Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

29. The last question which has been referred at the instance of the Revenue relates to the disallowance of the claim of repairs of Rs. 47,723. The assessed had taken two flats situated in a building in Bombay on rant for which lease agreements were executed initially for a period of 11 months but with an option to renew for 10 period occurring expends of 11 months each. The flats were renovated by the assessed incurring expenditure on items like putting of false ceiling, painting, making some structural changes, fixing doors, etc. In addition to the sum of Rs. 47,723 which was so spent, it also incurred expenses of Rs. 19,647 and Rs. 26,103 on electric fittings and air-conditioners, respectively. The assessed itself capitalised the latter two items and it only claimed deduction under section 37 in respect of the sum of Rs. 47,723. The claim in respect thereof had first been put before the Income-tax Officer in the assessment year 1969-70. The assessed did not get any relief before the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion, following the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Girdhari Dass and Sons v. CIT [1976] 105 ITR 339, that the expenditure incurred did not bring into existence any capital asset for the assessed who was tenant of the premises in question and that the expenses had been incurred for the purposes of facilitating the carrying on of its business and must be regarded as being of revenue nature.

"a factual question, even if the finding is wrong, we cannot interfere with the same. We must take the break-up as correct as far as the answer to this question is concerned."

32. In the present case, the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal is that the expenditure was incurred on structural changes made in the premises and the expenditure was incurred for the purpose of facilitating the carrying on of its business and was of a revenue nature. This is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with. That apart, in the case of CIT v. Rama Krishna Steel Rolling Mills , the assessed-firm had taken certain premises for its factory for a period of five years and three was no option to renew the lease. A sum of Rs. 20,807 had been spent in carrying out repairs to the roof of the premises and this was held to be a revenue expense.

35. Counsel for the assessed has drawn our attention to the observations of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Girdhari Dass and Sons [1976] 105 ITR 339 which decision was relied upon by the Tribunal while deciding this case in arriving at its conclusion. On a rented shop, the assessed in that case incurred expenses for carrying out repairs which included making some structural changes. The question arose as to whether the expenditure so incurred was in the nature of capital expenditure. Answering the question of law in favor of the assessed, the High Court observed that when an owner incurs expenditure on additions or alterations in a building which enhances its value, the expenditure can be of a capital nature. But, if a tenant incurs an expenditure on rented building for its renovation or alteration, he does not acquire any capital assets, because the building does not belong to him as, ordinarily, such an expenditure will be of a revenue nature. To hold otherwise would amount to denying him the benefit of deduction of the expenditure at all because he will not be entitled to any depreciation allowance. Clearly, the assessed had not acquired an asset by incurring an expenditure on the rented shop. The word "endure" was interpreted by the court to mean "enduring in the way that fixed capital endures". We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid decision and are of the view that the expenditure in question was rightly held by the Tribunal to be of a revenue nature.