TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (1) TMI 341
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 to 30th June, 1983. 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in sustaining the disallowance of the expenditure of "Tarini". 3. Whether the Tribunal's finding is perverse being based on irrelevant materials ignoring the relevant materials?'' 2. The facts briefly stated as appear from the statement of case are that the assessee is a limited company which on the basis of an agreement dt. 21st June, 1979 took on hire two motor vessels, viz., M.V. Tarini and M.V. Suranandini from M/s Western Starline Pvt. Ltd. for two years w.e.f. 1st July, 1979. On the expiry of the said term the agreement was renewed for a further period of two years which was to expire on 30th June, 1983. The assessee during the year under appeal claimed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....payable even if the vessel did not ply. The CIT(A) accepted the argument of the assessee noting the decisions in Hughes (Inspector of Taxes) vs. Bank of New Zealand (1938) 6 ITR 636(HL), 190 ITR 129(sic), Commr. of Agrl. IT vs. Calvary Mount Estates (Private) Ltd. (1961) 41 ITR 755(SC), M.S.M.M. Meyyappa Chettiar vs. CIT (1962) 44 ITR 775(Mad) and Mysore Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1966) 61 ITR 572(Bom) and the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's case for the asst. yr. 1980-81 in ITA 1032 (Cal) of 1984. 4. When the matter came up before the Tribunal for consideration, it was urged on behalf of the Department that the CIT(A) was not justified in allowing the claim of the assessee. The assessee has not placed any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee taking the plea that Tarini plied for six months whereas Suranandini did not ply and, therefore, no expenditure on Suranandini was claimed by the assessee. Therefore, from the plea of the assessee itself it is clear that the expenses incurred by the assessee on Tarini can be allowed only if the assessee proves that Tarini plied at least for a part of the year during the year under appeal. The assessee has claimed the hire charges of ₹ 6,00,000 and running and maintenance expenses of ₹ 2,00,000 and odd. However, the assessee has not shown any amount to the credit of Profit & Loss account by way of receipt from Tarini. The only method to prove that Tarini plied at least for six months or a part of the year was to show ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....details of the expenditure was filed before the Tribunal showing that vessel Tarini was kept ready for plying for six months. It has also been submitted that the assessee was to pay the hire charges as well as the maintenance charges and as such the Tribunal was not correct in reversing the decision of the CIT(A). He further submitted that in the similar situation the Tribunal accepted the plea of the assessee and dismissed the Departmental appeal for the asst. yr. 1980-81. 6. It appears that the Tribunal proceeded on a wrong footing. Even if the said vessel Tarini did not ply during the relevant period, it was kept ready for plying. The Tribunal was of the view since the vessel in the question do not ply, the assessee did not carry on any....