Punjab & Haryana H.C : The proceedings under s. 147(b) had been validly initiated

Counsel Appeared

Narinder Kumar Sood & S.C. Nagpal, for the Assessee : L.K. Sood, for the Revenue

S. S. SODHI J. :

The assessee-company had been running a transport business which it was constrained to discontinue in 1948. The work done by it, thereafter, consisted of looking after and maintaining its assets, the sale of plots of land owned by it and income from rent and interest.

2. With regard to the asst. yr. 1977-78, a controversy arose concerning the salary said to have been paid to one Khushi Ram, an employee of the assessee. This led to the following question of law being referred for the opinion of this Court, namely:

“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the proceedings under s. 147(b) had been validly initiated ?”

3. This question has to be returned unanswered as it has become infructuous in view of the fact that after the reopening of the assessee’s assessment, his plea stands accepted and no matter thus survives for this Court to express its opinion upon. Turning to the asst. yr. 1978-79, here again, the matter pertained to the deduction claimed in respect of salary paid by the assessee to its employees. A deduction of Rs. 7,500 was claimed on this account. This was disallowed on the ground that it was being claimed in respect of earning of interest of Rs. 5,400, but the employee had no role to play in earning this income and, therefore, payment of salary could not be attributed wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning income within the mean ing of s. 57(iii) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). It is this conclusion that led to the following question being referred, namely : “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the salary of Rs. 7,500 could not be allowed as a deduction under s. 57(iii) ?” 4. The view taken by the Tribunal, in the context of the circumstances herein, is clearly too narrow to be countenanced. The totality of the circumstances of the assessee have to be seen to determine the matter in question. It would be pertinent in this context to advert to the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in CIT vs. Rampur Timber and Turnery Co. Ltd. (1981) 21 CTR (All): (1981) 129 ITR 58(All), where, in dealing with the provisions of s. 57(iii) of the Act with regard to the assessee-company that had discontinued its business, it was held that the expenditure incurred for retaining the status of the company, namely, miscellaneous expenses, salary, legal expenses, travelling expenses and the like, would be expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning income. Seen in this light, the assessee here must indeed be held entitled to the deduction claimed. The reference is, consequently, hereby answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

[Citation : 179 ITR 506]