2006 (7) TMI 193

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e appropriate if the matter is disposed of at this stage. Learned counsel for the parties have no objection if the matter is taken up for final disposal immediately. 3. The two substantial questions of law that arise for consideration are : (a) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in reversing the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) without going into the nature of the items of expenditure and without giving any basis or reason for the same ? (b) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in restoring the order of the Assessing Officer with regard to the items of expenditure which were not even challenged by the respondent ? 4. It appears that a dispute arose whether the following five items....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rementioned. We find from the order passed by the Tribunal that it has mainly quoted passages from the three judgments, namely, CIT v. Shri Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 253 (Guj), Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1988] 174 ITR 689 (AP) and Chelpark Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 191 ITR 249 (Mad). 9. Thereafter, having quoted these passages (which refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 1) the Tribunal concluded as follows : "From the above cited cases, it is clear that the test of enduring benefit is not obsolete. It has to be ascertained from the facts and circumstances of each case whether an expenditure is capital or revenue in nature. The test of enduring benefit can ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... reasons should be given particularly since the decision of the Tribunal is considered to be final on facts. 12. The reasons given by the Tribunal for upsetting of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) do not show the basis on which the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that is different from the conclusion given by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), apart from baldly stating that all the expenses incurred by the assessee relate to fixed capital and the advantage derived by the assessee is of an enduring nature. We are not told why this is so. Following Hindustan Tin Works Ltd. v. CIT [2005] 275 ITR 43 (Delhi) the order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. The first question is answered in the negative in favour....