The Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vadodara-1 v. Gujarat Alkalies And Chemicals Ltd. ======================================Appearance

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 729 of 2019 ======================================THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, VADODARA-1 Versus GUJARAT ALKALIES AND CHEMICALS LTD. ======================================Appearance: MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ====================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANIandHONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHENDate : 18/11/2019 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1.By this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the appellant – revenue has challenged the order dated 25.02.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,‘D’ Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal” in ITA No.937/Ahd/2015 for the assessment year 2011-12, by proposing following four questions, stated to be substantial questions of law: “(a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.14,51,000/- made on account of amortization of lease rend paid as it is a capital expenditure which cannot be allowed as deduction as per Income Tax Act, 1961? (b)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and in allowing the assessee deduction of an expense on account of replacement cost of re-membrane cell treating the same as revenue expenditure instead of capital expenditure? (c)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in upholding the decision of learned CIT(A), which was merely based upon the rule of consistency without considering the issue on merits of the case and it was to delete the addition made on account of expenses incurred for replacement of re-membraning cells-II, treating the same as capital expenditure? (d)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that membranes were integral part of plant without which the plant cannot function effectively and that, it has enduring benefit for at least 2 to 3 years?” 2.Heard, Mr. Varun Patel, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Manish Shah, learned advocate for the respondent. 3.Insofar as proposed question (a), which relates to addition of Rs.14,51,000/- made on account of amortization of lease rent, is concerned, a perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Tribunal has merely applied the decision of this Court in Tax Appeal No. 579 of 2016 to the facts of the present case. In Tax Appeal No. 579 of 2016, which was decided by a judgment and order dated 03.10.2016, this court had placed reliance upon its earlier decision in Tax Appeals No.778 to 780 of 2013. 3.1The Tribunal having merely applied the decision of the jurisdictional High Court to the facts of the present case, no question of law can be stated to arise insofar as this ground of appeal is concerned. 4.Insofar as proposed questions (b), (c), and (d) are concerned, the said questions arise out of a common issue relating to allowance of deduction of an expense on account of replacement cost of re-membrane cell treating it as revenue expenditure. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Tribunal has merely applied the decision of this Court rendered on 01.08.2016 in Tax Appeal No. 577 of 2016 to the facts of the present case. Under the circumstances, no question of law can be stated to arise insofar as the said grounds of appeal are concerned. 5.In the light of the above discussion, no question of law, much less, a substantial question of law can be stated to arise out of the impugned order. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly summarily dismissed. [ Harsha Devani, J. ] hiren 4.Insofar as proposed questions (b), (c), and (d) are concerned, the said questions arise out of a common issue relating to allowance of deduction of an expense on account of replacement cost of re-membrane cell treating it as revenue expenditure. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Tribunal has merely applied the decision of this Court rendered on 01.08.2016 in Tax Appeal No. 577 of 2016 to the facts of the present case. Under the circumstances, no question of law can be stated to arise insofar as the said grounds of appeal are concerned. 5.In the light of the above discussion, no question of law, much less, a substantial question of law can be stated to arise out of the impugned order. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly summarily dismissed. [ Harsha Devani, J. ] hiren [ Sangeeta K. Vishen, J. ]