Whether expenditure incurred on replacements of old truck bodies will be treated as revenue expenditure? ITAT answers

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata: The Bench of Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial member) and Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member) held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee as such on replacement of wooden body of trucks has to be allowed fully against the income of the assessee in the current year.

The present appeal was preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax for the assessment year 2013-14.

Bench noted that there was delay of 32 days in filing the present appeal and after going through the application for condonation of delay and after hearing both the sides, Tribunal opined that the cause for delay was reasonable, so Bench condoned the delay and proceeded to hear the appeal.

Issue

The only issue in the present matter was against the order of CIT(A) confirming the order of AO wherein the expenses of Rs 47,40,701 were treated as capital expenditure as against the assessee’s contention that the same were of revenue nature as being incurred on repairs and maintenance of the trucks etc.

Analysis and Decision

Tribunal noted that the assessee was an operator of trucks and lorries on hire. During the year, the assessee had incurred expenditure on replacements of old truck bodies which was treated as revenue expenditure however wrongly shown under the head depreciation by claiming 100% of the said expenditure as allowable during the year instead of charging the expenditure directly to the profit and loss account as the revenue item.

Bench held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee as such on replacement of wooden body of trucks has to be allowed fully against the income of the assessee in the current year.

Consequently, Tribunal set aside the order of CIT (A) and directed the AO to treat the expenditure as revenue in nature.

Hence, the appeal of the assessee was allowed. [Ashim Krishna Bhatta v. ACIT, ITA No. 40/Kol/2020, decided on 21-4-2022]


Advocates before the Tribunal:

For the Appellant: P Jhunjhunwala, A.R

For the Respondent: Manash Mondal, Addl. CIT

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.