9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Allowability of expenditure incurred on the foreign tour of the wife of a senior partner u/s 37(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Validity of the Appellate Tribunal's finding based on the materials and reasonableness of the view. Summary: Issue 1: Allowability of Expenditure u/s 37(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 The primary issue was whether the expenditure incurred on the foreign tour of the wife of a senior partner was allowable as a business expense u/s 37(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee, a firm of five partners, claimed the expenses under "Export promotion expenses" for the assessment year 1972-73. The ITO disallowed the claim for the expenses related to the partner's wife, deeming them personal. On appeal, the AAC allowed the expenses, recognizing the modern trend of top executives' wives accompanying them on business trips and the partner's wife's training in modern designs, which purportedly aided the business. The Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision, emphasizing the business purpose of the wife's role as a "nurse" due to the partner's diabetes and the resultant increase in export sales. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that the partner's diabetes was a personal issue unrelated to business activities. The expenses for availing the wife's services, even if necessary for health reasons, were deemed personal. The court cited precedent cases, including State of Madras v. Coelho [1964] 53 ITR 186 (SC) and Bombay Mineral Supply Co. Private Ltd. v. CIT [1985] 153 ITR 437 (Guj), emphasizing that personal expenses cannot be allowed as business expenses. The court concluded that the expenses incurred were personal and not wholly and exclusively for business purposes, thus not qualifying for allowance under s. 37(1) of the Act. Issue 2: Validity of the Tribunal's Finding The second issue was whether the Tribunal's finding was based on valid and proper materials and was a reasonable view. The High Court found that the Tribunal's conclusion, which endorsed the AAC's statement about the wife's training in modern designs and the resultant business growth, was not supported by evidence. The court emphasized that findings based on imagination or without evidence are not sustainable. Citing CIT v. Jain [1973] 87 ITR 370 (SC), the court highlighted that findings based on no evidence or inconsistent with the evidence justify interference. The court noted that the Tribunal's statement about the wife's role in business growth was not based on any material evidence, rendering the finding unsustainable. The High Court also addressed the Tribunal's reasoning that the foreign tour was productive of increased business, pointing out that the wife's presence on the tour did not involve any business activity. The court referred to Halsbury's Laws of England, stating that indirect advantages are too remote to permit expense deductions. The court concluded that the expenses, being personal or for a dual purpose, did not qualify for allowance under s. 37(1) of the Act. Conclusion: The High Court answered the questions in the negative, ruling in favor of the Revenue. The expenses incurred on the foreign tour of the wife of the senior partner were deemed personal and not allowable under s. 37(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Tribunal's finding was also found to be unsupported by evidence and thus unsustainable. The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the reference to the Department, with counsel's fee set at Rs. 500.
|
