IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH E, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 7444/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 DCIT (OSD) 2(3) ROOM NO. 556 AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI VS. SATGURU INFOCORP SERVICES PVT. LTD. 505, ACME PLAZA, ANDHERI KURLA ROAD, ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI- 400 059 PAN:AAECS 6683 A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAKESH JOSHI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHISHIR SRIVASTAVA DATE OF HEARING : 19.08.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.09.2013 O R D E R PER DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) -6, MUMBAI DATED 12.08.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 08-09. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT IMPUGNED IN THE GROUND ENUMERATED BELOW: 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND FA CTS OF THE CASE. [ 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS.37,10,936/- WHILE FAILIN G TO APPRECIATE THAT IT IS THE EXPENDITURE ON CURRENT REPAIRS ONLY WHICH ARE ELIGI BLE FOR DEDUCTION AS EXPENDITURE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 31 OF T HE I.T. ACT. THE LD.CIT(A) ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT EXPENDITURE WAS INCU RRED NOT ON CURRENT REPAIRS BUT ON THE REPAIRS WHICH WERE NOT IN THE NATURE OF CURRENT REPAIRS. 3. FOR THESE AND THE OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGE D AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THA T OF THE AO RESTORED. ITA NO. 7444/MUM/2011 SATGURU INFOCORP SERVICES PVT. LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 2 3. AT THE OUTSET, IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE IMPUGNED ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWI NG HIS PREDECESSORS ORDER IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ITAT IN ITA NO. 6060/M/2010, IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGA INST THE SAID ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE FINDINGS ARE EXTRACTED HERE UNDER: CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND ALSO CONSIDERING TH E DECISION OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE CIT VS A.M. SINGHVI, 302 ITR 26 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT EVEN IF THE SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT IS SPENT ON REPAIRS AND RENOVATION OF OFFICE PREMISES TAKEN ON RENT, IT IS TO BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPEN DITURE BECAUSE NO CAPITAL ASSET IS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A). THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD HIS ORDER BY REJECT ING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ITAT HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WHICH IN T URN HAS BEEN RELIED ON BY THE LD.CIT(A) FOR GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND SINCE THERE IS NO HIGH COURT ORDER AGAINST THE SAID DECIS ION OF ITAT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF T HE LD.CIT(A) AND HENCE THE SAME IS UPHELD. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 2 5 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) (DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 25.09.2013. *SRIVASTAVA COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR E BENCH //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.