COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. JAY ENGINEERING WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REFERENCE of two questions is sought in this application.

(2.) SO far as the first question is concerned, the Tribunal referred to its previous order for the asst. yr. 1973 -74. That question came up for consideration in ITC No. 52 of 1980 and, vide order dated May 19, 1982, the Division Bench of this Court rejected the application for reference.

(3.) THE second question relates to the deduction of Rs. 66,815 which the assessee claims to be the expenditure on repairs to rented building. Here also the question assumes that no details have been furnished before the ITO or the appellate authorities. This proceeds on a misapprehension because though it does appear that the ITO commented that no details were furnished to him, the IAC directed that the entire amount should be treated as capital expenditure and the Department made no grievance of this decision of the CIT (A). Thus, the incurring of this expenditure was not in doubt when the matter came up before the Tribunal and the only question was whether it was revenue or capital. The Tribunal referred to the fact that similar claims had been considered in earlier orders and subsequent orders and had been allowed in full. In fact, amounts larger than the one claimed this year had also been allowed in those years. Following this decision, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for the year under appeal as well. Having regard to the fact that the question before the Tribunal was a limited one and having regard to the fact that the expenditure had been incurred on repairs to rented premises, the Tribunal's conclusion that the expenditure was revenue expenditure is palpably correct. In fact, in the order under S. 256(1), the Tribunal has pointed out that it is not strictly correct to say that details were not available. It is pointed out that the details were available in the books and that they had been culled out and placed in the form of a statement before the Tribunal. We need not, however, enter into this question because as has already been pointed out, the point in controversy before the Tribunal was a very limited one. No question of law arises out of this finding of the Tribunal. We, therefore, decline a reference of this question as well. The application, therefore, fails and is dismissed. No costs.