1976 (7) TMI 2 - HC - Income Tax

Business Expenditure Expenditure Incurred Income Tax Act Legal Expenses Management Expenses Refusal To Register

Issues Involved:
1. Deduction of legal expenses of Rs. 9,500 related to the transfer of shares.
2. Deduction of legal expenses of Rs. 5,000 related to resisting the appointment of a Government inspector.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deduction of Legal Expenses of Rs. 9,500 Related to the Transfer of Shares:
The assessee-company incurred Rs. 9,500 in legal expenses to resist the transfer of shares by a shareholder to his son and daughter-in-law. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed this expense, deeming it unrelated to the company's business. This view was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) due to the absence of any explanation from the assessee.

The Tribunal also rejected the claim, emphasizing that for an expenditure to be considered as laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes, it must be shown that the expenditure was necessary to avoid some danger to or difficulty in carrying on the business. The assessee failed to disclose the reasons for resisting the transfer of shares and how it would harm the company's interests or its ability to make profits. Consequently, the Tribunal disallowed the Rs. 9,500 as a permissible deduction.

The court noted that under the articles of association, the board of directors had an absolute right to refuse the transfer of shares without assigning any reason. However, the onus was on the assessee to prove that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The assessee failed to provide any evidence or explanation for incurring these expenses, thus failing to discharge the onus.

Reliance on the Supreme Court decision in Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. CIT was deemed unhelpful because the proceedings in that case were directly related to the business operations, unlike the present case. Therefore, the court concluded that the legal expenses of Rs. 9,500 were not a permissible deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.

2. Deduction of Legal Expenses of Rs. 5,000 Related to Resisting the Appointment of a Government Inspector:
The company incurred Rs. 5,000 in legal expenses to resist the appointment of a Government inspector to investigate its affairs, following a report by the Registrar of Companies. The income-tax authorities disallowed this expenditure, considering it not laid out for business purposes.

The Tribunal noted that expenses incurred to defeat the objective of a Central enactment cannot be allowed as business expenditure. The Tribunal reasoned that if the company's objective was to preserve its fair name, it should have cooperated with the investigator to prove its affairs were clean, rather than resisting the investigation.

The court considered whether the legal expenses were incurred to preserve the fair name of the company. It noted that the Registrar of Companies reported mismanagement, prompting the Government to appoint an investigator. Instead of proving its affairs were clean, the company chose to resist the investigation, ostensibly to protect individuals guilty of mismanagement. Such expenses were not considered to be incurred for promoting the business's interests.

Reliance on the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. was also deemed unhelpful. The court emphasized that the essential test is whether the expenses were incurred for preserving and protecting the business from processes or proceedings that might reduce its income and profits. In this case, the company's actions were not seen as promoting its business interests but rather as an attempt to shield individuals from scrutiny.

Therefore, the court concluded that the legal expenses of Rs. 5,000 were not a permissible deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Act.

Conclusion:
The court answered the referred question in the negative, holding that the company was not entitled to the deduction of the legal expenses of Rs. 9,500 and Rs. 5,000. The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the revenue.

← Previous Next →