- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay City-Iv v. Excel Industries Ltd.
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion arises from an application under s. 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking an order directing the Tribunal to state a case and refer the following question to this Court:
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the payment of Rs. 9,00,000 to the Gujarat Electricity Board towards the cost of overhead service line constituted a revenue expenditure and hence an allowable deduction?”
The relevant facts (briefly stated) are:
- The assessment year in question is 1973–74. The respondent-company (incorporated in 1960) manufactures chemicals and set up a new phosphorus-manufacturing unit at Bhavnagar during the accounting year ending 30 September 1972.
- The respondent required a large quantity of electrical energy and entered into an agreement with the Gujarat Electricity Board under which the Board would supply an overhead service line free up to 30 metres from the nearest distribution mains; for lengths in excess of 30 metres the consumer (respondent) would pay.
- The agreement provided that, despite any contribution by the consumer, the service line would remain the property of the Gujarat Electricity Board and would be maintained by the Board; the period of supply was guaranteed for a minimum of seven years from commencement.
- The respondent paid Rs. 9,00,000 to the Gujarat Electricity Board between 4 May 1970 and 29 March 1972 as its contribution toward the cost of laying the overhead service line; these payments were charged to the respondent's accounts for the year 1 October 1971 to 30 September 1972 (relevant to AY 1973–74).
- The respondent continued to pay normal charges for electricity consumption month to month.
- The Income-tax Officer (ITO) characterized the contribution as capital expenditure on the basis that it conferred an enduring advantage. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) treated the expenditure as revenue in nature. The department appealed to the Tribunal, which upheld the AAC’s conclusion. The present application seeks a reference under s.256(2) to the High Court on the legal question above.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the payment of Rs. 9,00,000 to the Gujarat Electricity Board towards the cost of overhead service line constituted a revenue expenditure and hence an allowable deduction?
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion records the parties' positions in summary form rather than exhaustive argumentation.
Income-tax Officer / Department (Appellant)
- The ITO took the view that the Rs. 9,00,000 contribution was expenditure of a capital nature because the service line had brought to the respondent an advantage of an enduring nature.
Respondent-company (Assessee)
- On appeal the AAC treated the expenditure as revenue in nature. The opinion records factual points consistent with the respondent’s position: the service line remained the property of the Gujarat Electricity Board, the payment was made for commercial expediency to secure essential electricity supply for manufacturing, and normal consumption charges continued to be payable.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT, [1971] 82 ITR 376 (SC) | Expenditure by an assessee towards improvement of roads (originally government property) was not capital in nature where the assessee did not gain an enduring advantage or acquire a capital asset; such expenditure was allowable as a deduction. | The Court relied on this authority to support the proposition that payments made to facilitate business operations, without creating a capital asset or conferring an enduring benefit, are revenue in nature and deductible. |
| CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons (P.) Ltd., [1974] 95 ITR 428 (Mad) | Expenditure incurred under a subsidised government scheme (purchase price for land to facilitate worker housing scheme) was held to be wholly and exclusively for business purposes and not to create a capital asset for the assessee; it was therefore revenue expenditure deductible under the Act. | The Court cited this decision to show that contributions made pursuant to an agreement and as a matter of commercial expediency, without creating an asset or enduring benefit for the payer, can be treated as revenue expenditure. |
| IRC v. Carron Company, [1968] 45 TC 18 (HL) | Expenditure incurred to remove obstacles to profitable trading that facilitated day-to-day trading (even if yielding some enduring advantage) can be on income account if it does not create a new asset or open new fields of trade; the nature of the advantage (not merely its existence) is determinative. | The opinion quoted Lord Reid and Lord Wilberforce to demonstrate the test of whether the expenditure created a new asset or merely facilitated trading; the Court applied that reasoning to conclude the contribution here did not create a capital asset and was undertaken to facilitate the respondent’s ordinary trading operations. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court's analysis proceeds in a concise, fact-driven manner:
- Characterization of the payment: The Court observed that the Rs. 9,00,000 was a contribution towards construction of an overhead supply line which never became the respondent’s property; the supply line always remained the property of the Gujarat Electricity Board and was to be maintained by the Board.
- Duration and effect: The agreement guaranteed supply for a minimum period of seven years but did not transfer ownership to the respondent. The respondent still had to pay normal electricity consumption charges.
- Purpose of payment: The Court noted (as a factual matter) that the contribution was made for commercial expediency—to assure the supply of electricity essential for manufacture at Bhavnagar—rather than to acquire a capital asset.
- Application of precedent: Relying on earlier authorities (Lakshmiji Sugar Mills; T.V. Sundaram Iyengar; and IRC v. Carron Company), the Court emphasized the legal principle that expenditure incurred to facilitate trading, which does not result in the creation of an asset for the payer or confer an enduring advantage of the nature that creates capital character, is revenue expenditure.
- Conclusion on legal question: Applying those principles to the facts, the Court concluded that no enduring benefit or capital asset accrued to the respondent and that the object of the payment was commercial expediency to obtain an essential supply. Consequently, the contested contribution was of revenue character.
- Procedural disposition: Given the clear answer in favour of the assessee on the question posed, the Court held that directing the Tribunal to state a case for reference to the High Court would serve no useful purpose.
Holding and Implications
Holding:
RULE DISCHARGED.
The Court held that, on the facts and in view of the authorities cited, the payment of Rs. 9,00,000 by the respondent to the Gujarat Electricity Board towards the cost of the overhead service line was of a revenue nature and the question raised would be answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. Consequently, the rule (seeking a reference under s.256(2)) was discharged with costs.
Implications:
- Direct effect: The Tribunal need not state a case or refer the question to the High Court because the Court found the legal answer to be clear and favorable to the assessee; the contested payment is characterized as revenue expenditure for the purposes of the relevant assessment.
- Broader implications: The opinion applies and follows established authorities on the line between capital and revenue expenditure; the text does not purport to lay down a new principle beyond applying those precedents to the present facts.
Kania, J.:— This is an application under s. 256(2) of the I.T Act, 1961, for directing the Tribunal to state a case and to refer to this court for determination the following question:
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the payment of Rs. 9,00,000 to the Gujarat Electricity Board towards the cost of overhead service line constituted a revenue expenditure and hence an allowable deduction?”
2. The relevant facts, very briefly stated, are as follows:
The case relates to the assessment year 1973–74. The respondent-company was incorporated in 1960 and carries on business of manufacture of chemicals. During the year of account ended September 30, 1972, relevant to the aforesaid assessment year, the respondent set up a new unit at Bhavnagar for the manufacture of phosphorus. For the purpose of manu facture of phosphorus, the respondent required for consumption a large quantity of electrical energy which it had to obtain from the Gujarat Electricity Board. For this purpose, the respondent entered into an agree ment with the Gujarat Electricity Board under which the said Board agreed to provide an overhead service line free of cost up to 30 metres from the nearest distribution mains. The said agreement provided that for the length of the service line in excess of 30 metres, payment was to be made by the respondent. The agreement provided that notwithstanding that a portion of the cost had been paid for by the consumer, the service line would remain the property of the Gujarat Electricity Board, by whom it was to be maintained. In this connection, the respondent paid a sum of Rs. 9,00,000 to the Board during the period May 4, 1970, to March 29, 1972, as its contribution towards the cost of laying the overhead service, line. These payments were charged to the respondent-company's accounts for the year October 1, 1971, to September 30, 1972, relevant to the assess ment year 1973–74. The respondent had to pay to the Gujarat Electricity Board, of course, the normal charges of consumption of electricity from month to month. The ITO took the view that the contribution of Rs. 9,00,000 paid by the respondent to the Gujarat Electricity Board towards the cost of laying the overhead service line was an expenditure of a capital nature, as the said service line had brought to the respondent an advantage of an enduring nature. On an appeal by the respondent, the AAC treated the said expenditure as an expenditure of a revenue nature. The department appealed to the Tribunal, which upheld the conclusion of the AAC.
3. It may be mentioned that under the said agreement, it was provided that the period of supply would be for a minimum period of seven years from the date of commencement of the supply. An analysis of the facts set out earlier, shows that the amount in question has been paid by the respondent towards the construction of an overhead supply line. This supply line never became an asset of the respondent and always belonged to the Gujarat Electricity Board. The supply was guaranteed under the aforesaid agreement for a minimum period of seven years. Notwithstanding the aforesaid contribution made by the respondent towards the cost of the overhead supply line, the respondent had to pay the normal charges for the amount of electricity consumed by it. There is also no doubt that the contribution was made by the respondent for the purposes of commercial expediency, namely, for assuring the supply of electricity which was essential for the manufacture of phosphorus.
4. In Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT, [1971] 82 ITR 376 (SC), the assessee, a private company, was carrying on business of manufacture and sale of sugar, and paid to the Cane Development Council certain amounts by way of contribution for the construction and development of roads between the various sugarcane producing centres and the sugar factories of the assessee. This expenditure was incurred under a statutory obligation for the development of roads which were originally the property of the Government and remained so even after the improvement had been done. There was no finding that the roads were to be altogether newly made or that the assessee would get an enduring benefit from these roads. It was held by the Supreme Court that the expenditure was not of a capital nature and had to be allowed as an admissible deduction in computing the profits of the assessee's business. The expenditure was incurred by the assessee for the purpose of facilitating the running of its motor vehicles and other means employed for transportation of sugarcane to its factories and was, therefore, incurred for running the business or working it with a view to producing profits without the assessee gaining any advantage of an enduring benefit to itself.
5. In CIT v. T.V Sundaram Iyengar & Sons (P.) Ltd., [1974] 95 ITR 428 (Mad), the assessee-company purchased land in the name of the District Collector, Madurai, for the purpose of constructing houses for the company's workers by the Government under the subsidised industrial housing scheme sponsored by the State Government and claimed a sum of Rs. 39,696 being the purchase price as a deduction under s. 10(2)(xv) of the Indian I.T Act, 1922, as being in the nature of welfare expenses. It was held by the Madras High Court that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee-company, that the assessee-company had not acquired for itself any capital asset and that as the assessee-company would not have any interest in the buildings to be built on the land and their obligation would be over by contributing their share towards the scheme, it could not be said that the assessee-company in spending the money expected to acquire or bring into existence any advantage for the enduring benefit of the business but the expenditure was incurred more as a matter of commercial expediency in pursuance of an agreement. It was further held that the amount in question was a permissible deduction as a revenue expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business.
6. In IRC v. Carron Company, [1968] 45 TC 18 (HL), the facts, very briefly, were that the respondent-company was incorporated by a charter in 1773, which remained virtually unaltered until 1963. By 1950, many of the features of the charter had become archaic and unsuited to modern conditions and the company's commercial performance was suffering a progressive decline. The company petitioned for a supplementary charter in December, 1959, but proceedings were suspended pending the outcome of an action by a shareholder who opposed the petition. The company was advised that its prospects of success in the House of Lords were dubious and the said shareholder threatened to raise a further action on new grounds which would once more indefinitely postpone consideration of the petition. Consequently, the company settled the action on the terms, inter alia, that the company should buy out a part of the holding of the said shareholder and the whole holding of another shareholder, her nephew, who had for many years been at variance with the company. A supplementary charter was granted in January, 1963, substantially in the form proposed; the company's affairs were then reorganised and its commercial performance improved. The company, inter alia, claimed that the amounts paid to the two dissenting shareholders in respect of their shares were liable to be deducted in computing the income for the purposes of income-tax for the year 1964–65. It was held by the House of Lords that the objects of the new charter being to remove obstacles to profitable trading, anything in it beyond that could be disregarded and since the supplementary charter facilitated the day-to-day trading operations of the company, the expenditure was on income account. Lord Reid stated in his speech in that case (at p. 68 of [1968] 45 TC 18 (HL)) as follows:
“The main argument for the Crown was that by obtaining the new charter the company obtained an enduring advantage in the shape of a better administrative structure. Of course, they obtained an advantage: companies do not spend money either on capital or income account unless they expect to obtain an advantage. And money spent on income account, for example on durable repairs, may of ten yield an enduring advantage. In a case of this kind what matters is the nature of the advantage for which the money was spent. This money was spent to remove antiquated restrictions which were preventing profits from being earned. It created no new asset. It did not even open new fields of trading which had previously been closed to the company. Its true purpose was to facilitate trading by enabling the company to engage a more competent manager and to borrow money required to finance the company's traditional trading operations under modern conditions.”
7. Certain observations from Lord Wilberforce's speech may also be quoted. Lord Wilberforce has observed at page 74 as follows:
“The starting point here, in my opinion, is to be found in the decision of the Special Commissioners that the expenditure was incurred for the purposes of the company's trade, most significantly, in their opinion, in connection with the management and conduct of the business. The predominant purpose, indeed, and the effect of the changes was to put the company in a position to recruit efficient managerial staff with freedom of action to develop the company's trading in an efficient and modern manner. No decided precedent in this field can ever be decisive, but comparison, however approximate, is the best tool that we have.”
8. As far as the present case is concerned, as we have already pointed out, by the aforesaid contribution the respondent has acquired no capital asset, the overhead service line being always the property of the Gujarat Electricity Board. There is no finding that any enduring benefit or advantage has accrued to the respondent-company by reason of the aforesaid contribution made towards the cost of the overhead supply line. The object of the respondent in making the payment was one of commercial expediency, namely, to obtain supply of electricity, without which the business of the manufacture of phosphorus in the unit at Bhavnagar could not go on. The payment was really in the nature of a payment made towards the cost of obtaining supply of electricity essential for manufacturing the activities carried on at Bhavnagar.
9. In these facts and circumstances, and in view of the decisions which we have referred to earlier, the question sought to be referred, in our opinion, could only be answered in favour of the assessee and against the department and no useful purpose would be served by directing the Tribunal to state a case and to refer the said question for our determination. Rule is, therefore, discharged with costs.
10. Rule discharged.
Alert