I.T., Madurai Vs. M/S. Sri Mangayar Karasi Mills (P) Ltd.  INSC 1250 (21
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4579
OF 2009 [Arising out of SLP)No.13264 of 2007] Commissioner of Income Tax,
Madurai ..Appellant Versus M/S. Sri Mangayarkarasi Mills (P) Ltd. ..Respondent
This appeal has been filed by the appellant to challenge the
judgment and order of the High Court of Madras dated 18th of December, 2006
whereby the High Court had dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue holding
that the expenditure on replacement of machinery was revenue in nature and
thus, allowable as deduction under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter
referred to as the `Act').
The relevant facts as arising from the case made out by the
parties, leading to the filing of this appeal, and which will help us in
understanding the controversy involved, can be summarized as under :- 2 The
Respondent in this appeal is engaged in the manufacture and sale of cotton
yarn. During the assessment year 1995-1996 the assessee claimed an amount of
Rs. 61, 28,150/-, being expenditure incurred on replacement of machinery, as
revenue expenditure. The assessee believed that such expenditure was merely
expenditure on replacement of spare parts in the spinning mill system and,
therefore, amounted to revenue expenditure.
The Assessing Officer (AO) did not, however, accept this view of
the assessee because, according to him, each machine in a spinning mill does a
different function and the product from one machine is taken and manually fed
into another machine and the output is taken, all the machines are, thus, not
integrally connected. Based on this reasoning, the AO disallowed the above
claim of the assessee and held the said expenditure to be of a capital nature.
The AO, in passing this order dated 31st of December, 1997, followed the
decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Madras "C" Bench
in the case of M/s. Nagammal Mills Ltd. V. DCIT dated 31st of October, 1997
(rendered in I.T.A. No. 2774/Mds/93/90-91) and also the decision of this Court
in Ballimal Naval Kishore and Another v. CIT (224 ITR 414) in which it was held
that any capital expenditure claimed by the assessee for acquiring plant and 3
machinery, buildings, fixed assets, etc., cannot be treated as repairs or
renewals, and, therefore, it cannot be held as revenue expenditure in the year
of acquisition of such fixed assets. The AO further held that the assessee had
treated the said expenditure as capital expenditure by capitalizing the assets
in the books of account and had, thus, shown profit in its profit and loss
account to third parties, like bankers, financial institutions, creditors,
shareholders, etc. However, from the tax point of view, the respondent wanted
to reduce the net profit and the total taxable income by claiming such huge
expenditure in the statement of total income computation for acquisition of
fixed assets, as revenue expenditure. Therefore, he disallowed such expenditure
of the assessee to be covered under section 31 of the Act or as revenue
expenditure under section 37 of the Act.
further held that the assessee could claim depreciation on the said assets as
per the income tax rules.
An appeal was preferred by the Respondent against the said order
of the AO before the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) (Appeals)-I, Madurai. The
Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) (Appeals)-I, Madurai, by its order dated 12th of
March, 1998 in Appeal No. 324/97-98, allowed the appeal of the assessee, inter
alia, holding that replacement of machinery by the assessee in 4 this case
constituted revenue expenditure. In allowing the claim of the assessee, the CIT
(Appeals) followed its own order for the Assessment Year 1991-92 wherein a
similar allowance was granted in favour of the assessee.
Against this order of the CIT (Appeals), the revenue department
went in appeal before the Tribunal. The appeal was disposed of by the ITAT,
Chennai Bench-C in ITA No. 1139/Mad/1998 by its order dated 16th of June, 2004.
The tribunal followed the decision of the Madras High Court wherein it was
decided that replacement of ring frame is only replacement of part of the
machinery in the textile mills. The tribunal, thus, upheld the order of the CIT
(Appeals) and dismissed the appeal of the revenue.
Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the revenue filed an
appeal under section 260A of the Act before the High Court of Judicature at
The High Court, relying on its own decision in CIT v. Janakiram
Mills Ltd. (275 ITR 403) and CIT v. Loyal Textile Mills Ltd.
658), by its order dated 18th of December, 2006, dismissed the appeal filed by
the revenue and held that the expenditure on replacement of machinery was
revenue in nature. The High Court further held that the question whether 5 the
expenditure on replacement of machinery was capital or revenue in nature was
not determined by the treatment given to it by the assessee in the books of
accounts or in the balance sheet. The claim has to be determined only by
relying on the provisions of the Act and not by the accounting practice
followed by the assessee.
The main question that needs to be decided in this appeal may be formulated
as follows : - "Whether expenditure incurred on replacement of machinery,
in the facts and circumstances of this case, amounts to `revenue expenditure'
deductible under section 37 of the Act or `current repairs' deductible under
section 31 of the Act."
It is pertinent to mention here that the respondent only stated
that its claim was limited to the expenditure being of a revenue nature and
thus allowable under section 37 of the Act. Nowhere had the Respondent claimed
that the said expenditure amounted to `current repairs' under section 31 of the
the appellant itself had restricted the issue to that of revenue expenditure in
its appeal to the High Court of Madras, against which it has now filed this
appeal. According to the Respondent, there is no issue regarding the
expenditure 6 amounting to `current repairs' under section 31 of the Act. We
are not inclined to uphold this submission of the Respondent.
that the appellant has contended before the courts below that each of the item
of machinery in a spinning mill is independent, that the respondent has argued
against it, and has given evidence to try to support its contention, and also
that the assessee believes that replacement is only of spare parts in the
entire system of the spinning mills, makes it clear that a question has arisen
here as to whether replacement of one or more items of machinery amounts to
repair of the entire integrated machinery of the spinning mill or acquisition
of a new independent machinery.
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the courts
below erred in rejecting the contention of the department that each item of
machinery in a textile mill should be treated as independent and not an
integral part of the whole plant of the spinning mill. The Madras High Court
has held in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Madras Cements Ltd..(255
ITR 245) that each item of machinery in a cement factory has to be considered
as being an independent machinery. Learned counsel for the appellant, further,
contended that the scheme of production in a textile mill is similar to the
integrated scheme of 7 production in a cement factory, where no independent
commodity can be said to have been produced before it, which is a ground in a
roller mill. As per the learned counsel for the appellant, the courts below
erred in distinguishing this decision of the Madras High Court. Thus, given
that each item of machinery is independent, the replacement of any such machine
will amount to acquisition of a new asset and not `repair' of the entire
integrated machinery of the spinning mill. In this connection, reliance was
placed on a decision of this Court in Ballimal Naval Kishore (supra) wherein it
is clearly held that `current repairs' under the Act means expenditure on
machinery, plant or furniture which is not for the purpose of renewal or
restoration but which is only for the purpose of preserving or maintaining an
already existing asset and that does not bring a new asset into existence or
does not give to the assessee a new or different advantage. Learned counsel for
the appellant further contended that replacement of old machinery with new
machinery cannot be considered as current repairs as such or even revenue
expenditure, since it gives an enduring benefit to the assessee. Also, if in
every case such replacement is allowed as revenue expenditure the principle of
allowing depreciation will lose its significance. Learned counsel further
submitted that the 8 courts below erred in overlooking the definitions of
`assets' and `block of assets' under explanation 3 of section 32(1)(ii) of the
Act and thus, misconstruing the provision for composition of the `block of
assets' as per the definition of `written down value' as given under section
43(6)(C) of the Act, which aid the charging section 28, as to the assessability
of income from business and profession. Learned counsel for the appellant
further contended that the courts below had gone wrong in equating the
complicated machinery of a spinning mill with a tube-light in relying on the
Boards' Circular No. 69 dated 27th of November, 1957 on "tube-lights"
which stated that only first time purchase of a tube-light amounts to capital
expenditure, and subsequent replacement would only be revenue expenditure.
Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant emphasised that the reliance on the
decision in Janakiram Mills (supra) case by the High Court was misplaced, in as
much as the High Court had failed to appreciate that an appeal had already been
filed against it before this Court and thus the decision of the High Court in
the Janakiram Mills (supra) case was not final and binding.
The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the
respondent had incurred expenditure for replacing the old and worn out parts of
machinery of the spinning mill. They are 9 merely parts of the spinning mill,
dependent on other parts of the textile mill, and the replaced machinery cannot
function independently. Further, the learned counsel for the respondent argued
that the High Court rightly distinguished the Madras Cements Ltd. (supra) case
because in that case the whole plant was relocated and in its place a whole new
plant was installed. The learned counsel for the respondent further argued that
the case of Ballimal Naval Kishore (supra) is not applicable here because in
that case a ginning factory was converted to a cinema theatre and what the
assessee there did was not replacement of machinery parts of an integrated
plant but total conversion into a theatre. The learned counsel for the
respondent has contended that the provisions relating to `assets' and `block of
assets' are immaterial in the instant case, which deals with revenue
expenditure on replacement of machinery and would not come under `block of
assets'. Further, the learned counsel for the respondent also relied on the
Boards' Circular No. 69 dated 27th of November, 1957 which, the respondent
claimed, is still valid and as per which, replacement of worn out parts, even
if the same is in a textile mill, would constitute revenue expenditure. The
learned counsel for the respondent has also argued that the argument of
enduring benefit to the 10 respondent, taken by the appellant, is no longer a
learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the High Court was right in
relying on its own judgment in the case of Janakiram Mills Ltd. (supra) because
this Court, by its order dated 21st of August, 2007 in Civil Appeal No.
7594/2005, has already pronounced upon the validity of the judgment of the High
Court in that matter and has disposed of the appeal in the same.
We have heard and considered all these contentions of the learned
counsel for the parties and also perused the materials on record and also
examined the impugned order passed by the High Court.
The first issue that needs to be resolved is whether each machine
in a textile mill is an independent item or merely a part of a complete
spinning mill, which only together are capable of manufacture, and there is no
intermediate marketable product produced. In our view, this issue has been
satisfactorily answered by the recent decision of this Court in CIT v. Saravana
Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. ((2007) 7 SCC 298). In that case this Court has held
unambiguously that "each machine in a segment of a textile mill has an
independent role to play in the mill and the output of each division is
different from the other."
with a ring frame in a textile mill, this Court has held that 11 it is an
"independent and separate" machine. Further, it is accepted that each
machine in a textile mill is part of the integrated process of manufacture of
yarn and is integrally connected to the other machines in the mill for
production of the final product. However, this interconnection does not take
away the independent identity and distinct function of each machine.
each machine in a textile mill should be treated independently as such and not
as a mere part of an entire composite machinery of the spinning mill. As stated
above, it can at best be considered part of an integrated manufacture process
employed in a textile mill.
Moving on to the issue of `current repairs' under section 31 of
the Act, the decision of this Court in CIT v. Saravana Spinning Mills (P) Ltd.
(supra) is again relevant. This court has laid down that in order to determine
whether a particular expenditure amounts to `current repairs' the test is "whether
the expenditure is incurred to `preserve and maintain' an already existing
asset and not to bring a new asset into existence or to obtain a new advantage.
For `current repairs' determination, whether expenditure is revenue or capital
is not the proper test." It is our opinion that the entire textile mill
machinery cannot be regarded as a single asset, replacement of parts of which
can be 12 considered to be for mere purpose of `preserving or maintaining' this
asset. All machines put together constitute the production process and each
separate machine is an independent entity.
of such an old machine with a new one would constitute the bringing into
existence of a new asset in place of the old one and not repair of the old and
existing machine. Also, a new asset in a textile mill is not only for temporary
use. Rather it gives the purchaser an enduring benefit of better and more
efficient production over a period of time. Thus, replacement of assets as in
the instant case cannot amount to `current repairs'.
decision in Saravana Mills (supra) case clearly mentions that replacement of a
derelict ring frame by a new one does not amount to `current repairs'. Further
in Ballimal Naval Kishore (supra) this Court has held that a new asset or new/different
advantage cannot amount to `current repairs', which has been subsequently
approved in the Saravana Mills (supra) case. For these reasons, the expenditure
made by the assessee cannot be allowed as a deduction under section 31 of the
Act. The judgment of this Court in the Saravana Mills (supra) case mentions two
exceptions in which replacement could amount to current repairs, namely:
"Where old parts are not available in the market (as seen in the case of
CIT v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd.
SC 101), or 7 Where old parts have worked for 50-60 years."
instant case, the assessee has not claimed any of the above stated exceptions.
The Saravana Mills (supra) case also restricts the scope of `current repairs'
to repairs made to machinery, plant and/or furniture. In this case, replacement
of machine can at best amount to a repair made to the process of manufacture of
yarn. Further this court has also observed in Saravana Mills (supra) case that
if replacement was held to be `current repair' in such cases, section 31(i)
will be completely redundant and absurdity will creep in because repair implies
existence of a part of the machine which has malfunctioned, which is impossible
in the case of such replacement.
this replacement expenditure cannot be said to be `current repairs' after the
decision in the Saravana Mills (supra) case.
Given that section 31 of the Act is not applicable to the said
expenditure of the assessee, the next issue is whether it can be considered
`revenue expenditure' of the nature envisaged under section 37 of the Act. The
Saravana Mills (supra) case holds that expenditure is deductible under section
37 only if it (a) is not 14 deductible under sections 30-36, (b) is of a
revenue nature, (c) is incurred during the current accounting year and (d) is
incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business. We are
satisfied that the assessees' expenditure satisfies requirements (a), (c) and
(d) as stated above. The dispute is with respect to the nature of expenditure,
that is, whether it is revenue or capital in nature.
We are of the opinion that the expenditure of the assessee in this
case is capital in nature and there is sufficient judicial precedent to support
this view. In the case of Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd. V. CIT ((1997) 2 SCC
20) this Court held that expenditure is of a capital nature when it amounts to
an enduring advantage for the business and repair is different from bringing a
new asset for the business. Further, in Lakshmiji Sugar Mills (P) Co. v. CIT
(AIR 1972 SC 159) it has been held by this Court that bringing into existence a
new asset or an enduring benefit for the assessee amounts to capital
expenditure. We have already explained why replacement, in this case, amounts to
bringing into existence a new asset and also an enduring benefit for the
assessee. It is clear then that expenditure of the assessee here is not of a
revenue nature and 15 thus, cannot be claimed as a deduction under section 37
of the Act.
As far as reliance on the High Court decision in Janakiram Mills
(supra) case is concerned, the Saravana Mills (supra) case has clearly set
aside the said judgment of the Madras High Court by its finding on the scope of
`current repairs' under section 31 of the Act. In CIT v. Ramaraju Surgical
Cotton Mills (MANU/SC/8156/2007), where this court decided on the validity of
the Madras High Court judgment in Janakiram Mills (supra), this court clarified
that this High Court judgment has been set aside in the Saravana Mills (supra)
case mainly on the ground that section 31 and section 37 of the Act, operate in
different spheres and the tests applicable to section 31 cannot be read into
section 37 of the Act. Further, even in the Ramaraju (supra) case, where this
Court distinguished the Saravana Mills (supra) case on the ground that that
appeal was with respect to deduction only under section 37 of the Act unlike
the Saravana Mills (supra) case, this court set aside the High Court judgment
in Janakiram Mills (supra) case and remitted the matter to the Commissioner
(Appeals) to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. In the light of the
observations made herein above, it is thus clear that the High Court decision
in 16 Janakiram Mills (supra) case is not good law on which reliance may be
19.Consideration of the definition of `assets' and `block of
assets' and the concept of depreciation under the Act is not required to be
decided upon whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee is a deductible
expenditure or not. Hence we are not inclined to discuss the same.
It is clear on record that the assessee has sought to treat the
said expenditure differently for the purposes of computing its profit and for
the purpose of payment of income tax. The said expenditure has been treated as
an addition to the existing assets in the former and as revenue expenditure in
accounting practices may not be the best guide in determining the nature of
expenditure, in this case they are indicative of what the assessee itself
thought of the expenditure it made on replacement of machinery and that the
claim for deduction under the Act was made merely to diminish the tax burden,
and not under the belief that it was actually revenue expenditure.
For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned judgment of
the High Court, thereby restoring the judgment of the AO disallowing the claim
of deduction of the respondent.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to
.........................J. [Tarun Chatterjee]