1950 (12) TMI 4 - SC - Income Tax

whether a deduction of the interest of ₹ 5,582 is a permissible deduction under Section 10(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act? Held that - This appeal should be allowed on the simple ground that the facts necessary to be established by the respondents to support their claim for exemption under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act have not been established at any stage of the proceedings and therefore they are not entitled to the deduction claimed. The appeal is therefore allowed

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the payment of Rs. 22,500 by the respondent company qualifies for exemption under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act.
2. Whether the High Court erred in its approach by not adhering to the facts as found by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
3. Whether the High Court incorrectly applied the principles from Mitchell's case to the present case.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Exemption under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act:
The respondent company claimed that the payment of Rs. 22,500 should be allowed as a deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, arguing that the expenditure was laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business. The Tribunal found that:
- The payment was made to settle a decree against the company for misfeasance committed by its directors.
- The expenditure was not laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of carrying on the business.
- The payment was considered a capital expenditure, not a revenue expenditure.

The High Court, however, accepted the argument that the payment was made to avoid public exposure and scandal, and to maintain the managing agency, thereby qualifying it as a business expenditure under Section 10(2)(xv). The Supreme Court found this approach incorrect as the necessary facts to support this claim were not established.

2. High Court's Approach and Facts Found by the Tribunal:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court's jurisdiction in income-tax references is advisory and it must base its judgment on the facts found by the Tribunal. The Tribunal's findings are final unless there is no evidence to support them. The High Court erred by basing its conclusion on the arguments of the respondent's counsel rather than the facts found by the Tribunal. The Tribunal did not find that the payment was made to avoid public exposure or scandal or to maintain the managing agency, which were essential facts for applying the principles from Mitchell's case.

3. Application of Mitchell's Case:
The High Court applied the principles from Mitchell's case, which involved a payment made to avoid public scandal and maintain business operations, to the present case. However, the Supreme Court noted that the facts necessary to apply Mitchell's case were not established. The Tribunal's findings did not support the claim that the payment was made to avoid scandal or maintain the managing agency. The High Court's error was in assuming facts based on counsel's arguments rather than the Tribunal's findings.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, noting that the respondent company failed to establish the necessary facts to support their claim for exemption under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The High Court's judgment was based on an incorrect assumption of facts, and it did not adhere to the findings of the Tribunal. The appeal was allowed with costs, and the High Court's decision was overturned.