COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL vs. H. HIRJEE

CIVIL APPEAL No. 75/1952Supreme Court[1953] 1 S.C.R. 71417 April 1953Bench: 4 JudgesAuthor: M. PATANJALI SASTRI, BIJAN KUMAR MUKHERJEA, SUDHI RANJAN DAS, GHULAM HASAN6 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, H. Hirjee, a businessman, was prosecuted under Section 13 of the Hoarding and Profiteering Ordinance, 1943, for selling goods at unreasonable prices. He incurred expenses of Rs. 10,895 in defending himself, and was ultimately acquitted. For the assessment year 1945-46, he claimed this amount as a deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal allowed it. The Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, referred the matter to the High Court, which answered the question in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner then appealed to the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's finding was not a pure finding of fact and was not binding on the Court. The Tribunal's reasoning was vitiated by its refusal to consider the possibility of the prosecution ending in imprisonment, which is a potential penalty under Section 13 of the Ordinance. The Court stated that it was not for the Income-tax authorities to prove that a sentence of imprisonment might result; the nature of the offence itself suggested this possibility. The Court further held that the expenses could not be considered as laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business within the meaning of Section 10(2)(xv). The defence in a criminal prosecution, unlike civil litigation arising from business, cannot be easily dissociated from the purpose of saving the accused from conviction and penalty. The Court also expressed doubt about the distinction between expenses of a successful and unsuccessful defence, stating that deductibility depends on the nature and purpose of the legal proceeding, not its outcome. The appeal was allowed, and the question was answered in the negative.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that the expenses incurred in defending the criminal proceeding were laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business, as contemplated by Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, was a finding of fact binding on the Court. Assessee's arguments (as inferred from the Tribunal's and High Court's reasoning): The defence was solely for maintaining the assessee's name as a good businessman and to save his stock from being undersold. The possibility of a fine was inextricably mixed with the main purpose of the defence and could be ignored. The prosecution arose from transactions in the ordinary course of business, and the assessee was charged in his capacity as a trader, satisfying the tests for deductibility. Revenue's arguments (as inferred from the Supreme Court's reasoning): The Tribunal's finding was vitiated by its refusal to consider the possibility of imprisonment as a penalty under the Ordinance. The expenses could not be said to be wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business, as the defence was also aimed at saving the assessee from personal penalty. The revenue argued that the burden was on the assessee to prove that the prosecution might result in imprisonment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(2)(xv),Section 13,Section 66-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1958 April 17. • 714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1953] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL v. H. HIRJEE. [PATAN.JALI SASTRI C.J., MUKHEHJEA, s. R. DAS and GHULAM HASAN JJ.] Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), s. 10 (2) (xv)-Business expenditure-Expenses incurred IYy businessman in defending against criminal prosectltion for offence under Hoarding and Pro- fiteering Act-Finding of fact-When final.

The respondent who c""ried on business was prosecuted under s. 13 of the Hoarding and Profiteering Ordinance of 1943 on a charge of selling goods at an unreasonable price.

He was finally acquitted and claimed in his assessment for a subsequent year that the suni of Rs. 10,895 which he had spent in defending him- self against the charge should be deducted from his income under s. 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act as "expenditure laid out or ex- pended wholly and exclusively for purposes of the business". The Appellate •rribunal held that in the absence of any evidence that personal liberty was likely to be jeopardised there was only a chance of his being fined, that the object of saving himself from fine was so inext~icably mixed with the main purpose of the defence w

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 10(2)(xv)

All 90 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(2)(xv) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →