA NUMBER 5935/M/2006, 4 AYS 2003 -04. WE HAVE SEEN THAT THE SIMILAR ISSUE WAS RAISED IN I TA NUMBER 5, 95/M/2006 BY GROUND NUMBER 4 AND WHILE DECIDING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. IT WAS HELD: 24. THE ISSUE HAD BEEN SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF AO IN THE PRECEDING YEAR IN ITA NUMBER 3925 AND 4170/M/2005 IN THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2000-01, FOR EXAMINATION OF THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF SPECIAL BENCH DECISION OF THE TRUMAN IN CASE OF MUKUND LTD REPORT ED IN 106 ITD 231(MUMSB) FOR FINDING THE NATURE OF THE PREMIUM P ART. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A), AND RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO FOR PASSIN G FRESH ORDER ON ITA NO.3948/MUM/2009 5 THE IMPUGNED ISSUE AFTER ALLOWING PROPER OPPORTUNIT Y TO THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NUMBER 6 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSE. 8. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF CO ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, THE ISSUE IS RESTORED TO THE F ILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE IN VIEW OF THE DIRECTION GIVEN ABOVE. ACCORD INGLY, THIS GROUND IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 9. NEXT GROUND FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS THAT CIT(A) ER RED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO BY ALLOWING ONLY 1/20 TH OF MINING LEASE EXPENSES, INCURRED AS AGAINST 1/10 WRITTEN OFF BY THE APPELLANT. AR OF ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSES SEE BY THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN AY 2003-04. WE HAVE SEEN THAT VIDE GROUND NUMBER 5 IN ITA NO. 5935/M/2006 THE C OORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE SIMILAR GROUND HA S OBSERVED AS UNDER: 8.1 LD COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE STANDS D ECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLIER YEAR . LD CIT DR FAIRLY ADMITTED TO THIS FACT. 8.2. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNA L, WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE HAS COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE EAR LIER YEAR. IN CASE OF ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-0 2, THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THIS GROUND FOLLOWING THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000- 01. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE LEASE EXPENSES OF RS . 16,23,610-/AS AGAINST 1/10 CLAIMED AT RS. 8 1,180/ -BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THI S ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN THE EARLIER YEAR ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE C LAIM,, THEREFORE, IN THIS YEAR ALSO, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO DEB ITED FROM THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE 10. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF CO ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, THE ISSUE/ GROUND IS ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. 11. NEXT GROUND FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS DISALLOWANCE O F RS.31,01,677/- REPRESENTING EXPENSES INCURRED ON THE CAPITAL JOB WHICH HAS BEEN ITA NO.3948/MUM/2009 6 ABANDONED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004 -05. THE R ELEVANT FACTS IN THIS REGARDS ARE AS FOLLOWS. THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION HAS BEEN INCURRED IN EXISTING PULP AND PAPER DIVISION OF THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY THE OBJECTIVE OF THE EXPENDITURE WAS TO OVERCOME THE PROBLEM OF DIRT AND SPECKS IN PULP AND PAPER, BY INSTALLING CENTRICLEANERS IN THE FACT ORY. SUBSEQUENTLY, REALISING THAT THE SYSTEM WOULD NOT BE EFFECTIVE IN THE CHANGED SITUATION , THE SYSTEM WAS DISCONTINUED. THE AMOUNT OF 31,01,67 7/- REPRESENTING THE VALUE OF CENTRICLEANERS AND DECKER THICKER WAS WRI TTEN OFF AND CLAIMED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE AO AND CIT(A) DISALLOWED THE SAME. THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE IS THAT EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED D URING THE COURSE OF EXISTING ACTIVITIES OF MANUFACTURING PULP AND PAPER PRODUCTION AND IT SHOULD BE APPRECIATED THAT THE EXPENSES WERE INCURR ED FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE EXISTING PRODUCT NOT FOR NEW PRO DUCT. RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:- (1). CIT VS. PRIYA VILLAGE ROAD SHOWS LTD (332 ITR 594) DELHI HIGH COURT. (2). INDO RAMA SYNTHETIC (I) LTD VS CIT 333 ITR 18 (DEL) (3) CIT VS TATA ROBINS FRASER LTD 253 ITR 227 (JH AR) LD DR FOR THE REVENUE HAS RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF T HE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 12. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED AN EXPENSES OF RS.31,01,677/- IN ITS EXISTING BUSINESS OF PAPER AND PULP DIVISION. THE FACTS ON RECORD SHOW THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED TO IMPROVE THE EF FICIENCY OF THE EXISTING PRODUCTION SYSTEM INASMUCH AS THE ASSESSEE WANTED T O OVERCOME THE PROBLEM OF DIRT AND SPECKS IN PULP AND PAPER. TO A CHIEVE THE SAID OBJECTIVE, EXPENDITURE OF RS.31,01,677/- WAS INCURR ED TOWARDS INSTALLATION OF CENTRICLEANERS IN THE PULP MILL, BUT REALIZING T HE INEFFECTIVENESS OF THE SYSTEM, THE SAME WAS DISCONTINUED. THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS INC URRED FOR IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF THE PRODUCTS UNDER MANUFACTURE AND NOT F OR PRODUCTION OR ITA NO.3948/MUM/2009 7 DEVELOPMENT OF ANY NEW PRODUCT. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE ANY NEW ASSET IS ACQUIRED FOR THE PURPOS E OF CARRYING OUT ANY PRODUCTION ACTIVITY, RATHER THE CENTRICLEANERS WHIC H WERE INSTALLED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT CAPABLE OF CONTRIBUTING TO THE PRO DUCTION PROCESS INDEPENDENTLY. CONSIDERING THE OBJECTIVE OF THE EX PENDITURE, WHICH WAS TO CREATE IMPROVEMENT AND EFFICIENCY IN THE PRODUCT IN AN EXISTING LINE OF BUSINESS, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CREATION OF AN INDEPENDENT ASSET, IN OUR VIEW SUCH EXPENDITURE IS LIABLE TO BE VIEWED AS REVENUE IN NATURE AND DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED. WE HOLD SO. THUS, GROUND OF APPEAL NO. D/4 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 13. THE NEXT GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO T HE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,58,90,095/-. THE RELEVANT FACTS IN THIS REGAR D ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WANTED TO SET-UP AN IRON AND STEEL DIVISION AND INC URRED VARIOUS EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH PROJECT. IN PARA 8 OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE DETAILS OF SUCH EXPENDITURE IS NOTED WHICH SHOWS TH AT IT COMPRISED OF (I) CAPITAL WORK-IN-PROGRESS RS.2,90,10,817/-, PILING W ORK-IN-PROGRESS RS.1,31,24,563/- AND CONSTRUCTION WORK-IN-PROGRESS RS. 37,54,714/-, TOTALLING TO RS.4,58,90,095/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE A SSESSEE DROPPED THE IDEA OF SETTING-UP THE IRON AND STEEL PROJECT AND THEREF ORE THE AFORESAID EXPENSES WERE CLAIMED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE SAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER AS WELL AS BY THE CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT THE EXPENSES ARE CAPITAL IN NATURE AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EXISTING LINE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, COULD NOT BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDIT URE. 14. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSES SEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN DIVERSIFIED BUSINESSES AND I T WANTED TO SET-UP AN IRON AND STEEL DIVISION FOR WHICH THE IMPUGNED EXPE NDITURE HAVE BEEN INCURRED, BUT THE SAID PROJECT WAS LATER ON ABANDON ED. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT SO FAR AS EXPENDITURE ON ACQUISITION OF FIXED ASSETS WAS CONCERNED, THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN CLAIMED AS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE, WHICH AMOUNTED TO ITA NO.3948/MUM/2009 8 RS.4,07,88,300/-. THE CLAIM IN QUESTION IS WITH RE GARD TO THE EXPENSES INCURRED OF REVENUE IN NATURE BUT OTHERWISE CAPITAL IZED IN CAPITAL WORK-IN- PROGRESS. IN THIS CONNECTION, RELIANCE HAS BEEN PL ACED ON THE JUDGMENTS OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRIYA VILLA GE ROAD SHOWS LTD. ( SUPRA ), INDO RAMA SYNTHETIC (I) LTD. ( SUPRA ) AND THAT OF HON'BLE JHARKHAND HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TATA ROBINS FRA SER LTD. ( SUPRA ). ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS DEFENDED THE ORDER O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW BY RELYING ON THE SAME. 15. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS QUITE WELL SETTLED PROPOSITION THAT TO FIND OUT AS TO WHETHER A PARTICULAR EXPENDITURE IS CAPITAL OR REVENUE IN NATURE, THE OBJECTIVE FOR INC URRING OF SUCH EXPENDITURE IS REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED. IN THE CAS E OF PRIYA VILLAGE ROAD SHOWS LTD. (SUPRA) , THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT NOTED THAT IF AN EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED FOR STARTING A NEW BUSINESS WHICH WAS NOT CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE EARLIER, THEN, SUCH EXPENDITURE IS TO BE VIEWED AS CAPITAL IN NATURE, WHEREAS IF THE EXPENDITURE INCUR RED IS IN RESPECT OF AN EXISTING LINE OF BUSINESS AND EVEN IF IT IS FOR EXP ANSION OF BUSINESS, THEN, SUCH EXPENSES ARE TO BE TREATED AS BUSINESS EXPENSE S. THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS BEEN RELIED UPON BY TH E ASSESSEE BEFORE US FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT WHERE AN EXPENDITURE IS IN CURRED WITHOUT CREATING ANY ASSET IN A LINE OF BUSINESS WHICH IS OTHERWISE ABORTED, THEN, SUCH AN EXPENDITURE IS ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IN SUCH A SITUATION THE EXPENSES WHICH ARE OF REVEN UE NATURE ALONE ARE TO BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. NOTABLY, ASSESSEE HAS S UBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 4,07,88,300/- INCURRED FOR A CQUISITION OF FIXED ASSET HAS NOT BEEN CLAIMED AS A DEDUCTION. NEVERTHELESS, WE FIND THAT SO FAR AS THE INSTANT CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION OF RS.4,58,90,095/- IS CONCERNED, THE DETAILS ON RECORD DO NOT SHOW OR BRI NG OUT ITS NATURE. THEREFORE, IT WOULD BE IN THE FITNESS OF THINGS THA T THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINES THE DETAILS OF SUCH EXPENDITURE AND ALLOWS DEDUCTION OF SUCH ITA NO.3948/MUM/2009 9 EXPENSES WHICH ARE OTHERWISE REVENUE IN NATURE. TH EREFORE, FOR THE AFORESAID LIMITED PURPOSE WE SET-ASIDE THE MATTER B ACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WHO SHALL ALLOW THE ASSESSEE AN O PPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND THEREAFTER PASS AN ORDER AFRESH ON THIS L IMITED POINT AS PER LAW. THUS, ON THIS ISSUE, ASSESSEE PARTLY SUCCEEDS. 16. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATION IN DISCUSSION, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 5 TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016. SD/- SD/- G.S.PANNU PAWAN SINGH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ( J UDICIAL MEMBER) MUMBAI; DATED : 05.08.2016 SK PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT- CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER, (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) I TAT, MUMBAI