Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
M/S. Unimed Technologies Limited,, ... vs The Dy,Cit, Central Circle-1, ( Now ... on 7 September, 2017
आयकर अपील
य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद यायपीठ ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
"B" BENCH, AHMEDABAD
BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ ITA.No.1411 and 1412/Ahd/2015
नधा रण वष / Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 and 2011-12
Unimed Technologies Ltd. DCIT, Cent.Cir.1
Baska, Baska Ujeti Road Vs Baroda
Ujeti, Halol (Now ACIT, Cir.2(1)(1)
Dist. Panch Mahal Baroda.
Gujarat 389 350
PAN : AAACE 4022 B
अपीलाथ!/ (Appellant) "#यथ!/ (Respondent)
Assessee by : Ms.Urvashi Shodhan, AR
Revenue by : Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr.DR
सन
ु वाई क तार ख/ Dateof Hearing : 24/08/2017
घोषणा क तार ख / Date of Pronouncement: 07/09/2017
आदे श/O R D E R
PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Present two appeals are directed at the instance of the assessee against common order of the ld.CIT(A) dated 27.3.2015 passed for the Asstt.Years 2010-11 & 2011-12.
2. In the first fold of grievance the assessee has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.4,30,414/- and Rs.4,98,900/- debited by the assessee as repairs and maintenance in the Asstt.Years 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively.
ITA No.1411 and 1422/Ahd/2015 2
3. With the assistance of the ld.representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. It emerges out from the record that the assessee has carried out routine repairs and debited various expenditure under the head "repairs and maintenance". The ld.AO has disallowed those expenditure by treating them as capital expenditure. On appeal, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed such disallowance in both the years.
4. While going through the order of the ld.CIT(A) we have noticed the details submitted by the assessee in tabular form exhibiting items purchased by it, party from whom such purchases was made; description of nature of items purchased and the amount. Such details have been reproduced for the Asstt.Year 2010-11 on page no.4 of the impugned order, which reads as under:
St. No Nome of party Items Purchased Description of nature of Amount items purchased (Rs.)
1. Perfect Purchase of Proper maintenance & 63.302 Engineering Works spares (metal upkeep of the machine syringes)
2. Bholanath 12 Trays for Ampoule To remove the defect of the 37,195 Engineering Works washing machine damaged portion of existing machine
3. Jay interiors Calcium silicat board To improve the efficiency of 40,017 partition for false the working place by the ceiling workers
4. Toshvin Analytical Purchase of spares Recurring nature and usable 47,175 Pvt. Ltd. for laboratory for 6 to 8 months only equipments
5. Ajni Clean Rooms Aluminium modular It can be removed and 69,313 Pvt Ltd. double transferred to the other area.
material/furniture for Leads to better visibility and partition of cabins and control of the workers flush doors ITA No.1411 and 1422/Ahd/2015 3
6. Ajni Clean Rooms Aluminium modular Same as above 1,07,129 Pvt. Ltd. double skin material/furniture for partition of cabins and flush doors
7. Systems INC Access Controller Door Access Controller 66,283 Cards Proximity Cards, Access control Card & Cable etc, which are for proper upkeep & maintenance in factor. ' TOTAL 4,30,414
5. The facts in Asstt.Year 2011-12 are also similar. The ld.Revenue authorities are of the opinion that these repairs would give enduring benefit to the assessee, and therefore, expenditure deserves to be capitalized. After going through the details of items purchased by the assessee extracted (supra), we are of the view that these are routine repairs carried out by the assessee on its existing business and no new assets came into existence. The assessee has merely removed defective parts and replaced it with new parts. The Revenue authorities ought not to have treated these repairs as capital expenditure of enduring benefit to the assessee. Therefore, we allow first fold of grievance raised by the assessee.
6. In the next fold of grievance the assessee has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the charging of interest under section 234A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is pleaded that return was filed within the time because the time for filing the return of income was enhanced by the CBDT vide circular no.225/2010 dated 27.9.2010, hence interest under section 234A is not chargeable upon the assessee. This fact has not been verified or considered by either of the Revenue authorities. Therefore, we remit this issue to the file of the AO for re-adjudication on merit. The ld.AO shall not treat that the charging of interest as consequential, rather he will ITA No.1411 and 1422/Ahd/2015 4 demonstrate how the interest is chargeable upon the assessee, and thereafter charge the interest, if any.
7. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced in the Court on 07th September, 2017 at Ahmedabad.
Sd/- Sd/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER