2015 (2) TMI 732 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Revision u/s 263 - AO erred in allowing the expenditure incurred as miscellaneous expenses for creation of brand "Nirvana" as revenue expenditure - tribunal quashed revision order u/s 263 - Held that:- Tribunal does record the fact that specific queries were made during the Assessment proceedings with regard to details of expenditure claimed under the head "miscellaneous expenses" aggregating to ₹ 2.94 crores. The respondent-assessee had responded to the same and on consideration of response of the respondent-assessee, the Assessing Officer held that of an amount of ₹ 17.98 lakhs incurred on account of repairs and maintenance out of ₹ 2.94 cores is capital expenditure. This itself would be indication of application of mind by the Assessing Officer while passing the impugned order. The fact that the assessment order itself does not contain any discussion with regard to the balance amount of expenditure of ₹ 1.76 crores i.e. ₹ 2.94 crores less ₹ 17.98 lakhs claimed as revenue expenditure would not by itself indicate non application of mind to this issue by the Assessing Officer in view of specific queries made during the assessment proceedings and the Respondent-assessee's response to it. In fact this Court in the case of Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., [2008 (2) TMI 146 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that if a query is raised during assessment proceedings and responded to by the Assessee, the mere fact that it is not dealt with in the Assessment Order would not lead to a conclusion that no mind had been applied to it.

Also from the nature of expenditure as explained by the petitioner the view that the same were in the realm of revenue expenditure, is a possible view. - Decided in favour of assessee.