1978 (2) TMI 80 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the amounts of Rs. 26,574 relating to freight and other expenses and Rs. 7,492 relating to bank commission and bank guarantee with regard to re-export of goods could be allowed as deductible revenue expenses.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deductibility of Freight and Other Expenses (Rs. 26,574):

The assessee claimed Rs. 26,574 as deductible expenses related to the re-export of goods. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim, stating that the goods were imported without a valid license, and the re-export was a punishment for the illegal importation. The officer argued that the expenses did not arise from a valid business transaction. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, allowed the expenses, noting that the transaction was regularized by the re-export and the expenses were incurred in the course of business.

2. Deductibility of Bank Commission and Guarantee Expenses (Rs. 7,492):

The assessee also claimed Rs. 7,492 for bank commission and guarantee expenses related to the re-export. The Income-tax Officer disallowed this amount on similar grounds. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed these expenses, stating they were incurred to avoid demurrage and were in the interest of the business.

Tribunal's View:

The Tribunal disallowed both expenses, considering the transaction speculative and not connected to the assessee's business. It referenced sections 2 and 23 of the Indian Contract Act and the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. S. C. Kothari, arguing that expenses related to illegal transactions cannot be allowed.

High Court's Analysis:

The High Court disagreed with the Tribunal's view, noting that for income-tax purposes, a speculative transaction is defined under section 43(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court observed that the re-export involved actual delivery of goods and thus could not be considered speculative. The court further noted that the expenses were incurred in the capacity of a trader and were not penalties for legal infractions. The expenses were necessary for carrying on the business, even if the business was conducted in a manner not in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:

The High Court concluded that the expenses were allowable as revenue expenses. The question referred to the court was answered in the negative and in favor of the assessee. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.