1988 (4) TMI 114 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the expenditure incurred on the removal of a cremation ground in front of the factory gate is a revenue expenditure or a capital expenditure for the assessee.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi-D involved an appeal by the assessee for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73, addressing the common issue of expenditure related to the removal of a cremation ground in front of the factory gate. The assessee, Modipon Ltd., had capitalized an expenditure of Rs. 27,892 in one year and Rs. 4,802 in the subsequent year for the removal of the cremation ground. Initially disallowed by the AAC, the issue was raised before the Tribunal. The CIT (A) had ruled against the assessee, stating that the expenditure did not facilitate the business or result in any business economy. The Tribunal considered arguments regarding the nature of the expenditure and its relation to business purposes.

The assessee contended that the removal of the cremation ground and the creation of a park in front of the factory gate were for business purposes, citing a ruling regarding a temple benefiting employees as a business asset. The Departmental Representative argued that the expenditure resulted in an enduring advantage and should be treated as capital expenditure, referencing relevant case laws. The Tribunal acknowledged the unseemly nature of a cremation ground near the factory gate and the impact on mental health, leading to the conclusion that the removal was an act of business expediency. It distinguished between the expenditure on facilities at the new cremation ground and the park laid by the Town Area Committee.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure was directly related to the assessee's business, aimed at removing a nuisance affecting the mental well-being of employees and visitors. It rejected the CIT (A)'s view that the removal was due to individual desire, emphasizing the business necessity. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the deduction of the expenditure for both assessment years. The judgment highlighted the commercial sense of the advantage gained and the necessity of the expenditure for business purposes, ultimately favoring the assessee's position.