2006 (1) TMI 109 - HC - Income Tax

Revenue or capital expenditure - poultry farming - expenditure relating to pre-layer stage for providing feed and medicines for the chicks - Whether Tribunal was right in law in setting aside the order of the lower authorities and holding that the expenditure relating to pre-layer stage for providing feed and medicines for the chicks is revenue expenditure for the purpose of the assessee s business in poultry farming is valid? - View taken by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. Even without the medicines, the birds may lay eggs and even if the medicines are administered, some of the birds might not lay eggs. That cannot be the determining factor for characterising the expenditure incurred by the assessee as capital expenditure. - From the totality of the circumstances, it can be presumed that the feed and medicines given to the birds would only constitute revenue expenditure

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee for providing feed and medicines for chicks in the pre-layer stage is revenue expenditure or capital expenditure for the purpose of the assessee's poultry farming business.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Tribunal's order regarding the treatment of expenditure amounting to Rs. 14,58,560 for providing feed and medicines to chicks in the pre-layer stage by the assessee engaged in poultry farming. The Assessing Officer disallowed this expenditure as capital expenditure, a decision upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). However, the Tribunal overturned this decision and allowed the assessee's appeal. The High Court was tasked with determining the correctness of the Tribunal's order.

The Tribunal reasoned that chicks are livestock and lay eggs due to biological and physical changes in their bodies, with no guarantee that all chicks will lay eggs. It further highlighted that providing feed and medicines to chicks may improve their living conditions but does not guarantee egg-laying. The Tribunal emphasized that the expenditure was incurred for earning income from poultry farming and that some chicks may never lay eggs. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the expenditure should be treated as revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure.

Upon reviewing the Tribunal's order and the materials on record, the High Court concurred with the Tribunal's reasoning. The Court noted that the mere administration of medicines does not guarantee egg-laying, and even without medicines, birds may lay eggs. The Court emphasized that the expenditure was incurred for the purpose of earning income from poultry farming, and the fact that it was related to chicks in the pre-layer stage does not automatically classify it as capital expenditure. Consequently, the High Court found no fault with the Tribunal's view and upheld the decision that the feed and medicines provided to the birds constituted revenue expenditure.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the tax case appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision that the expenditure incurred by the assessee for providing feed and medicines to chicks in the pre-layer stage should be treated as revenue expenditure for the purpose of the assessee's poultry farming business.