Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The exact nature of work done in the shop in question is not known in the instant case. The assessee contended that he had spent the amount on renovating and furnishing the shop, whereas the Tribunal has taken the view that the assessee must have made some structural changes, otherwise it would not have been necessary for him to obtain permission from the municipality.

6. Repairs of building in ordinary parlance means making good the wear and tear and may involve replacement of minor nature. However, any expenditure incurred on reconstruction or remodelling of a building or on renovating or furnishing it shall be outside the purview of "repairs". Accepting the finding of the Tribunal that a part of the expenditure at least must have been incurred on making structural changes in the shop, we must proceed to examine whether the view taken by the Tribunal that the expenditure was of a capital nature is correct.

9. Clearly, the assessee has not acquired an asset by incurring an expenditure on the rented shop. The next question is as to whether he has acquired a benefit of an enduring nature. The word "enduring" means "enduring in the way that fixed capital endures" and it does not connote a benefit that endures in the sense that for a good number of years it relieves the assessee of a revenue payment. See Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1955] 27 ITR 34, 46 (SC).

10. In the instant case the expenditure incurred might have relieved the assessee of a recurring expenditure for a good number of years. But that by itself does not render the expenditure as being of a capital nature. It still retains its quality of revenue expenditure. The finding in the instant case is not that the assessee has made any addition to the shop. The finding on the other hand is that the assessee might have made some structural changes inside the shop. In my opinion such structural changes also do not create a capital asset or bring into existence an advantage of enduring nature. The assessee must have made structural changes to make the shop more useful for purposes of its business. There is no finding that the lease in favour of the assessee was a perpetual lease so that the advantage acquired by him by structural changes could be said to be of enduring nature.

11. A large number of cases have been cited, but in my opinion none of them is to the point. The case which is nearest to the case of the assessee is that of Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1971] 82 ITR 376 (SC).

12. There the assessee engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of sugar paid to the Cane Development Council certain amounts by way of contribution for the construction and development of roads between the various sugarcane producing centres and sugar factories of the assessee. This expenditure was incurred under a statutory obligation for the development of roads which were originally the property of the Government and remained so even after the improvement had been done. There was no finding that the roads were to be altogether newly made or that the assessee would get an enduring benefit from those roads. The Supreme Court held that the expenditure was not of a capital nature and had to be allowed as an admissible deduction in computing the profits of the assessee's business. The expenditure was incurred for the purpose of facilitating the running of its motor vehicles and other means employed for transportation of sugarcane to its factories and was, therefore, incurred for running the business or working it with a view to producing profits without the assessee gaining any advantage of an enduring benefit to itself. Applying the ratio of this case to the facts of the instant case, if can safely be held that the expenditure incurred on the structural changes made in the shop did not bring into existence any capital asset for the assessee or any benefit of enduring nature. The expenditure was incurred for the purpose of facilitating the carrying on of its business and must therefore be held to be of a revenue nature.