M/S ZEENATH TRANSPORT V. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/100040/2022

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Zeenath Transport Company, which appealed against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, and other lower authorities, which had denied them deductions for expenditures claimed under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The expenditure was for constructing houses for flood victims in North Karnataka, as per the State Government's directions. The primary legal question was whether such expenditures could be considered business expenditures and thus deductible under the Income Tax Act. The High Court referenced a similar case, M/s.Kanhaiyalal Dudheria vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, to support its decision in favor of the appellant.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 751276 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: M/s.Kanhaiyalal Dudheria vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and Another
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: Y V RAVIRAJ
• Assessee Lawyers: M V SESHACHALA; GANGADHAR; PRAVEEN TARIKAR
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Construction of houses; Deduction; Income tax appeal; Public Welfare; Flood Victims
• Section: 37; 80G; 260A

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11774-DB ITA No. 100040 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 100040 OF 2022 BETWEEN: M/S. ZEENATH TRANSPORT COMPANY, MINE OWNERS, ZEENATH HOUSE, DOOR NO. 24 WARD NO. 22, MAIN ROAD, COWL BAZAAR, BELLARY 583101. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI SYED AHMED. …APPELLANT (BY SRI M.V. SESHACHALA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI GANGADHAR J.M. AND SRI PRAVEEN P. TARIKAR, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, STAFF ROAD FORT, BELLARY 583101. 2. PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SEDAM ROAD, KALABURAGI 585106. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI Y.V. RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL FILED U/SEC.260A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AS STATED ABOVE. AND SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Date: 2023.10.16 11:21:39 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11774-DB ITA No. 100040 of 2022 ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1781/BANG/2018 DATED 18.08.2021 WHICH HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER DATED 22.03.2018 IN ITA NO. 134/CIT(A)/KLB/2015-16 AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY DATED 29.02.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, KRISHNA KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 18.08.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (For short, ‘the ITAT’) which confirmed the order dated 22.03.2018 passed by the Appellate Commissioner, who in turn had confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer dated 29.02.2016 in relation to the appellant-Assessee for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. Heard learned senior counsel sri M.V.Seshachala, for Sri Gangadhar J.M., appearing for appellant and learned counsel Sri Y.V.Raviraj appearing for respondents. 3. The material on record discloses that the appellant-Assessee is engaged in business of extraction - 3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11774-DB ITA No. 100040 of 2022 of Iron-ore and Trading and filed his income tax returns for the assessment year 2013-14. Under the said returns, the appellant claimed exemption towards expenditure incurred by the appellant towards construction of houses for flood victims in North Karnataka as per the directions of the State Government. However, assessing authority rejected the claim for exemption on the ground that the expenditure claimed by the appellant cannot be allowed under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the IT Act’) and no application under Section 80G of the IT Act had been filed and as such, expenditure cannot be allowed. 4. In an appeal preferred by the appellant, the appellate authority also confirmed the order of the Assessing authority and dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant, aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed an appeal before the ITAT, which proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 18.08.2021 partly allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the - 4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11774-DB ITA No. 100040 of 2022 Assessing Officer for reconsideration. Aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by the respondent-authorities, appellant is before this Court by way of the present appeal. 5. I have heard Sri M.V.Sheshachala learned senior counsel for the appellants and Sri Y.V.Raviraj, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 6. The appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial question of law : “Whether the Tribunal was correct in remanding the claim made by the assessee to the Assessing Officer that deduction under Section 80G of the I.T. Act should be considered when this Hon’ble Court in M/s.Kanhaiyalal Dhudheria in ITA.No. 100016/2019(supra) has clearly held under identical circumstances where houses were constructed for the State Government under similar contract should be allowed as a business expenditure under Section 37 of the I.T.Act.” 7. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned orders will indicate that the same are contrary to the Judgment of this Court in the case of - 5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11774-DB ITA No. 100040 of 2022 M/s.Kanhaiyalal Dudheria vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and Another, reported in (2019) 310 CTR 0617 (Kar), wherein it is held that business expenditure incurred would be entitled for deduction under Section 37(1) of the IT Act. In the said Judgment, it is held as under : “28. In the light of the analysis of the case laws above referred to, it cannot be gain said by the revenue that contribution made by an assessee to a public welfare cause is not directly connected or related with the carrying on of the assessee's business. As to whether such activity undertaken and discharged by the assessee would benefit to the assessee's business has to be examined in the light of the observations made by us herein above. Tribunal committed a serious error in arriving at a conclusion that MOU entered into between the assessee and the Government of Kamataka is opposed to public policy and void under Section 23 of the Contract Act. In fact, Hon'ble Apex Court in case of SRI VENKATASATHYANARAYANA RICE MILL CONTRACTORS COMPANY's case referred to herein supra has held that where a donation, whether voluntary or at the instance of the authorities concerned, when made to a Chief Ministers Drought Relief Fund or a District Welfare Fund established by the District Collector or any other fund for the benefit of the public and with a view to secure benefit to the assessee's business cannot be regarded as payment opposed to public policy. It came to be further held making of a donation for charitable or public cause or in the public interest results in the Government - 6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11774-DB ITA No. 100040 of 2022 giving patronage or benefit can be no ground to deny the assessee a deduction of that amount under Section 37(1) of the Act, when such payment has been made for the purposes of assessee's business. In fact, it can be noticed under the MOU in question which came to be entered into by the assessee with Government of Kamataka was on account of the clarion call given by the then Chief Minister of Karnataka in the hour of crisis to all the Philanthropist, industrial and commercial enterprises to extended their whole hearted support and the entire logistic support has been extended by the Government of Karnataka namely, providing land and design of the house to be constructed, approval of layout and to take care of all local problems. Infact, the State Government had also agreed to exempt such of those persons who undertake to execute the work from the purview of sale tax, royalty, entry tax and other related State taxes and is said to have extended to the appellant also. In this background it cannot be construed that MOU entered into between the assessee and the Government of Kamataka is opposed to public policy. 29. In the facts on hand, it requires to be noticed that assessee is carrying of business of iron ore and also trading in iron ore. Thus, day in and day out the assessee would be approaching the appropriate Government and its authorities for grant of permits, licenses and as such the assessee in its wisdom and as prudent business decision has entered into MOU with the Goverment of Karnataka and incurred the expenditure towards construction of houses for the needy persons, not only as a social responsibility but also keeping in mind the goodwill and benefit it would yield in the long run in earning profit which is the ultimate object of conducting business and as such, expenditure incurred by the assessee would be in the realm of \"business - 7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11774-DB ITA No. 100040 of 2022 expenditure\". Hence, the orders passed by the authorities would not stand the test of law and is liable to be set aside. 30. However, it requires to be noticed that while examining the claim for deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act the assessing officer would not blindly or only on the say of the assessee accept the claim. In other words, assessing officer would be required to scrutinise and examine as to whether said deduction claimed for having incurred the expenditure has been incurred and only on being satisfied that expenditure so incurred is relatable to the work undertaken by the assessee namely, only on nexus being established, assessing officer would be required to allow such expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act and not otherwise. 31. For the reasons aforestated, we are of the considered view that substantial question law formulated herein is to be answered in the negative i.e., against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. Hence, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) 1.T.A.Nos.100016/2018 and 100017/2018 are allowed. (ii) Order dated 17.05.2017 passed by Income Appellate Tribunal, 'B\" Bench, Bengaluru in ITA Nos. 782 & 1495/Bang/2016 for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 are set aside and appeals filed by the assessee before the Tribunal is allowed. (iii) Assessment proceedings of the years 2011-12 and 2012-13 are remitted to the assessing officer to examine the claim of the assessee in the light of our observations made herein above. (iv) No orders as to costs.” - 8 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11774-DB ITA No. 100040 of 2022 8. As is clear from the aforesaid Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, the expenditure incurred by the appellant towards construction of the houses for flood victims in the North Karnataka as per directions of the State Government would be entitled for deduction under Section 37(1) of the IT Act and consequently the impugned order passed by the Assessing Officer, first appellate authority and Income Tax Appellate Authority deserve to be set aside and necessary directions are to be issued to the Assessing Officer to examine the claim of the appellant for deduction under Section 37(1) of the IT Act in accordance with law and the substantial question of law referred to above deserves to be answered in favour of the appellant and the present appeal deserves to be disposed of in terms of the Judgment of this Court in Kanhaiyalal’s case (supra). Accordingly, the substantial question of law stands answered in favour of the appellant. 9. In the result, we pass the following : ORDER - 9 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11774-DB ITA No. 100040 of 2022 (i) Appeal is hereby allowed and disposed of in terms of the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s.Kanhaiyalal Dudheria vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and Another-(2019) 310 CTR 0617 (Kar). (ii) The impugned orders dated 18.08.2021, 22.03.2018 and 29.02.2016 passed by the respective respondents are hereby set aside; (iii) The matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration afresh bearing in mind the observations made in this judgment as well as the Judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Kanhaiyalal’s (supra) as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE CKK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 9 "