COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. BHARAT CINEMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this reference are these : The assessee is a registered firm. The assessment relates to the year 1969-70, for which the accounting year ended on 31st March, 1969. The assessee purchased a cinema in 1958 for a sum of Rs. 1,62,000. At the time of its purchase, the cinema building was an old one. The assessee carried on exhibition business in this cinema building from year to year. By a letter dated 19/20th July, 1968, the Executive Engineer, Jind Provincial Division, Jind, after inspecting the cinema building informed the District Magistrate, Jind, that the ceiling was sagging at various places and some of the wooden members needed to be changed. This needed replacement or repairs immediately. In view of the defects pointed out by the Executive Engineer, the assessee carried on some repairs. A sum of Rs. 24,000 was, inter alia, spent for the purpose of fixing a false ceiling. This amount was treated as capital expenditure by the ITO, but on an appeal by the assessee, the AAC held that the cost of repairs and replacement of false ceiling was of a revenue nature. He, therefore, accepted the assessee's contention and deleted the amount of Rs. 24,000 from the assessment. The revenue feeling aggrieved against this order, went up in appeal before the Tribunal, which dismissed the same with the following observations : "the assessee carried out only urgent repairs to the ceiling and that too after the Executive Engineer's visit to their building on 15th July, 1968, If the assessee had not carried out the repairs to the ceiling and certain other repairs and replacement, there was a danger of the assessee's license not being renewed beyond 3ist July, 1968. In my opinion, the assessee did not derive any benefit of an enduring nature and I, therefore, hold that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in allowing the amount of Rs. 24,000 as revenue expenditure. "

(2.) ON the application of the revenue, the Tribunal has referred the following question to this court: "whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that Rs. 24,000 spent on cost of replacement of false ceiling was an expense of revenue nature ?"

(3.) ON behalf of the revenue, it has been argued that the amount of Rs. 24,000 spent by the assessee on fixing the false ceiling, is by way of improvements of great magnitude carried out for giving an enduring advantage to the assessee, and, therefore, the expenditure being with the sole object of getting an enduring benefit for the business, must be deemed to be in the nature of a capital expenditure. In support of his contention, he relied upon Sri Rama Talkies v. C/r [1966] 59 ITR 63 (AP ).