Shamim Yahya, A.M:— This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-XII), New Delhi dated 28.5.2012 pertaining to assessment year 2009-2010.
2. The issue raised is that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,93,58,962/- imposed by the AO by treating the expenditure on tools and dies as capital in nature.
3. In this case AO capitalized the purchase of tools and dies of Rs. 14,44,80,405/- which was claimed by the assessee as Revenue Expenditure and made an addition of Rs. 5,93,58,962/- after allowing the deprecation of cost of tools and dies on earlier years at Rs. 8,51,21,444/-.
4. Upon assessee's appeal ld. CIT(A) following the ITAT's order in assessee's own case vide ITA No. 2783 & Ors. for A.Y 2000-2001, 2002-2003 to 2008-2009 vide order dated 13.9.2011 deleted the addition.
5. Against the above order the Revenue is in appeal before us.
6. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. Ld. Counsel of the assessee at the out set submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favor of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for earlier years as cited above. It was further submitted that the above order of the ITAT was duly upheld by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court.
7. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. We find that addition on account of capitalization of tools and dies has been duly deleted by the tribunal in assessee's own case in earlier years. The Hon'ble High Court also held in assessee's own case in ITA No. 351/2012 vide order dated 21.5.2012 has affirmed the Tribunal's order. We may refer here the Para 6 of the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble High Court.
“6. We do not think that any substantial question of law on this aspect/issue arises from the decision of the Tribunal. It has been factually found and that too concurrently by the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal that the purchase of dies and moulds did not bring into existence any permanent or enduring advantage to the assessee. It has been found that due to continuous use they wear out fast and further any minor defect in the mould on account of continuous use such as chipping or cracking would render them useless. In any case the longevity of the moulds and dies is not substantial as held by the Tribunal and they have to be replaced frequently to ensure quality of the product. Moreover, the moulds have to be produced to suit the requirements of the particular customer and after the order is met, they become useless and ultimately have to be destroyed to prevent misuse or manufacture of fakes. It has also been found by the appellate authorities that the expenditure on replacement of dies and moulds was earlier allowed by the income tax authorities as revenue expenditure. These are factual findings recorded by the Tribunal which are not disputed before us by the revenue on the basis of any evidence or material. It is well settled that any expenditure on replacement or repairs to plant and machinery which does not bring into existence any enduring or permanent advantage in the capital field is allowable as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal has only applied this settled legal position to the undisputed facts found. Therefore no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeals on this point are accordingly dismissed.
8. We find that the facts in the present case are identical. Respectfully following the precedent as above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, we uphold the same.
9. In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.