Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.4 In the case of CIT Vs. Kohinoor Paper Products, (1997) 226 ITR 220, one of the questions before Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court was-whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in allowing Rs. 42,974/- spent on education of a partner in USA as business expenditure? The facts of the case are that the firm was constituted on 11.06.1979, consisting of three partners, namely, Shri Gopal Chandra Bharagava, his younger brother, Shri Narendra Bhargava and his son Shri Deepak Bhargava. At the time of constitution of the firm, Shri Deepak Bhargava was a student of B.Sc. After obtaining M.Sc. degree in 1982, he proceeded to USA for higher studies and joined Western Michigan University. The expenses incurred on the education were claimed as foreign tour expenses. The Tribunal gave a finding that the foreign tour to USA for higher studies was exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was allowed. The Hon'ble Court mentioned that Shri Bhargava, the partner, after completion of higher education and gaining experience, which was beneficial to the firm, kept himself engaged in its business. The Tribunal has given a finding that subsequent events also establish the intention and purpose of sending him abroad, who was to return with better education and greater experience. The Hon'ble Court held that since it is a finding of fact, which is based on facts on record, no question of law arises. The case of the ld. counsel is that the expenditure was incurred on a partner, who subsequently joined the firm and contributed to its business. Therefore, the facts are in pari-materia However, we find that the facts are distinguishable. Shri Bhargava had worked as partner of the firm for some length of time and also obtained M.Sc. degree in this period. It has been recorded as a matter of fact by the Tribunal that his education and experience was beneficial for the business of the firm. The expenditure is neither capital in nature nor personal in nature. However, in this case, Shri Gaurav Shyam was an apprentice and had worked with the firm for a very short period from July, 2002 to September, 2002. It is yet to be seen whether his education was useful for the business of the assessee-firm for the reason that the finding of the ld. CIT(Appeals) is quite contrary; and the business of the assessee was not such which required the study of strategic-sale globally. The comparative chart of sales given above shows that there was rather decrease in the turnover. Shri Gaurav Shyam became a partner in the firm but the major source of his income was salaries from two connected concerns. Nonetheless, the ratio which comes clearly from the decision is that the material question to be seen is as to whether the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. While doing so, all circumstances have to be taken into account. The fact that he was grand-son of a partner or that there was no written contract may not become material if the expenditure is found as a matter of fact to have been incurred for the purpose of business. 4.5 The facts in the case of CIT Vs. Dr. M.S. Shroff, (1971) 80 ITR 687 (Del) are that the assessee is an ophthalmic surgeon in New Delhi. He derives income by way of salary and also from his profession. The assessee visited several hospitals in different countries in Europe and Egypt, with a view to keep himself abreast with the latest techniques in ophthalmology. An expenditure of Rs. 10,079/- was incurred on the tour, which included expenditure on tickets and visa also. This amount was claimed as expenditure against the professional income. The Tribunal found as a matter of fact that the assessee had visited foreign countries on his own and that he had not been deputed by his employer, Dr. Shroff's charity hospital. The main object was to keep himself up-to-date in the techniques of his profession. However, it has been contended that he also drew some benefit incidentally in his capacity as employee. It was held that this was not a relevant circumstance and, therefore, the appeal was decided in favour of the assessee. The Hon'ble Court mentioned that the question as to how far the expenditure incurred by a salaried employee, who proceeds on a study tour abroad and thereby acquires knowledge and experience which not only benefits his employer but also adds to his professional and mental equipment can be apportioned, is one on which opinions may differ. The question at any rate is a mixed question of fact and law and depends upon the facts of each case. In the present case, it does not seem necessary to answer this question because on the facts the claim of the assessee has been allowed by the Tribunal that benefit to self is merely incidental. Therefore, the question was answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Here again, the decision is that the facts of each case have to be looked into for coming to an appropriate conclusion in the matter. 4.6 Since the essential question to be seen is whether the expenditure has been incurred in the course of business and the same has to be decided on the facts of the case, we do not think it necessary to mention in detail the facts of the case reported in 1 SOT 30 and 7 SOT 755.