9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (10) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee-company and the Government and under section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, there existed during the relevant previous year, a liability on the company to restore the land leased to it to its original condition and that, therefore, the estimated liability for 'restoration charges' was an admissible revenue expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the liability, if any, under the lease agreement towards 'restoration charges' was not a part of the price paid for acquiring the lease and did not, therefore, constitute capital expenditure ?" It was pointed out by Shri Jetley, learned couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the first question, namely, as to whether the estimated liability was an eligible revenue expenditure, and the second question. Inviting our attention to the fact that references for subsequent assessment years have also been likewise answered in view of the above judgment, Shri Jetley argued that the questions in the present reference should also be answered accordingly. Shri Dastur, learned counsel for the assessee, fairly admitted that our court had considered and answered the questions in the manner pointed out by Shri Jetley in CIT v. New India Mining Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. [1987 ] 168 ITR 431. He, however, stated that the said judgment need not be followed for three reasons, viz., (i) the assessee has filed a special leave pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provided that the lessees shall, as far as possible, restore the surface land so used to its original condition. In this context, Shri Dastur invited our attention to the observations of our court in the earlier judgment to the effect that it was impermissible to interpret any deed in the light of another deed, though it be between the same parties and in relation to the same subject-matter, but executed thirty years later and that it was equally impermissible to interpret the lease in the light of the pro-forma of a similar lease that was not published until twenty years thereafter. He argued that these observations were not applicable in the present case as, at least for a part of the previous year, the new lease agreement was in force ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be open to the assessee to take up this argument before the Supreme Court. So far as this court is concerned, the interpretation by our earlier Bench is binding on us which we respectfully follow. The third argument, on the face of it, looks attractive and also has some substance. However, as pointed out by Shri Jetley, the Tribunal was not called upon to consider the legal effect of the new lease deed. The Tribunal has referred to this court the questions which are based on the lease agreement dated April 23, 1970. We might have thought of reframing the questions if we had found that the new lease deed was considered by the Tribunal. In the circumstances, we do not think it appropriate to answer the questions referred to us by the Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
