COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. TATA SONS PVT LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A number of questions pertaining to several assessment years have been referred to us by the Tribunal, Bombay Bench "B". These questions are to be found in para 15 of the statement of the case, dated 16th October, 1964, and are as follows : For the asst. yrs. 1956 57 and 1958 59 to 1961 62

(2.) AS far as the first question as to the assessee company's claim to relief under S. 49D of the Indian IT Act, 1922, for the assessment years mentioned is concerned ; counsel on behalf of both the sides stated that, as far as this Court was concerned, it was concluded by its decision in CIT vs. Tata Sons (P) Ltd. (1974) 97 ITR 128 (Bom), and that in accordance with that decision the question was liable to be answered in favour of the assessee and in the affirmative. The third question pertains to the liability of the assessee to be assessed in respect of the distribution received on the liquidation of Air India International Ltd., in which company it held a large number of shares. Mr. Kolah, on behalf of the assessee, at whose instance the question was referred to us, stated that the points involved in the question do not survive, that the assessee company had already secured the relief that it wanted and that accordingly the question need not be answered. Accordingly, we are concerned in this reference with the second question, which pertains to the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 contributed by,the assessee company to Ahmedabad Advance Mills on the occasion of its golden jubilee celebrations. In order to appreciate the respective contentions, a few facts as would pertain to this question only may be set out.

(3.) IN CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal and Co. (1960) 38 ITR 601 it is observed by the Supreme Court that it is a question of fact in each case whether the amount which is claimed as a deductible allowance under S. 10(2)(xv) of the IT Act was laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of such business and if the fact finding Tribunal comes to the conclusion on evidence which would justify that conclusion, it being for them to find the evidence and to give the finding, then it will become an admissible deduction ; it has observed further that the decision of such questions is for the Tribunal and the decision must be sustained if there is evidence upon which the Tribunal could have arrived at such a conclusion. The Supreme Court proceeded to hold that in every case it is a question of fact whether the expenditure was expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the trade or business of the assessee. The question posed does not proceed upon the footing that there was no evidence or material before the Tribunal to arrive at several conclusions that it did, which have been earlier set out. In my view, applying the decision of the Supreme Court in Chandulal Keshavlal and Co.'s case (supra) above cited, it would, in these circumstances, be a question of fact for the Tribunal to consider and adjudicate upon, and, inasmuch as the basis of its decision has not been questioned, it would not be proper for the High Court to consider and question the correctness of that decision.