TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (1) TMI 26
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; Rs. P ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (a) Salary to watchers 2,34,388.74 (b) Building upkeep wages paid 1,00,811.00 (c) Cattlemen wages 39,071.88 (d) Security expenses for dogs 30,561.08 (e) Midday meal expenses 93,934.89 (f) Mess expenses ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....encies employed during the year to guard the estate area without having due regard to the evidence produced to establish their actual employment. The Appellate Tribunal had found that the appellant-company is maintaining separate ledger account for plantation and non-plantation area. The petitioner-company claims expenses relating to both plantation and non-plantation area and the non-plantation area works out to 11 per cent. and, accordingly, the lower authorities have disallowed 11 per cent. of the expenses claimed under the head "Wages". (a) Salaries to watchers: With respect to "salaries to watchers", the Agricultural Income-tax Officer had allowed Rs.1,53,720, towards the salary paid for 15 watchers and disallowed the balance. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer has found that there was no necessity for employing additional watchers from the private agency; only 15 watchers were employed by the company at the rate of Rs.854 and at this rate the annual expenditure comes to Rs.1,53,720. The appellate authority found that though the appellant stated that he has got vouchers evidencing payment to the agency employing watchers for Central Security Service, "the appellant has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have disallowed the claim of wages paid for cattlemen. The Appellate Tribunal has found, "of course cattle are essential for the welfare of the estate and cattle had to be looked after and expenditure had to be incurred. But the lower authorities have found that there are regular estate employees for the upkeep of cattle and the company has also accepted the wages of upkeep of cattle for regular employees only." That is, since the salaries for all the regular employees have already been deducted, this claim was disallowed. Counsel contended that four cattlemen were separately engaged as whole time employees to look after the cattle belonging to the estate and none of the regular employees of the estate had attended the upkeep of the cattle. This argument is unacceptable, as it was admitted that there was no proof as to whether four cattlemen were separately engaged for this purpose. The Appellate Tribunal held that, the company has also accepted that what was claimed was only the wages for upkeep of cattle for regular employees only. That is, there is no proof of having employed four separate cattlemen other than the regular employees. Therefore, the contention of counsel that fou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the Plantation Labour Act does not stipulate providing of mid-day meals to the labourers, it does not mean that mid-day meals cannot be provided to the labourers. Therefore, disallowance of this expenditure is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. Hence, this expenditure is allowed. (f) Mess expenses: The petitioner-company has also claimed Rs.17,929 towards mess expenses for providing mid-day meals to workers. This was disallowed on the ground that there is no separate mess maintained by the staff. When admittedly, the company has provided for mid-day meals, the expenditure of mess expenses is also allowable. Therefore, disallowance of this expenditure does not appear to be correct. Hence, this amount is allowable and hence allowed. (g) & (h) Interest payments to bank: The company has claimed Rs.1,35,330 as interest paid to the banks. The lower authorities have disallowed this expenditure on the ground that the company had not produced any evidence with regard to the purpose for which the interest was paid; the authorities also found that the company was in sound financial status. The appellant contended that the company discounted certain sale bills w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the expenditure is "Revenue in nature, as specified under section 5(e) and (k)". Therefore, the company has to establish that the expenditure falls within the provisions of section 5(e) or (k). The appellant failed to prove its case. Therefore, the Tribunal was not bound to remand the matter again to enable the appellant to establish its case. We find that there is no illegality on the part of the Tribunal in not remitting the matter. (j) & (k) Printing and stationery: The petitioner claims Rs.13,119 and another Rs.20,960 as expenditure incurred for printing and stationery used for administering and managing the estate. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer and the appellate authorities relied upon the decision in Commr. of Agrl. I.T. v. Motipur Zamindary Co. Ltd. [1964] 53 ITR 554 (Patna), and disallowed the entire claim. The Appellate Tribunal held that, "printing and stationery is not at all connected with the agricultural activities." Hence, disallowance was held to be valid. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the decision in Commr. of Agri. I.T. v. Motipur Zamindary Co. Ltd. [1964] 53 ITR 554 (Patna) is not applicable to the petitioner's case. The expenditure was allow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... authority doubted that such expenditure was incurred, the entire amount expended for providing lunch to the staff is allowable. The payment of salary does not preclude or prevent or prohibit the company from providing lunch to its workers and employees. Hence, the order of the Tribunal is set aside, in so far as it relates to the mess expenses to the staff. In the result, the entire mess expenses are allowable. (m) Transit flat allowance: The company claimed Rs.14,743 deductible under the head of transit allowance. The Appellate Tribunal has found that, "the appellant has not filed any details". Hence, disallowance was held to be valid. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the expenditure in question was incurred for promoting the business interest and the complete details were produced before the Assessing Officer at the time of scrutiny of the accounts. But the Tribunal also found that no details were produced. There is no reason to doubt the conclusion of the Tribunal. Therefore, there is no alternative except to hold that the appellant had not filed any details with regard to this. Therefore disallowance is to be confirmed and hence, it is confirmed. (n) Motor car e....