9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the sum of Rs. 8,674 received on account of service connection charges was liable to inclusion in the company's business income for the assessment year 1947-48. 2. Whether the sum of Rs. 7,504 representing the expenditure incurred by the company in giving service connections was deductible in arriving at the company's income from business for the year 1947-48. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Inclusion of Rs. 8,674 in Business Income: The primary issue was whether the sum of Rs. 8,674 received by the assessee company from consumers for service connection charges should be treated as a capital receipt or a revenue receipt. The Income-tax Officer treated the amount as a revenue receipt and included it in the total income of the assessee. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, relying on the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT v. Poona Electric Supply Company, excluded this amount from the total income, treating it as a capital receipt. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal reversed this decision, holding that the amount should be treated as a revenue receipt. The High Court, however, disagreed with the Tribunal's view, stating that the Tribunal had no justification for distinguishing the Poona Electric Supply Company's case. The Court emphasized that the true question was whether the expenditure on service connection brought into existence an asset or an advantage of lasting character for the business. It was admitted that the service connection had a life of about 10 years and was essential for supplying electricity to consumers, thus constituting a quasi-permanent asset. The Court concluded that the expenditure on service connection was of a capital nature and not of revenue quality. The Court further supported its conclusion by citing authoritative cases such as Atherton v. British Insulated & Helsby Cables, Ltd., and Henriksen v. Grafton Hotel, Ltd., which established that expenditures bringing into existence an asset or an advantage for the enduring benefit of a trade should be treated as capital expenditures. The Court also referenced the Seaham Harbour Dock Company v. Crook case, where grants received for capital works were not considered trade receipts. Ultimately, the High Court held that the Rs. 8,674 received from consumers for service connections was a capital receipt and should not be included in the company's business income for the year 1947-48. 2. Deductibility of Rs. 7,504 Expenditure: The second issue was whether the sum of Rs. 7,504 spent on service connections was deductible in arriving at the company's business income. The Income-tax Officer had treated this expenditure as capital and allowed depreciation on it. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not address this issue separately as he had excluded the entire Rs. 8,674 from income. The High Court, having determined that the Rs. 8,674 was a capital receipt, implied that the expenditure of Rs. 7,504 was indeed capital in nature. Since the first issue was resolved in favor of treating the receipt as capital, the question of deductibility became moot. Therefore, the Court did not furnish a separate answer to the second question. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that the amount of Rs. 8,674 received by the assessee on account of service connection charges was a capital receipt and should not be included in the assessee's business income for the year 1947-48. Consequently, it was unnecessary to address the deductibility of the Rs. 7,504 expenditure separately. The assessee was entitled to costs from the Income-tax Department. Choudhary, J., concurred with the judgment.
|
