9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (10) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the expenditure of Rs. 11,150 incurred by it on the purchase and installation of central air-conditioning plant in its newly built house at Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi, was exempt under section 5(e) of the Expenditure-tax Act. This contention was rejected by the Expenditure-tax Officer in the view that the plant was not part and parcel of the building but was covered by the expression 'other household goods' occurring in section 6(1)(d) of the said Act. In this view, he granted exemption for four-fifths of the expenditure of Rs. 11,150 and included only the remaining one-fifth in the taxable expenditure of the assessee-family. 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Expenditure-tax and contested the validity of the aforesaid order of the Expenditure-tax Officer. But the appeal proved unsuccessful. 4. In the further appeal that followed, the Tribunal, however, held that section 5 (e) of the Act clearly covers the expenditure in question and accepted the assessee's contention on the point. It was found that the house in question was specially designed to contain an air-conditioning plant for purposes of centrally heating and c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upheld the decision of the Expenditure-tax Officer. Further appeal to the Tribunal, however, proved successful, the Tribunal upholding the assessee's contention that the expenditure should be treated as having been borne by the individual members out of their separate funds and not by the family. 6. In the assessment of the assessee-family's taxable expenditure for the assessment year 1958-59, the assessee sought to exclude sums aggregating to Rs. 2,997, being the expense incurred for personal purposes of the members such as club expenses, travelling expenses, expenses on outfit, price paid for a watch, etc. The assessee-family contended before the Expenditure-tax Officer that the amount of Rs. 2,997 represented the personal expenses of the members of the assessee-family incurred by them but it had been wrongly debited to the Hindu undivided family's account. The Expenditure-tax Officer, however, observed that there was nothing to indicate that although those expenses were debited to the assessee-family's account, the same were to be treated as personal expenses of the individual members of the family, particularly when regard is had to the fact that most of those expenses were s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f an air-conditioning plant in its newly built house was exempt under section 5(e) of the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957 ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 19,808 incurred by the members of the assessee-family on a trip to Kashmir was not covered under section 4(i) of the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957, and was, therefore, not includible in the taxable expenditure of the assessee-family ? and (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 2,880 incurred by the members of the assessee-family for their personal purposes such as club expenses, travelling expenses, expenses on outfit, price paid for a watch, etc., was not covered under section 4(i) of the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957, and was, therefore, not includible in the taxable expenditure of the assessee-family ? " In regard to the first question relating to the expenditure of Rs. 11,150, section 5(e) of the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957 (29 of 1957), hereinafter called the Act, as it existed in 1957, which is the relevant point of time, reads as under : "5. Exemptions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come-tax Act is allowed on an air-conditioning plant as distinct from the building in which it is fixed. Shri Karkhanis, the learned counsel for the assessee, has in reply submitted that an air-conditioning plant is an integral part of the immovable property and that, in anv event, it is an improvement within the contemplation of section 5(e). There is no evidence on the record, says the counsel suggesting that the plant can be detached from the immovable property and it is emphasised that the plant has been found to be of durable nature. The question posed is by no means simple or easy to answer and indeed much can be said for both the points of view canvassed at the Bar, but after devoting our most anxious thought to the arguments addressed, we are inclined, as at present advised, to lean in favour of the plant, when fixed to the immovable property, to become a part of it and we are further inclined to think that there is a greater reason to hold that it constitutes an improvement of the immovable property concerned. Considering this view to be somewhat more persuasive, we uphold the decision of the Appellate Tribunal on this point and answer the first question referred in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been spent by the various individuals concerned, then this expenditure may well be considered to have been allocated to the coffers of the individuals for whose benefit and on whose comfort it was actually spent. Assessees, in our view, must always be entitled to so adjust their affairs as to be able to reduce to the minimum their liability to be taxed within the statutory language permissible and it would be an unjust construction of tax laws to unduly stretch or strain them for the purpose of enhancing the burden on the taxpayer. Reference has been made on behalf of the revenue to the definition of the word " dependant " as contained in section 2(g) of the Act. " Dependant ", according to this definition means- " (i) ...... (ii) where the assessee is a Hindu undivided family- (a) every coparcener other than the Karta ; and (b) any other member of the family who under any law or order or decree of a court, is entitled to maintenance from the joint family property ;..." This definition, in our view, would not be of much assistance in the present case because if the dependants have got their own separate property and they choose to spend out of that property, it would not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
