IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O. K. NARAYANAN VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. ITA NOS. 425 & 426/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1998-99 & 2003-04 M/S. SURYA PRABHA MILLS PVT. LTD., 6/527, PALGHAT ROAD, KUNIAMUTHUR, COIMBATORE-641 008. V. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-I(1), COIMBATORE. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (PAN : AADCS8184M) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SAROJ KUM AR PARIDA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T.N. BETGERI, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 18.07.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18. 07.2012 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE ARS 1998-99 AND 2003-04 ARE AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED B Y THE CIT(APPEALS)-I, COIMBATORE DATED 19-12-2011. ITA NOS.425 & 426/MDS/2012 2 2. THE MAIN OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 425/MDS/2012 IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT FOL LOWED THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT BUT BY SIMP LY FOLLOWING THE CASE LAWS DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST T HE ASSESSEE. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS WERE TO BE E XAMINED IN DETAIL AS PER THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME C OURT. INSOFAR AS ITA NO. 426/MDS/2012 IS CONCERNED, THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERE D THE FACTUAL ASPECTS OF THE CASE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE RECORDS AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS SIMPLY REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING SOME CASE LAWS. IN OUR OPINI ON, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DISCUSSED THE FACTS AND CONSID ERED THE ISSUE, WHICH HE HAS NOT DONE. THEREFORE IT NEEDS F ACTUAL EXAMINATION OF THE CASE AND THEREFORE WE REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE AO. WE MAY ALSO POINT OUT THAT UNDER S IMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES IN ITA NO. 389/MDS/2012 THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 19-07-2012 HAS HELD AS UNDER : ITA NOS.425 & 426/MDS/2012 3 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THAT THE RELEVANT FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD. TH E CASE WHETHER AN EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED FOR REPLACEMENT OR REPAIR AND WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE I S TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL OR REVENUE, DEPENDS ON OTH ER SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS WHETHER A NEW ASSET HAS COME INTO EXISTENCE OR ANY CAPACITY INCRE ASE HAS TAKEN PLACE OR ANY OTHER BENEFIT OF ENDURING NATURE IS DERIVED OR IT IS A REGULAR FEATURE OF REP AIR AND MAINTENANCE, ETC. AS THESE FACTORS HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERTY EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE RELEVANT JUDI CIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE NEEDS A RELOOK IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THIS ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO DECIDE AS TO WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE IS CAPITAL OR REVENUE, AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW A FTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE IN DETAIL. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT)(A) AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO TH E FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO EXAMINE T HE FACTS AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN C.A. NO. 6031/07, AFTE R GIVING THE ASSESSEE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. ITA NOS.425 & 426/MDS/2012 4 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON WEDNESDAY, THE 18 TH OF JULY, 2012, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) ( V.DURGA RAO ) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 18 TH JULY, 2012. H. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE