9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (12) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leading to the filing of this original petition are as follows : The petitioner as a member of the Cochin Stock Exchange made contributions to the Stock Exchange building fund. This amount though claimed by the petitioner as a revenue expenditure incurred wholly, necessarily and exclusively for carrying on business, was not accepted by the Assessing Officer and from exhibit P-1 assessment it could be seen that the petitioner himself ultimately agreed for treating this amount as capital expenditure. Accordingly, the said contribution amounting to Rs. 1,07,461 was added to the assessee's total income. For the year 1993-94, a sum of Rs. 42,539 was added on the same basis to the assessee's total income. The petitioner filed a revision against t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cion cannot be accepted on a mere statement. It is too late in the day to claim any compulsion. The present stand is nothing but an afterthought self-serving and appears to have been made to suit the convenience. The petitioner himself has signed it on March 13, 1995. Therefore, it will not be permissible to allow the petitioner to go back on his own stand before the authorities below. Such a stand is permissible and will not go against any law. The second question is whether this contribution is a revenue expenditure that can be deductible. Section 37 of the Income-tax Act allows any expenditure not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raised, was not pursued further. On the contrary, the petitioner had conceded before the authorities that this is a capital expenditure and therefore it has to be treated as income. There is no error or illegality in exhibits P-3 and P-4 orders. Therefore, there is no scope to interfere with the confirming orders by invoking the jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. In O. P. No. 17756 of 1998 in reference to a similar claim, I declined to interfere, though it may be on the basis of the judgment in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [1997] 5 SCC 536. For all these reasons I do not find any grounds to interfere with the orders, exhibits P-3 and P-4. Accordingly, the original petition fails and it is dismissed.< ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
