Facts of the Case

The assessee incurred expenditure amounting to approximately ₹1.56 crore during Assessment Year 1995-96 for establishing its business relating to the manufacture and sale of beer and cold drinks. The assessee treated the expenditure as deferred revenue expenditure and sought to spread the deduction over a period of ten years, claiming only 10% deduction in each year.

During the original assessment under Section 143(3), the Assessing Officer examined the claim, considered the assessee’s explanation, and accepted the method of amortization by allowing deduction at the rate of 10% annually.

Consequently, deductions were allowed for several succeeding assessment years. However, while completing assessments for Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2004-05, the Assessing Officer changed his stand and held that there was no concept of deferred revenue expenditure and that the expenditure ought to have been claimed under Section 35D of the Income-tax Act.

Further, reassessment proceedings under Sections 147 and 148 were initiated for certain intervening years on the ground that excessive deduction had been allowed, resulting in escapement of income.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether expenditure initially accepted as deferred revenue expenditure and allowed over ten years could subsequently be reclassified under Section 35D.
  2. Whether the Revenue could reopen completed assessments after having consistently allowed deduction at the rate of 10% in earlier years.
  3. Whether reassessment under Sections 147 and 148 was justified when the original assessment had been completed after due application of mind by the Assessing Officer.
  4. Whether the Revenue could adopt different tax treatments for the same expenditure in different assessment years.

Petitioner’s (Revenue’s) Arguments

  • The Revenue contended that there is no recognized concept of deferred revenue expenditure under the Income-tax Act for the expenditure in question.
  • It was argued that the expenditure represented pre-establishment or preliminary expenditure and therefore could only be claimed in accordance with Section 35D.
  • The Revenue maintained that by allowing deduction at the rate of 10% each year, taxable income had escaped assessment.
  • Accordingly, reassessment proceedings under Sections 147 and 148 were justified and deductions claimed in later years ought to be disallowed.

Respondent’s (Assessee’s) Arguments

  • The assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer had already examined the issue in the original assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 1995-96.
  • The claim for spreading the expenditure over ten years had been specifically considered and accepted after seeking explanations.
  • Based upon such acceptance, deductions had already been allowed for several years and assessments for those years had attained finality.
  • The assessee argued that the Revenue could not subsequently alter the nature and treatment of the same expenditure for only some of the remaining years.
  • Such inconsistent treatment would create uncertainty and result in an anomalous and unjust tax position.

Court Findings / Court Order

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue and upheld the order of the Tribunal.

The Court observed that:

  • The issue had been specifically examined during the original assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 1995-96.
  • The Assessing Officer had consciously accepted the assessee’s method of spreading the expenditure over ten years.
  • Deductions had already been granted for several assessment years and those assessments had become final.
  • Once the Department had accepted a particular treatment and acted upon it for multiple years, it was impermissible to alter the treatment midway for the remaining years.
  • The Revenue could not permit deduction at the rate of 10% for several years and then seek to invoke Section 35D for the balance years relating to the very same expenditure.
  • Such a course would lead to an anomalous and absurd situation and would violate principles of consistency in tax administration.

Accordingly, the High Court held that the Tribunal’s order did not warrant interference and dismissed all appeals filed by the Revenue.

Important Clarification

The judgment does not lay down a general proposition validating all claims of deferred revenue expenditure. Rather, it emphasizes that where the Assessing Officer has consciously examined and accepted a particular method of deduction, and the Department has consistently acted upon that decision over several years, the Revenue cannot arbitrarily alter the treatment of the same expenditure in subsequent years.

The decision reinforces:

  • Principle of consistency in tax proceedings.
  • Finality of completed assessments.
  • Limits on reassessment where an issue has already been examined.
  • Impermissibility of changing tax treatment midway after granting deductions for several years.

Sections Involved

  • Section 35D – Amortization of preliminary expenses
  • Section 143(3) – Regular Assessment
  • Section 147 – Income Escaping Assessment (Reassessment)
  • Section 148 – Issue of Notice for Reassessment

·         Section 260A – Appeal to High Court

Link to download the order –https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2011:DHC:11171-DB/AKS11012011ITA8882009_135259.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.