Business expenditure deduction requires proved facts; counsel's submissions cannot replace tribunal findings in advisory income-tax jurisdiction

A deduction claim under Section 10(2)(xv) required proved facts showing that the payment was laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The Tribunal's findings of fact were final in the High Court's advisory jurisdiction, and the High Court had to proceed on the case stated by the Tribunal and the parties. Counsel's submissions could not be treated as proved facts, and a prior decision could not be applied without the necessary factual foundation. On the materials found, the payment did not satisfy the statutory condition, so the deduction was not allowable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the sum paid by the assessee company was deductible under Section 10(2)(xv) as expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business.

Analysis: The claim for deduction depended on proof of the facts necessary to attract Section 10(2)(xv). The Tribunal's findings of fact were final for the High Court in its advisory jurisdiction, and the High Court was bound to proceed on the statement of case settled by the Tribunal and the parties. The High Court erred in treating counsel's submissions as proved facts and in applying the principle of a prior decision without the factual foundation required for it. On the materials found, the assessee had not established that the payment was wholly and exclusively made for business purposes or that it satisfied the statutory condition for deduction.

Conclusion: The deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) was not allowable, and the assessee failed to prove entitlement to the claimed exemption.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, and the assessment stood restored against the assessee's claim for deduction.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim for deduction as business expenditure must be supported by proved facts establishing that the payment was laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes, and a court exercising advisory income-tax jurisdiction cannot substitute assumptions or counsel's arguments for the tribunal's findings of fact.

---