9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (10) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led photo copies of the same before the Income-tax Officer. Out of the receipts so produced, No. 9408 was perused by the ITO. According to him, the payment under the said receipt (Rs. 8,625) was not towards electricity consumption. He further held in the assessment order that the assessee was unable to explain for what purpose this amount was paid. The ITO took it as deposit made with the Electricity Board and consequently he held that this payment cannot be held as expenses. The Inspecting Asstt. Commissioner (Assessment) disallowed the sum of Rs. 8,625 under his assessment orders dated 17-2-1987. When the matter came up in appeal before the learned CIT (Appeals), the learned Counsel for the assessee produced before her, copy of the letter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for, the assessee is alleged to have pilfered the energy. It is specifically alleged that the seals of the switch board meter in the assessee's business premises were found to have been tampered with and excess energy than what is recorded in the meter is drawn. The fact that higher load was connected would probabilise the higher consumption. It is very clear that each one of these allegations in the notice were mere allegations. Under the powers given by the APSEB Tariff Rules, the Asstt. Divisional Engineer who inspected the factory premises was entitled to cut off the energy if he found the electricity meter tampered with. However, in this case, before exercising his powers he tentatively wanted to mitigate the transgression by insist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 was only to keep the service connection live without being disconnected. Without electricity connection it is impossible for the assessee to carry on its manufacturing activity and whatever expenditure that is incurred to keep its business going on is allowable expenditure under section 37 of the Income-tax Act. I am of the view that the ratio of the following decisions relied upon by the learned DR does not apply to the facts of the present case. 1. Haji Aziz Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 350 (SC). In this case the dates were imported from Iraq. Importing dates by steamer is prohibited and hence the Customs authorities confiscated the dates under section 167 of the Customs Act. However, in this case, there is no tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , which was ultimately held by the Delhi High Court as not an allowable business expenditure. However, in this case, the S.E. (Operations) Hyderabad who is the competent authority to find out any pilferage and to assess the proper damages for pilferage, did not pass any order till now and the only expenditure under consideration is the sum paid to keep the electricity connection to the business premises of the assessee. Thus, the Delhi High Court decision is not applicable to the facts of the case. The third decision relied by the learned DR is that of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Suneeta Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 162 ITR 883. In that case, for delayed payment of Provident Fund and Excise Duty and for delay in filing the sales-t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment year 1975-76. Ultimately allowing the ad hoc payment as a valid business expenditure, the Tribunal held the following at page 995 of the reported decision : " It is not controverted before us that the piece of land in respect of which damages came to be paid was used by the assessee for purposes of the business. Any payment made by the assessee for purposes of business had to be allowed as a business expenditure so long as it is not for acquiring a capital asset or on account of personal expenditure. By making this payment the assessee did not acquire any capital asset nor the expenditure incurred can be said to be of a personal nature. The assessee may have unauthorisedly occupied a piece of land but in doing so it cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hirteen storeys. Sanction was accorded in April 1967. While granting sanction, the NDMC laid down that the second floor could cover up only 35 per cent in accordance with its bye-laws. However, the assessee built the second floor covering 50 per cent thereby exceeding the permissible limits under the bye-laws. The building was commenced in July 1967 and construction was completed in July 1969 with only finishing touches remaining. Time for revalidating the plan having expired, the assessee applied for the sanction of the revised plan of the building. It is only 12 storeys in the place of 13 storeys in view of the fact that there was excess construction in the second floor. The revised plan was sanctioned in April 1970 condoning the addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
