TMI Blog1971 (3) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 3,000 received by assessee was receipt of a casual and non-recurring nature exempt from tax under section 4(3)(vii) of the Indian Income-tax, Act, 1922 ? " The respondent, who will hereinafter be referred to as " assessee ", is a medical practitioner and is a specialist in the treatment of skin diseases. The assessment year is 1958-59, the relevant previous year being the financial year ending on 31st March, 1958. During the previous year, the assessee went from New Delhi to Stockholm to attend the International Congress of Dermatology as an official delegate from India. The assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 5,682 as expenses incurred by him on this tour. According to him before he went to Stockholm he also visited Russia for a week and the United Kingdom for two weeks. In Stockholm he stayed for about a week. The expenses claimed were Rs. 4,032 on air passage and the balance of Rs. 1,650 was on living and other miscellaneous expenses. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the entire expenses on the ground that, this is an expenditure of a capital nature as the visit of the assessee to attend the International C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, added to the assessee's income from undisclosed source. During the course of the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the assessee produced a letter from one Shri O. P. Singhal of the United States of America to the effect that the assessee had given a flat on a caretaker basis to one Mr. Leone Collave and Miss Crista Brauet, for which he was paid Rs. 3,000 by these two parties. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the assessee'e explanation and the sum of Rs. 3,000 was, therefore, deleted as assessee's income from undisclosed sources. Against the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the Income-tax Officer filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and it was contended that the entire expenditure of Rs. 5,682 on the foreign tour of the assessee was expenditure of a capital nature and hence not allowable. In any case, that part of the expenditure incurred on boarding and lodging which was obviously an expenditure of a personal nature was disallowable under section 10(2)(xv) of the Act. The Tribunal found that there was no dispute that, in the instant case, the foreign tour was a study lecture tour and as such the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome-tax v. Dr. M. S. Shroff), decided on 14th September, 1970, by both of us and it was pointed out that there was not much difference between that case and the first question involved in the present case. Mr. Sharma, however, pointed out that although the attention of this court was invited to several decisions, a Bench decision of the Mysore High Court was not considered. It is true that this particular decision of the Mysore High Court was not brought to our notice. We will, therefore, have to examine the said decision in the light of the facts of the present case. Mr. Sharma also pointed out that in the case of Dr. M. S. Shroff, it was found by the Tribunal that the main object and purpose of the expenditure was for the assessee to keep himself up-to-date in the techniques of his profession. It was pointed out that the assessee was also an employee of Dr. Shroff's Charitable Hospital and, therefore, in the process of his study tour abroad, the assessee had also incidentally derived some benefit in his capacity as an employee and as such there was need for apportionment of the expenses between the assessee and his employer. In the present case, according to Mr. Sharma, the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and considered by K. S. Hegde J., who wrote the judgment of the High Court, to bring out the distinction between the expenditure having been wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of the assessee's business, profession or vocation and it was pointed out that what the Tribunal had to decide was not whether the expenditure had nothing to do with the assesse's business, profession or vocation but whether it was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business, profession or vocation. Instead of addressing itself to that question, the Tribunal seemed to have examined the facts of the case to find out whether the expenditure in question was in any way unconnected with the profession or vocation of the assessee. This was held to be a wholly wrong approach and did not accord with the requirement of section 10(2)(xv). The case is, therefore, not an authority for the proposition in which the Tribunal has come to a definite finding as to whether the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the assessee's business, profession or vocation. If the Tribunal's finding was in favour of the assessee on that point, the actual decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. S. Krishna Rao where the case of Dr. B. V. Raman, was held not to have said anything different and the decision was distinguished on the ground that the learned judge there had reached the conclusion that the amount spent, in that case was not spent for the purpose of business. In that case the assessee, who was the owner of a printing press, attended the International Printers Conference in Amsterdam representing the Andhra Pradesh Printers Association. Besides attending the conference at Amsterdam lie was visiting vaious countries in Europe and utilised his time, for studying the various types of printing and machinery. The expenses of the tour, were held to be an expenditure incurred by a businessman in keeping him abreast of the latest techniques of his business and were incurred wholly and exclusively for that purpose. The view taken by the Tribunal is, therefore, not only in accord with the decision of this court in Dr. M. S. Shroff's case, where the decision of the Madras High Court in Dr. P. Vadamalayan's case, was followed by us, but is also in consonance with what was held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. There a retired judge agreed to serve as an arbitrator under section 234 of the Madras Local Boards Act, 1920, for inquiring and reporting about a dispute which had arisen between two district boards. The Government agreed to pay him for the work a consolidated fee of Rs. 3,000 and travelling allowances on the scale admissible for High Court judges. The assessee claimed that the sum of Rs. 3,000, received by him was exempt from assessment under section 4(3)(vii). It was held that the amount received by him fell within the scope of the term "income, profits or gains" under section 6 for it arose from the exercise of the occupation of an arbitrator by the assessee and that it was also not a receipt of a casual nature. In B. Malick v. Commissioner of Income-tax, a case cited by, the counsel for the assessee, this case was dissented from by the High Court of Allahabad on the ground that it was the case of a retired judge and not the case of a sitting judge with which the court was concerned. Whether the difference between the status of the two judges made such a great difference as to convert the receipt of one of them into a receipt from income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
