MANKAD J G Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under s. 66(1) of the IT Act at the instance of the assessee. The assessee is a chartered accountant and he resides and carries on his profession of a chartered accountant in Ahmedabad. On 25th May, 1951, the post of a part-time professor of accountancy in M. J. College of Commerce, Bhavnagar, was advertised in the Saurashtra Government Gazette and in response to the advertisement, the assessee applied for the post. The assessee was selected for the post and by a notification dated 12th July, 1951, the assessee was appointed to the post on the terms and conditions contained in the notification, which was in the following terms :

(2.) SINCE the assessee was residing and practising in Ahmedabad, he had to undertake journeys from Ahmedabad to Bhavnagar for giving lectures to students in the college and he used to go once a every week so as to be in Bhavnagar on Tuesday and Wednesday. During the year 1957-58, being the previous year for the asst. yr. 1958-59, the assessee incurred expenses amounting to Rs. 1,434 for travelling between Ahmedabad and Bhavnagar. This amount of Rs. 1,434 was claimed by the assessee either as an exemption under s. 4(3) (vi) or as a deduction under s. 7(2) (iii) in his assessment for the asst. yr. 1958-59. The claim was rejected by the Revenue authorities and hence the present reference.

(3.) BUT this is not the only difficulty in the way of the assessee. It is also not possible to say that the expenses which were incurred by the assessee for travelling between Ahmedabad and Bhavnagar were expenses wholly and necessarily incurred in the performance of the duties of the office or employment of profit held by the assessee. The assessee held the office of part-time professor of accountancy in M. J. College of Commerce at Bhavnagar and the duties of this office consisted of giving lectures to the students at the college. The duties commenced when the assessee started giving lectures to the students at the college and ended for the time being of the completion of the lectures. If the assessee had to incur expenses for travelling between Ahmedabad and Bhavnagar, that was because the assessee chose to live and practice his profession in Ahmedabad and he had to travel to Bhavnagar before he could begin to perform his duties as part-time professor of accountancy and having concluded those duties desired to return to his home in Ahmedabad. The expenses of travelling between Ahmedabad and Bhavnagar could not be said to be expenses incurred by the assessee in the course of performance of the duties of the office of part-time professor of accountancy. While travelling from Ahmedabad to Bhavnagar and back, the assessee was certainly not performing the duties of the office of part-time professor of accountancy. The expenses of travelling between Ahmedabad and Bhavnagar were incurred by the assessee partly before beginning to perform his duties as part- time professor of accountancy and partly after the conclusion of his duties as part-time professor of accountancy and such expenses could not, therefore, be said to have been incurred by him in the performance of the duties of the office of part-time professor of accountancy.