TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (1) TMI 26
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1.00 (c) Cattlemen wages 39,071.88 (d) Security expenses for dogs 30,561.08 (e) Midday meal expenses 93,934.89 (f) Mess expenses 17,929.52 (g) Interest payments to bank 1,35,330.00 (h) -do- 15,081.07 (i) Hire purchase interest 15,420.41 (j) Printing and stationery 13,199.15 (k) -do.- 20,960.12 (l) Mess expenses 81,320.00 (m) Transit flat allowance 14,473.00 (n) Motor car expenses 17,161.60 (o) Subscription to professional bodies 5,301.00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Against the order of the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, this revision has been filed. Counsel for the petitioner herein submits that the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal erred in sustaining the disallowance of payment made to security agencies 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 wo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the upkeep of the building. There is no proof with regard to the wages for upkeep of buildings." Hence, the disallowance was confirmed by the appellate authority. The above finding of this Appellate Tribunal can not be said to be incorrect in the absence of any proof of actual employment of workers for this specific purpose. Counsel contended that the payment to workers was properly vouched. Our attention was not drawn to any such vouchers in proof of payment of this amount and this court cannot go into such questions of fact. Therefore, confirmation of disallowance by the Appellate Tribunal cannot be said to be illegal. Hence, the confirmation of disallowance by the Appellate Tribunal cannot be set aside and hence it is confirmed. (c) Cattlemen wages: The lower authorities 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.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(e) Mid-day meal expenses: The petitioner-company claimed that it had spent Rs.93,934.89 for providing mid-day meals to the staff. The authorities disallowed this expenditure on the ground that the Plantation Labour Act does not provide for mid-day meals to the labourers and hence, it is not an admissible expenditure. The Appellate Tribunal observed that "providing mid-day meals to the labourers, is not at all connected with the agricultural activities", and therefore, disallowance was held to be proper. It is not the case of the authorities that there is no proof for the expenditure of providing midday meals for the employees. On the contrary, the Appellate Tribunal also found that "the appellant-company had provided mid-day meals to the estate workers." The mere fact that 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-da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shed by the petitioner-company that the assets were purchased on hire purchase basis, in connection with the agricultural activities. Counsel for the petitioner contended that when the assets were purchased on hire purchase, interest had to be paid, as per the terms of the agreement; further, counsel submitted that the Appellate Tribunal instead of sustaining the entire disallowance of interest expenses ought to have remanded the issue for ascertaining as to what portion of interest payments should be considered under sections 5(e) and 5(k) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act. The appellate authority has found that the "company has not tried to establish the interest amount under section 5(e) or 5(k)" according to the ingredients stipulated therein, whether 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 remit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the factum of expenditure was not doubted and the petitioner incurred such expenditure in the normal course of agricultural activities. The disallowance of 50 per cent. expenditure was erroneous and contrary to law. The authorities have not doubted whether such expenditure was incurred. But, it had only disallowed on the ground that the staff are paid salaries and therefore, this expenditure was held "not allowable" in its entirety. Such an approach does not appear to be correct in the absence of any reason to doubt the expenditure of actual expenditure incurred. In view of the fact that neither the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, nor the appellate 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 fla....