Commissioner of Income Tax vs J. and S. (P.) Ltd.

B. N. Kirpal, J.—This petition is in respect of the assessment year 1982-83, and the petitioner seeks reference of the following question to this court :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessed-company was entitled to the deduction of expenses incurred by it in respect of the cinema business at Lucknow which had been closed down ?"

The contention of the petitioner is that the assessed cinema at Lucknow had been closed down and, thereafter, seeking to apply the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of L.M. Chhabda and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat, , it is sought to be contended that the expenses in regard to the Lucknow cinema could not be allowed as a deduction.

The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the aforesaid Supreme Court decision in L.M. Chhabda and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat, , is not applicable because, if it is determined as a fact that the different ventures carried on by the assessed formed part of the same business, then deduction could be allowed. This, in fact, was held by the Supreme Court in L.M. Chhabda and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat, .

In L.M. Chhabda and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat, , the benefit of deduction was not allowed because, in that case, it had not been held that the two different cinemas involved there formed part of the same business. In the present case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal, on the evidence on record, have come to the conclusion that the two ventures at Delhi and Lucknow constituted one unit and, Therefore, the business expenses relating to Lucknow cannot be disallowed. It has further been held that, even for the earlier years, this disallowance had been deleted and the same had been accepted by the Department.

Be that as it may, whether the two cinemas are controlled and run as a single unit or not is a pure question of fact and, in any case, it is not a question which is sought for by the Revenue in the present case.

In our opinion, no question of law arises. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.