JUDGMENT Manjunath, J. This appeal is by the revenue challenging the findings of the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal, Bangalore Bench ‘A’ in ITANo.695/Bang/2000 for the assessment year 1996-97 wherein the Tribunal has reversed the findings of the Assessing Officer and also the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) raising the following substantial question of law: i) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the amount of Rs. 8,06,147/- incurred by the assessee for replacing the old mono-sound system with a new stereo system viz., Dolby system should be treated as a revenue expenditure and not as a capital expenditure as held by the assessing Officer and confirmed by the Appellant Commissioner? “ 2. The assessee during the relevant assessment year replaced the old mono sound system with new Dolby stereo system and treated it as a revenue expenditure. The assessing Officer rejecting the contention of the assessee on the ground that it cannot be treated as a revenue expenditure, held it as a capital expenditure. Accordingly, he passed an order of assessment. Aggrieved by the order of assessment the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which came to be dismissed against which a further appeal was filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the fact that the assessee instead of repairing the sound system had installed Dolby system held that such change of stereo would amount to revenue expenditure and not a capital expenditure. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the revenue is before us. 3. We have heard the Learned Counsel appearing for both the Parties. 4. Mr. Aravind, Learned Counsel for the revenue relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. (293 ITR 201) contends that the change of sound system has to be treated as capital expenditure and not a revenue expenditure. Therefore he requests the Court to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and confirm the order passed by the Assessing Officer. He further contends that if sound system is changed, it cannot be termed as a repair to the existing system and it has to be treated as an investment for acquiring a new machinery. Therefore he requests the Court to allow the appeal. 5. He further contends that if sound system is changed, it cannot be termed as a repair to the existing system and it has to be treated as an investment for acquiring a new machinery. Therefore he requests the Court to allow the appeal. 5. Per contra, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee relying upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mill ((2007) 294 ITR 328) and in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax contends (124 ITR 1), that even if a new machinery is replaced, test has to be applied in order to consider whether the expenditure is of revenue in nature or capital. Considering that the old stereo system had been worn out and was beyond repair, a new system was replaced without which no film could have been exhibited in the theatre. He further contends that due to change of sound system there is no change in the seating capacity of the theatre nor the tariff of tickets. Therefore, according to him, there is no additional income earned by the assessee due to change of sound system and it has to be treated as a revenue expenditure. 6. Havring heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties, we have noticed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Saravana Spinning Mills. Pvt. Ltd., (SUPRA) while considering the question regarding expenditure towards current repairs as contemplated under Section 21 (l) of the Income Tax Act, has held that the deduction admissible under Section 31(1) is only for current repairs; whether such expenditure incun-ed by the assessee conceptually is revenue or capital in nature was not relevant to decide the question as to whether such expenditure comes within the etymological meaning of the expression ‘current repairs’. Therefore, it further held that even if the expenditure is revenue in nature, it would not fall in the connotation of current expenditure. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills’ case (cites supra) has held that in order to consider the expenditure of an assessee as revenue or capital in nature, the tests are required to be applied. 7. In this background, we have to consider whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee for replacing the sound system to its theatre amounts to revenue or capital in nature. 7. In this background, we have to consider whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee for replacing the sound system to its theatre amounts to revenue or capital in nature. This Court has to consider whether the change of sound system has increased the revenue or not. Admittedly, the old sound system was in existence for several years and due to use of the very sound system for several Years, the old system was worn out. If the assessee has provided certain amenities to its customers by replacing the old system with a better sound system and by introducing such system if the assessee has not increased its income in any way, therefore we cannot consider such change of sound system as capital in nature. According to us insted of repairing the existing old stereo system, the assessee has installed Dolby stereo system. This has not benefited the assessee in any way with regard to its total income since there is no change in the seating capacity of the theatre or increase in the tariff rate of the ticket. 8. In the result, we have to answer the question of law against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.