M.S.P. Rajah vs State of Tamil Nadu

R. Jayasimha Babu J.

The assessee has come in revision against the order of the Tribunal, which disallowed several amounts claimed by the assessee as deduction in the computation of agricultural income for the assessment year 1984-85.

The amounts disallowed are Rs. 1,300 claimed as paid to workers, Rs. 170 said to be miscellaneous expenses, Rs. 3,420 said to be legal charges and court expenses, Rs. 1,906 claimed as refreshment charges, and a sum of Rs. 1,30,782.60 paid as interest and claimed as deduction u/s 5(e) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

As regards the first item of inam to workers, the Tribunal has found that no details were placed before the Tribunal or the other authorities to show how many persons have been employed or as to when the payments were made, As regards the miscellaneous expenses claimed, - again the Tribunal has found that there were no details or vouchers. Similarly, regarding the legal expenses, the Tribunal has held that no details had been furnished, except asserting that it relates to criminal case. Regarding refreshment charges also the Tribunal found that no voucher or other material has been furnished to sustain the claim. The Tribunal is the final court of facts. The finding recorded by it with regard to the unsustainability of all these claims, having regard to the fact that the same had not been substantiated by records, cannot be interfered with.

The petitioner has contended that the Tribunal ought to have allowed the amount of Rs. 1,44,780.65, claimed as the amount paid as interest in its entirety. The Tribunal has restricted the deduction to Rs. 13,998.05 by applying the ceiling provided in section 5(k) of the Act as it stood at the relevant time. The amount in excess of Rs. 13,998.05 has, therefore, to be disallowed.

The argument that was advanced by the assessee before the Tribunal was not that section 5(k) of the Act was inapplicable to the claim for interest, but that whatever is not allowable u/s 5(k) in view of the ceiling should be allowed u/s 5(e) of the Act. The Tribunal has rightly rejected that argument. The Tribunal has rightly relied on the decision of this court in State of Madras Vs. Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd., , wherein it was held that section 5(e) is the general provision and that matters falling within the ambit of section 5(k) cannot fall within section 5(e) even if they are otherwise within the scope of section 5(e).

The Tribunal has also noticed the fact that the assessee''s contentions before it were contradictory. The Tribunal has observed :

"It was not submitted before us that the interest expenditure related to amounts borrowed for the purpose of the land covered by section 5(e) and the amount borrowed was not spent on the land in which event it could be restricted u/s 5(k), In the absence of such a contention, and also taking into consideration the contradictory contentions put forward before the Assistant Commissioner and before us, it has to be held that the disallowance made with regard to the said claim has to be upheld when it had been restricted u/s 5(k) of the Act."

The assessee''s claim having been examined by the authorities below and the assessee also having accepted the fact that the claim was falling within section 5(k) even though it was also the contention of the assessee that the claim would also fall within section 5(e), the ceiling prescribed u/s 5(k) was clearly applicable. To the extent permitted u/s 5(k) of the Act, deduction for interest has been allowed and the excess disallowed. In the grounds of appeal the assessee has contended that his capital has been wiped out and he has only accumulated losses and therefore interest payment should be regarded as falling u/s 5(e). No such contention was put forth before the Tribunal or the authorities below. In any event, there is no material to substantiate any claim that interest was paid on borrowings effected for purposes of and spent for purposes specified in section 5(e).

In the result, we do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed.