1981 (3) TMI 48 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the contribution made to a municipality by a company for providing a pipeline through municipal land for the disposal of effluents is a revenue expenditure or a capital expenditure.
2. Whether the High Court should require the Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the suggested question of law to the High Court u/s 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961.

Summary:

Issue 1: Nature of Expenditure
The court addressed whether the contribution made by the company to the municipality for providing a pipeline for effluent disposal is a revenue expenditure or a capital expenditure. The Tribunal had held that the expenditure was a revenue deduction. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's view, stating that the expenditure was incurred to guard against health hazards, prevent litigation, and ensure the smooth operation of the company's business. The expenditure was deemed to be in the nature of business expenditure u/s 37 of the I.T. Act, incurred on account of commercial expediency, and thus allowable as a revenue deduction.

Issue 2: Requirement to State the Case u/s 256(2)
The court examined whether it was mandatory for the Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the suggested question of law to the High Court when invoked u/s 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The court clarified that while the Tribunal is enjoined to refer the case upon any question of law arising out of its order, the High Court has discretion in this matter. The High Court is not bound to require the Tribunal to refer a question if it is satisfied with the correctness of the Tribunal's decision. The court emphasized that the power under s. 256(2) should be exercised judiciously, taking into account the correctness of the Tribunal's decision and the existing burden of arrears in the High Court. The court held that it would be failing in its duty if it mechanically required the Tribunal to refer a question of law without considering the merits of the case.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the Tribunal's decision was unexceptionable and that the expenditure in question was rightly considered a revenue deduction. Consequently, the court refused to direct the Tribunal to make a reference, discharging the rule with no order as to costs.