1965 PLP 112 (PTD)

(2) "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that sections 10 (2) (xii) and 10 (2) (xiv) would also apply in the case?" (3) "If an allowance is held to be admissible under any clause of subsection (2) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act can some other clause or clauses of the same subsection be held to be applicable for the same purpose?" Mr. Huda appearing on behalf of the Department contends at the first instance that there is no finding that the expenses were wholly and exclusively for the business. He also contends that in any view of the matter section 10 (2) (xvi) could not stand alone and independent of section 10 (2) (xv). According to him, answer to question No. 1 should be in the negative ; and the answer to question No. 2, in view of the circumstances of the case, should also be in the negative. Mr. Asrarul Husain, on the other hand, contends that there is enough finding that the expenses were wholly and exclusively for the business and the answer to question No. 1 should be in the affirmative and as opined by the Tribunal in paragraph No. 5 at page No. 3 of the paper book, there is no need of answering question No.

2. With regard to the first contention of Mr. Huda it will suffice to refer to the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as confirmed by the Tribunal. According to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the appellant being contractors for construction of buildings, bridges etc., it was necessary and useful to impart this training to some of the Directors who are technical men. The expenses were incurred in the interest of the Company's business and were of revenue nature. The Tribunal also found that the two engineers were sent abroad not for their own personal benefit but for the benefit of the business concern itself. It was further found that the two Directors went for taking this training in pre-stressed concrete method which pursuit of knowledge is a scientific knowledge within the explanation of section 10 (2). Apart from any consideration as to whether it benefits the business of the company it seems to us that the Department never challenged at any stage of the proceeding that the particular training in pre-stressed concrete method was a kind of scientific research. As no dispute seems to have been raised on that account we do not think it necessary to probe further into the question as to whether the particular kind of training for which the expenditure was incurred was or was not a kind of scientific research within the explanation of section 10 (2) (xiv) of the Income-tax Act. In view however of the finding that the two Engineers were sent abroad not for their own personal benefit but for the benefit of the business concern of the company itself and in view of the further finding of the Tribunal that the Income-tax Officer did not go into the question as to whether training was actually taken when he disallowed the amounts treating them as capital, we do not think it necessary to take any view other than that the expenses were wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business. There is no material before us to take a view contrary to the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the expenses were of a revenue nature. In these circumstances we do not see any reason as to why the expenditure which is not in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee as found by the Tribunal and which has been found to be spent for the purpose of such business should not be treated as a deductable allowance under section 10 (2) of the Income-tax Act. The result, therefore, is that the answer to question No. 1 should be in the affirmative. In view of the nature of the answer given to question No. 1, no answer is needed in regard to question No. 2. , With regard to the question No. 3 it is not disputed on either side that there might be cases which might fall under clause (xvi) and clause (xii) both and clause (xiv) might come in inalternative cases. It is possible that there might be overlapping provisions in a particular statute. As such the question must be answered also in the affirmative. This reference is answered accordingly. We do not, however, make any order as to costs. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-I agree. M. N. ? Reference answered in the affirmative.