2007 (3) TMI 180 - HC - Income Tax

Prima facie adjustment u/s 143(1) disallowance of expenditure on account of pre-incorporation expenses incurred by holding company and related to other projects - disallowance upheld - Further before disallowance of site restoration expenses nature of accounts should be examined - Matter remanded

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of exploration expenses for assessment years 1996-97 and 1998-99.
2. Disallowance of pre-effective cost.
3. Allowance of expenditure on the principle of amortization.
4. Validity of order under Section 143(1)(a) for Site Restoration Cost.
5. Addition of Site Restoration Cost to income declared under Section 115JA.

Analysis:

Issue 1 - Disallowance of Exploration Expenses:
The assessee, a foreign company engaged in oil production, filed appeals regarding disallowance of exploration expenses totaling Rs. 88,05,226 for Cambay and KrishnaGodavari offshore permits. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim as unrelated to the Ravva Oil Field project. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this decision, and the Tribunal confirmed it, citing the expenses related to prior periods. The Tribunal also rejected the claim for pre-effective costs, emphasizing they were incurred by the holding company, not the appellant. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of post-incorporation expenditure.

Issue 2 - Disallowance of Pre-Effective Cost:
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of pre-effective costs amounting to Rs. 2,72,93,866, stating they were preliminary expenses incurred by the holding company for forming the assessee company. The Tribunal found no evidence to support the claim that these expenses related to post-incorporation activities, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Issue 3 - Allowance of Expenditure on Amortization Principle:
The Tribunal rejected the plea to allow the expenses on the principle of amortization, as the expenses were found to be incurred by the holding company and not related to post-incorporation activities of the appellant. The Tribunal affirmed the decisions of the lower authorities, dismissing the appeal on this ground.

Issue 4 - Validity of Order under Section 143(1)(a) for Site Restoration Cost:
The Revenue disputed the claim for Site Restoration Cost under Section 42, arguing it was not allowable without a specific provision in the agreement. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue, citing precedents and disallowing the claim. The assessee appealed this decision, challenging the Tribunal's reliance on past judgments.

Issue 5 - Addition of Site Restoration Cost to Income under Section 115JA:
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal regarding the Site Restoration Cost for the assessment year 1998-99, stating the agreement did not specify the claim's allowance under Section 42. The assessee appealed this decision, contesting the Tribunal's interpretation and seeking a review.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed one appeal concerning exploration expenses as pure questions of fact, while remanding the other appeal back to the Tribunal for reconsideration on the validity of the order under Section 143(1)(a) for Site Restoration Cost.