Case: M. A. Jabbar Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Andhra Pradesh,Hyderabad

refer to those cases, because the question whether a particular expenditure is of a capital nature or is a revenue expenditure has always to be decided on the special facts of each case. We may, however, make a reference to the decision of this Court in Gotan Lime Syndicate v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajasthan and Delhi, 1966-59 ITR 718 = (AIR 1966 SC 1564 ). In that case also, Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1955, which was applicable, provided that the lease shall be in respect of plots comprising of 5 square miles each. The lessee was even entitled to transfer his lease or any right, title or interest therein to a person holding a certificate of approval on payment of a fee, subject to the previous sanction of the Director of Mines and Geology, and subject to some other conditions. Rule 18 prescribed a period of 5 years for a lease and the lease was renewable at the option of the assessee for a further period of five years. Even on these facts, this Court held that the lessee in that case, in obtaining the lease and paying lease money, had not incurred an expenditure of a capital nature, and was entitled to claim that the lease money paid by him was a revenue expenditure. In that case also, thus, the lease was in respect of plots, so that interest in land was conveyed, but the Court, on considering the object of the lease and the manner in winch the rights under it were to be exercised, came to the finding that no capital expenditure was involved and that the only right acquired was the right to obtain raw material from the leased land. The payment was not for securing an enduring advantage. In the case before us, the facts are much stronger in favour of the assessee. The period of lease is shorter and the only object of the lease is to remove sand lying loose on the surface, without exercising any other right on the land included in the lease. 5. In Bombay Steam Navigation Co. (1953) Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, 1965-56 ITR 52 at p. 59 = (AIR 1965 SC 1201 at p. 1205), this Court explained the principle of determining the nature of an expenditure. The Court held: Whether a particular expenditure is revenue expenditure incurred for the purpose of business must be determined on a consideration of all the facts and circumstances, and by the application of principles of commercial trading. The question must be viewed in the larger context of business necessity or expediency. If the outgoing or expenditure is so related to the carrying on or conduct of the business, that it may be regarded as an integral part of the profit-earning process and not for acquisition of an asset or a right of a permanent character, the possession of which is a condition of the carrying on of the business, the expenditure may be regarded as revenue expenditure. Clearly, in the present case, the expenditure incurred by the assessee was not related to the acquisition of an asset or a right of a permanent character. It was for the specific object of enabling the assessee to remove and lying loose on the surface which was the stock-in-trade of the business of the assessee, so that the expenditure has to be regarded as revenue expenditure. 6. Counsel appearing for the Department relied on a decision of this Court in K. T. M. T. M. Abdul Kayoom v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras. 1962-44 ITR 689 at p. 707 = (AIR 1962 SC 680 at p. 690). The majority judgment in that case shows that the assessee, which was carrying on business in conch shells locally known as chanks, took on lease the exclusive right, liberty and authority to take and carry away all chanks found in the sea for a period of three years ending on June, 30, 1947 along a specified portion of the coast. The consideration of Rs. 6,111 per year was payable in advance. It was held on the facts of that case that this expenditure was of the nature of capital expenditure and not revenue expenditure. On the face of it the distinguishing feature was that, in that case, the lessee had to obtain fish from the sea and, consequently, had to operate in the waters of the sea itself, and that was the main reason why the Court held against the assessee. This difference is clearly brought out in the judgment of the majority where it was held :- This is not a case of so much clay or so much salt-petre or a dump of tailings or leaves on the trees in a forest. The two modes in which the respondent did the business furnish adequate distinguishing characteristics. Here is an agreement to reserve a source, where the respondent hoped to find shells which, when found, became its stock-in-trade but which, in situ, were no more the firms than a shell in the deepest part of the ocean beyond the reach of its divers and nets. The expenses of fishing shells were its current expenses as also the expenses incurred over the purchase of shells from the divers. But to say that the payment of lease money for reserving an exclusive right to fish for chanks was on a par with payments of the other character is to err. 7. It is clear that, in the present case, there is no such reservation of an exclusive right in respect of any land. In fact, the first sentence in the quotation above is clearly applicable to the present case if, for the word clay, the word sand is substituted.The present is a case where sand lying loose on the surface of the land is to be removed and the whole object of the lease was to obtain the right to the sand which was to be the stock-in-trade of the assessee.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]It appears to us that, on the language of the lease-deed, this submission cannot be accepted. The lease specifically mentions in para 3 that, under it, the Government do hereby demise and grant unto the lessee exclusive lease and liberty to enter, occupy, and use for quarrying purpose and to raise, render marketable, carry away, sell and dispose of sand within or under or upon the lands specified in this lease and for the period named therein. Thus, there was a specific provision that the lessee was to have an exclusive right to enter and occupy the land. Further, was a provision that, in case any mineral not specified in the lease was discovered in this land, the lessee was to report such discovery to the Director of Mines and Geology and could obtain either a prospecting licence or a mining lease in respect of it, but, if he intimated his intention of not working the newly discovered mineral, or failed to give any intimation to work it within the period of three months, it would be open to the Government to sublet the working of such newly discovered mineral. This use of the word sublet in the deed indicates that, though the Government reserved to it the right to allow some other person to work the newly discovered mineral, that person could only be admitted as a sub-lessee and, obviously, he would be the sub-lessee under the assessee.These terms do indicate that an interest in land was also conveyed by the lease; but that is, in our opinion, not decisive of the question whether the money payable under the lease was a capital expenditure or a revenue expenditure. As an example, if a shop is taken on rent by a person to run his business and he pays monthly or annual rent, he certainly acquires an interest in the building and the land on which it stands as a lessee, but no one will contend that the payment of rent would be an expenditure of a capital nature and not revenue expenditure. The decisive factor is the object with which the lease is taken and the nature of the payment which is being made when obtaining the lease3. In the present case, there are a number of factors which lead to the conclusion that the expenditure incurred by the assessee in obtaining the lease was revenue expenditure for the purpose of obtaining stock-in-trade and not capital expenditure. The first point is that the lease was for a very short period of 11 months only. Consequently, it is clear that the assessee did not obtain any capital asset of an enduring nature by obtaining this lease. Then the second circumstance is that the sole right which was acquired by him under the lease-deed was to take away the sand lying on the leased land. No doubt, the document mentioned that he was entitled to raise render marketable, carry away, sell and dispose of the sand within or under or upon the land specified in this lease; but there was a clear finding of fact recorded by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and affirmed by the Tribunal that all the sand that could be removed was lying on the surface and there was no question of raising, digging or excavating for the sand before obtaining it. No operations were, therefore, to be performed on the land itself. It appears that the High Court, in giving its decision against the assessee, fell into an error in not accepting the finding of fact that the sand was lying loose on the surface and the contract was only for removal of that sand and, instead, recording for itself a different finding. In examining this question of fact it is clear that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction. The finding of fact recorded by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had been affirmed by the Tribunal and no question was referred to the High Court that it was a finding which was based on no evidenceThis circumstance that the sand was lying loose and merely required removal without any excavation or digging makes it clear that what the assessee was taking under the lease for the purpose of his business was the right to remove that sand and that he was not acquiring the land or any other rights in the land for any other purpose. Then there is the additional fact that the lease was for a very short period of 11 months. On these facts, the conclusion was irresistible that, in agreeing to pay this large sum of Rs. 82,500. the assesses was bargaining for the right to remove the sand lying loose on the land within that short period of 11 months to the extent to which he could do so. He did not acquire any fixed or capital asset of an enduring nature by obtaining this lease and all he had in view was to have the right to obtain his stock-in-trade in the form of sand. We do not consider it necessary to refer to those cases, because the question whether a particular expenditure is of a capital nature or is a revenue expenditure has always to be decided on the special facts of each caseIn the case before us, the facts are much stronger in favour of the assessee. The period of lease is shorter and the only object of the lease is to remove sand lying loose on the surface, without exercising any other right on the land included in the leaseClearly, in the present case, the expenditure incurred by the assessee was not related to the acquisition of an asset or a right of a permanent character. It was for the specific object of enabling the assessee to remove and lying loose on the surface which was the stock-in-trade of the business of the assessee, so that the expenditure has to be regarded as revenue expenditureIt is clear that, in the present case, there is no such reservation of an exclusive right in respect of any land. In fact, the first sentence in the quotation above is clearly applicable to the present case if, for the word clay, the word sand is substituted.The present is a case where sand lying loose on the surface of the land is to be removed and the whole object of the lease was to obtain the right to the sand which was to be the stock-in-trade of the assessee4. During the course of arguments before us, a number of cases were brought to our notice which related to quarrying leases of various types in India and in. We do not consider it necessary to refer to those cases, because the question whether a particular expenditure is of a capital nature or is a revenue expenditure has always to be decided on the special facts of each. We may, however, make a reference to the decision of this Court in Gotan Lime Syndicate v. Commissioner of9 ITR 718 = (AIR 1966 SC 1564  ). In that case also, Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1955, which was applicable, provided that the lease shall be in respect of plots comprising of 5 square miles each. The lessee was even entitled to transfer his lease or any right, title or interest therein to a person holding a certificate of approval on payment of a fee, subject to the previous sanction of the Director of Mines and Geology, and subject to some other conditions. Rule 18 prescribed a period of 5 years for a lease and the lease was renewable at the option of the assessee for a further period of five years. Even on these facts, this Court held that the lessee in that case, in obtaining the lease and paying lease money, had not incurred an expenditure of a capital nature, and was entitled to claim that the lease money paid by him was a revenue expenditure. In that case also, thus, the lease was in respect of plots, so that interest in land was conveyed, but the Court, on considering the object of the lease and the manner in winch the rights under it were to be exercised, came to the finding that no capital expenditure was involved and that the only right acquired was the right to obtain raw material from the leased land. The payment was not for securing an enduring advantage.In the case before us, the facts are much stronger in favour of the assessee. The period of lease is shorter and the only object of the lease is to remove sand lying loose on the surface, without exercising any other right on the land included in the