9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Claim for expenditure of Rs. 12,543 incurred by the assessee during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1977-78. Detailed Analysis: Claim for Expenditure: The primary issue in this appeal is the assessee's claim for the expenditure of Rs. 12,543 incurred during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1977-78. The assessee had made a gross expenditure of Rs. 13,130 under various heads, including salaries, traveling, repairs, bank charges, trade subscription, postage, stationery and printing, legal charges, general charges, and depreciation. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected the claim, stating, "I do not find any section in the Income-tax Act, under which expenses of the nature mentioned by the assessee are allowable." The Commissioner (Appeals) partially accepted the claim, allowing Rs. 5,771 out of Rs. 13,130. The assessee appealed for the remaining amount. Arguments by the Assessee: The assessee argued that these expenses were incurred to earn income from various sources, including business, and pointed out that similar claims had been allowed in preceding years. The assessee's counsel referred to an order in the case of ITO v. Gurcharan Singh, where expenses on conveyance were considered necessary for running the business of a partnership firm. Tribunal's Consideration: The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not fully consider the nature of the assessee's joint Hindu family structure and the necessity of maintaining an office for proper accounting of income receipts and expenditure. The assessee was a partner in several firms with business operations in remote areas, necessitating expenses on conveyance and traveling. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Ramniklal Kothari, which upheld the deductibility of expenses incurred by a partner on salary, bonus, maintenance, and depreciation of motor cars and traveling expenses. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) was misdirected in insisting on evidence of work done for earning the income. Proper accounting is part of earning income, and maintaining an establishment for this purpose is necessary. Decision by the Tribunal: The Tribunal held that except for the expenditure of Rs. 1,075 on trade subscription and an estimated Rs. 1,000 on inadmissible items, the remaining expenditure of Rs. 10,000 should be considered as necessary for earning income from business. Thus, the appeal was partly allowed. Dissenting Opinion by Accountant Member: The Accountant Member emphasized that the assessee did not bifurcate the expenditure allowable to different heads of income and did not produce documentary evidence to support the claim. The Supreme Court's decision in Ramniklal Kothari's case was about the legal aspect of deductibility, not the substantiation of the claim. The Accountant Member referred to the Bombay High Court's decision in Phiroze H. Kudianavala v. CIT, which stated that a partner must establish the expenditure's commercial expediency and purpose for earning profits from the partnership business. The assessee failed to provide proper evidence for the expenditure on salaries, traveling, repairs, trade subscriptions, depreciation, and other items. The Accountant Member concluded that the assessee did not establish the necessity of the claimed expenditure for earning income from the two firms. He allowed an estimated Rs. 2,400 on broad probabilities and disallowed the remaining amount. Third Member's Decision: The Third Member noted that the exact scope of Section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act is not clear, but it appears that the Third Member must agree with one of the differing members to form a majority opinion. The Third Member considered the facts and arguments presented by both parties. The Third Member acknowledged that the assessee maintained books of account and incurred the claimed expenditure. However, some personal expenditure was likely included. The Third Member concluded that a sum of Rs. 7,000 should be allowed out of the overall claim of Rs. 13,000, aligning with the allowance made by the Judicial Member. Final Outcome: The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal agreeing to allow Rs. 7,000 out of the claimed Rs. 13,000 expenditure.
|
