9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (6) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n account of stowing and fire protection and whether such finding was otherwise unreasonable or perverse ? (2) If the answer to question No. (1) is in the affirmative, then, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenses which were not actually incurred during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1969-70 should be allowed to be deducted in computing the profits and gains of business assessable for the said assessment year ?" The facts leading to this reference are that in proceedings for the assessment to tax for the assessment year 1969-70, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 1,35,646 with reference to expenses relating to fire protection amounting to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oal Board did not allow all the expenses as reasonable and reimbursed only a portion of it, the claim of the assessee for allowing the expenses in the year of account could not be accepted. He further held that the expenses were not referable to business expenditure for which reason he disallowed the entire amount. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the expenditure was revenue expenditure and hence allowable. He also held that the entire expenditure could be allowed, because the Income-tax Officer never disputed the actual expenditure. The Revenue felt aggrieved and came up in appeal before the Tribunal. According to the Revenue, the first point which should have been noticed by the Appellate Assistant Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in this respect inasmuch as it held : "to that extent only, the company will be justified in debiting those amounts to the Coal Board in the three years and after deducting the payment received of Rs. 33,765, only the balance shall be allowable as written off in this year. " At the hearing, the contentions raised before the Tribunal have been reiterated by learned counsel for the Revenue. The contention is that the expenditure in question did not pertain to the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1969-70. Therefore, the expenditure could not have been allowed. On the other hand, the contention of the assessee is that there was no dispute about the actual expenditure. The Income-tax Officer did not disallow the expenditure on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he quantum of such expenditure. The reimbursement may not be according to the scale. It may be reduced under certain circumstances. But that does not affect the claim of the assessee because the actual expenses incurred by the assessee had not been doubted. In our view, the Tribunal had considered all relevant materials. We do not find that in arriving at the finding, the Tribunal relied on any irrelevant material. No such material has been brought to our attention which the Tribunal did not consider in arriving at its conclusion. If the assessee maintains the accounts on the basis of reimbursement made from year to year by the Coal Board in respect of the expenditure to be incurred and if this particular course has been followed systematic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
