Commissioner of Income Tax vs Sundaram Clayton Ltd.

Thanlkkachalam, J.—At the instance of the department, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court u/s 256(1) of the income tax Act, 1961 (''the Act'') for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1979-80:

Assessment year 1975-76:

"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the provisions of section 2(18)( b ) of the income tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee should be treated as a company in which the public are substantially interested?

Whether the Appellate Tribunal''s view that since the assessee is a public company u/s 43A of the Companies Act, 1956, the assessee should be treated as a company in which the public are substantially interested u/s 2(18)( b ) of the income tax Act, 1961, is sustainable in law?

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the weighted deduction u/s 35B should be allowed at 11/2 times and not at 1? times as allowed by the income tax Officer?"

Assessment year 1979-80 :

"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the provisions of section 2(18) (b) of the income tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee should be treated as a company in which the public are substantially interested?

Whether the Appellate Tribunal''s view that since the assessee is a public company u/s 43A of the Companies Act, 1956, the assessee should be treated as a company in which the public are substantially interested u/s 2(18)( b ) of the income tax Act, 1961 is sustainable in law?

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that weighted deduction u/s 35B should be allowed at 11/2 times of the expenditure and not 1? times as allowed by the income tax Officer ?

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the entertainment expenditure of Rs. 2,09,269 disallowed u/s 37(2A) of the Act?"

The assessee is a company incorporated on 5-10-1962 and carries on business in the manufacture of air compressor equipments for automobile vehicles. For the assessment years 1975-76 and 1979-80, the accounting years ended on 31-5-1974 and 31-5-1978, respectively. The assessee claimed its status as a company in which public are substantially interested for the reason that it satisfies all the conditions mentioned in section 2(18)( b )( B ) of the Act. The ITO held that the first condition to be satisfied was that the company was not a private company as defined in section 3(1)( iii ) of the Companies Act, 1956, and the essential ingredients being present in the articles of association, the assessee-company was a private company. According to the ITO, when once the prior condition u/s 2 (18 )( b ) was not satisfied, it was needless to look into the question whether all the other conditions mentioned in section 2( 18 )( b) ( B) were satisfied at all. Therefore, the ITO has adopted the status of the assessee as a company in which public were not substantially interested and, consequently, allowed weighted deduction u/s 35B only at one and one-third times of the expenditure as against 11/2 times claimed by the assessee for these years. These questions came up for consideration in both the assessment years.

Another point which is relevant for the assessment year 1979-80 only relates to the disallowance of entertainment expenditure of Rs. 2,09,269. Out of general charges claimed of Rs. 3,59,395, a sum of Rs. 2,09,268 consisted of expenses incurred in connection with the visit of dignitaries, business customers and delegates, but the assessee had not treated it as entertainment expenditure. After considering the break-up details and the nature of expenditure, the income tax Officer was of the opinion that the expenditure did not represent customary hospitality.

Following the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Khem Chand Bahadur Chand, the ITO treated the expenditure as part of the entertainment expenditure in terms of section 37(2A).

On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), following the decision of the Tribunal in the cases of the same assessee in IT Appeal Nos. 947 to 950 (Mad.) of 1980 dated 22-4-1982 for the earlier years holding that the assessee-company was not a private company in view of the provisions contained in section 43A of the Companies Act and the articles of association providing for free transferability of shares, and on his findings, only 43.39 per cent of the voting power was held by three companies of Sundaram Groups, held that the assessee-company was one in which the public were substantially interested. Consequently, he directed the IAC to make necessary changes by treating the assessee as a company in which public are substantially interested. He has also deleted the disallowance of Rs. 2,09,269 holding that it is not an entertainment expenditure.

On appeal by the revenue, the Tribunal upheld the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) as his decision was in accordance with the decisions of the Tribunal in the assessee''s own case for the assessment years 1970-71,1973-74, 1976-77 and 1977-78 and also in accordance with the decisions of the Madras High Court in the cases of Commissioner of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu-I Vs. Simpson and Company, and in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Karuppuswamy Nadar and Sons,

So far as the first three questions are concerned, they relate to the assessment years 1975-76 and 1979-80. The point for consideration is whether the assessee is a public company u/s 43A and the assessee should be treated as a company in which the public are substantially interested u/s 2(18)( b ) and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction u/s 35B to the extent of 11/2 times or 1? times. In view of the fact that u/s 43A of the Companies Act and the articles of association providing for free transferability of shares and 43.39 per cent voting power was held by three companies of Sundaram Group, he held that the assessee-company was one in which the public were substantially interested and therefore, the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction at 11/2 per cent times. But, on the other hand, in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lucas T.V.S. Ltd., ), this Court held that the assessee-company was one in which the public are not substantially interested and, therefore, the assessee-company is entitled to 1? per cent in the matter of granting weighted deduction u/s 35B. In view of the foregoing reasons, the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the assessee is a company in which the public are substantially interested and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction u/s 35B at the rate of 11/2per cent. In that view of the matter, we answer the first three questions preferred in the assessment year 1979-80 and all the questions relating to the assessment year 1975-76 in the negative and in favour of the department.

So far as the fourth question is concerned, it relates to the assessment year 1979-80.

The point for consideration is whether the entertainment expenditure of Rs. 2,09,269 is allowable as deduction u/s 37(2A).

The ITO disallowed a sum of Rs. 2,09,269 under the provisions of section 37(2A). The details of the expenditure are as under:

Rs.

Guest and Mess Account

1,79,670

Cigarettes for Customers

6,060

Incidental Expenses (tips etc.)

16,580

Photos

6,959

Total

2,09,269

The entire expenditures, according to the assessee, were connected with the visit of dignitaries, business customers and delegates. The Assessing Officer held that the above items of expenditure would not fall under the category of the customary hospitality like tea or coffee expenses given to the customers. He relied on decision in Khem Chand Bahadur Chand''s case ( supra ) for holding that the expenditure is lavish. Further, according to the Assessing Officer, the incidental expenses described as tips, etc., are actually expenditure of the sales executive who had toured various stations and stayed in hotels. The expenditures on photos are those that have been incurred on taking photos of visiting dignitaries as also the products manufactured by the company for the purposes of advertisement in various media. Therefore, in his opinion, these two items of expenditures would not take the character of entertainment expenditures, but would be allowable as expenditures wholly incurred for the purpose of business. The guest and mess account comprises value of coupons issued to customers to enable them to participate in tea and tiffin provided by the industrial canteen run by the assessee-company. The cigarettes are also supplied to the customers who are in the habit of smoking. These expenses, therefore, are not strictly in the nature of advertisement expenditure and would qualify as deduction in view of the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Karuppuswamy Nadar & Sons ( supra ). In the result, the entire expenditure of Rs. 2,09,269 disallowed by the IAC was allowed as deduction by the Commissioner. On appeal, the Tribunal confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner.

Before us, the learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the incidental expenditure like tips, etc., and the photos will not come under the category of entertainment expenditure, because these expenditures were incurred for sale promotion. According to the learned counsel, tips were given to the waiters and it was not incurred on the foreign customers and on dignitaries. Insofar as photos are concerned, photos are taken of the goods manufactured by the company for advertisement. The photos are also taken when the foreign dignitaries visit the assessee-company, and, therefore, it would also not fall under the category of entertainment expenditure. We have also heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the department. He contended that these two items of expenditure are also entertainment expenditures not incurred for the staff of the assessee-company, but incurred for the foreign customers. Therefore, according to the learned standing counsel, these amounts are also included as entertainment expenditures and, therefore, they should be disallowed. It remains to be seen that when the assessee''s sales executive toured various stations and stayed in hotels, the tips were paid to the waiters in the hotel. Therefore, it is not an expenditure incurred on any foreign customers, but the expenditure is involved in relation to their own employees. The photographs were taken when the foreign dignitaries visited the company. Photograph is also taken of the manufactured goods of the company for the purpose of advertisement in various media. Therefore, this item of expenditure would also not fall under the category of entertainment expenditure. Therefore, we are agreeable with the Tribunal in allowing these two expenditures, namely, incidental expenditures like tips, etc., of Rs. 16,580 and the expenditures for photograph amounting to Rs. 6,959 and agree with the view that they are not entertainment expenditure and therefore, they are allowed u/s 37(1) since they are incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. Insofar as the other two items like guest house and mess account and cigarettes for customers are concerned, they definitely fall under the category of entertainment expenditures. If the expenditures were incurred not on the staff of the assessee-company, but on the customers, they will have to be treated as entertainment expenditures and they are allowed as per section 37(2A). This view was taken by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Patel Bros. & Co. Ltd [1995] 215 ITR 165. Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal is partly correct in allowing the expenditure of Rs. 16,580 and Rs. 6,959 only and the Tribunal''s order is not correct in allowing Rs. 1,79,670 and Rs. 6,060. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the department, insofar as allowing of Rs. 16,550 and Rs. 6,959 is concerned and insofar as allowing of Rs. 1,79,670 and Rs. 6,060 is concerned, we answer the question in the negative and in favour of the department.

No costs.