1993-VIL-655-BOM-DT
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
IT Reference No. 170 of 1979
Date: 24.02.1993
MAFATLAL FINE SPG. & WVG. CO. LTD.
Vs
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
For the Petitioner : Dilip Dwarkadas, F. Sampat
For the Respondent : Dr. V. Balsubramanian, J. P. Deodhar
BENCH
Dr. B. P. Saraf And U. T. Shah, JJ.
JUDGMENT
U. T. Shah, J.
Under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act1) the Tribunal has referred the following questions at the instance of the assessee :
"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 23,352 incurred on wall pictures, viz., wall paintings, was not allowable as admissible expenditure under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1973-74 ?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was Justified In holding that expenditure In regard to the contribution of Rs. 4,28,555 made by the assessee-company to the Gujarat Electricity Board towards the laying of additional circuit line in order to meet the increased demand of the company was not allowable as admissible expenditure under section 37 or section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1973-74 ?
3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal w as right in law in not allowing the deduction of Rs. 42,171 being expenditure on carpets, Rs. 18,881 being expenditure on Venetian Blinds and Rs. 6,616 being expenditure on canteen utensils as business expenditure under section 37 or under section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1973-74?"
2. It Is an agreed position that the issue raised in Question No. 2 above is covered by the decision of this Court in the cases of CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. [1980] 122 ITR 995 and CIT v. National Machinery Mfrs. Ltd. [19911 191 ITR 483 in favour of the assessee.
In this view of the matter, we hold that the Tribunal was not justified in not allowing the assessee's claim for deduction of Rs. 4,28,555. We would, therefore, answer this question in the negative and in favour of the assessee.
3. As regards the issue raised in question Nos. 1 and 3 are concerned, we find from the material contained in the paper-book that the ITO had disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction of the expenditure mentioned in the questions on the ground that they were capital in nature. Further, we find that the ITO has allowed depreciation on the expenditure incurred by the assessee' on various items mentioned in the questions. The assessment year concerned is 1973-74 and today we are in the assessment year 1993-94. In other words, 20 years have passed since this assessment was framed by the ITO. Over this 20 years, the assessee would have got full depreciation on the items mentioned in the questions.
In this view of the matter, issues raised In these questions are academic in nature and it would serve no purpose to anybody even if the decisions were to be given in favour of the assessee; in that event the ITO would be required to modify/rectify assessment years right from the assessment year 1973-74 onwards, which would entail not only waste of time but also waste of public money.
4. After discussion with the learned counsel for the assessee, the counsel was fair enough to state that he would leave to the Court whether to answer these questions or not.
5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we decline to answer these questions.
6. No order as to costs.
DISCLAIMER: Though all efforts have been made to reproduce the order accurately and correctly however the access, usage and circulation is subject to the condition that VATinfoline Multimedia is not responsible/liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any mistake/error/omissions.