THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS versus K.T.M.T.M ABDUL KAYOOM

-51s SUPREl\IB COURT REPORTS [l!JG2] SUPP. THE CO:.\HIISSIONER OF INCOi\IE-TAX, MADRAS v.

IC T .. .ilI. T. l\I. ABDUL KAYOOi\I

(S. K: DAs, J. L. KAPUR and l\I. HrnAYATULLAII, JJ.)

, - -- · - Income Tax~Capital Expenditure-Dealer in conch •hells-Lease money paicifor gatherin~ shells from sea-Nature ojexpenditure-Income·tax Act, 1922(11 of l!J22), s.10 (2)(xy). _The assessee firm canicd on the business in purchase and sale of conch shells. It obtained lease for 3 years for gathering specified types of shells from the sea along the coastline abutting on the South Arcot District. It sought to deduct the amount paid as lease money- from its profits from business on the ground that this \vas an expenditure not of capital nature -but wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of business. _ under s. 10(2)(xv) of_ the Income Tax Act. -

. II.Zd, (per Kapur and Hidayatullah, JJ., Das, J. di'5ent• ing) that the expenditure was capital expenditure and could not be deducted from the profits. The business of the assessce - was buying and selling shells but when it took the lease it · went in for new speculative business of fishing for shells. The amount paid for reserving the vast coastline for future fishing \Vas not price paid for obtaining the stock in trade i.e. shells with which assessce did his business. The" amount was paid to obtain an enduring asset in the shape of an exclusive _right to fish and the payment was not related to the shells.

Mohanlal Hargovind v. Comrni8sioner - oj Income-tax, G. P. & Berar, (194!1) 17 I. T. R. 473(P. C.), distinguished

Pringle lndustriea Ltd., Secunderabad v. Commi.s'Jionlr of Income-tax, Hyderabad, [1960] 3 S. C.R. 681, applied.

Per Das J.-The expenditure \vas not capital expendi-ture and was' deductible from the profits. It was not an ex-- penditure for the acquisition of property or of rights of . pexmanent character, the possession of \ovhich was n~cessary ' for carrying on of the asse.ssee's trade. By this lease the asses-see acquired it.s stocks-in-trade rather than source or endur-ing_ asset_ for producing the stock-in-trade. _ -

.llloha~lal I!argovind v. Gommi•sioner of Income-tax, G. P. & Berar (1949) 17 I. T. R. 473(P. C.), applied.

· Pringle Industries Ltd., Secunrlerabad v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Hyderabad, [1960] 3 S.C.R. 681, distinguished.

C1v:ll. APPELLATE JURISDIOTION: Review Peti· tion No. 16 of 19130.

(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Petition for Review of this court's judgment a.nd order dated April 26, 1960, in Civil Appeal No. 64of1956.

A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, R. Ganapathy Iyer

and G. Gopalakrishnan, for the petitioners.

K. N. Rajagopala Sastri, and P. D. Menon, for

respondent.

1961. November 23.

Das, J., delivered his

own Judgment. The Judgment of Kapur and Hidayatullah, JJ. was delivered by Hidayatullah, J.

S. K. DAS, J.-I had taken view different

from that of my learned brethren when this appeal was heard along with Pringle Industries Ltd., Sec.underabad v. 1.'he Comrnissioner of lncome~t!lx, Hyderabad ([1]), and that view was expressed in very short judgment dated April 26, 1960.

Now, we have had the advantage of hear-

ing very full argument with regard to the facts of this appeal, and I for myself have had the further advantage and privilege of reading the judgment which my learned brother Hidayatullah, J., is proposing to deliver in this appeal. I have very carefully considered the question again with reference to the facts relating thereto and, much to my regret, have come to the conclusion that I must adhere to the opinion which I expressed earlier. My view is that the facts of this case a.re indistin-guishable from the facts on which the decision of the Privy Council in Mohanlal Horgovind v. Commissioner of Income-tax, C. P. and Berar (') was rendered, and on the principles laid down by this Court in Assam Bengal Cement Go., Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal ('), it must be held that the expenditure of Rs. 6111/-in this case was on reYenue account and the res-pondent firm was entitled to the allowance which it claimed.

(1) (1960] 3 S.C.R, 681. () (1949) 17 I.T.R. 473 (P.C.),

(3) (1956) 1 S.C,R. 972,

Tht Commis.u'oner of lncomtatox, M odras •• K. T.M.T.1'1. Abdul Kayoom

8.K. Das J,

1901 Tlie Commissioner of lne~ltVC, Madras v. K.T.M.T.JI. A•iul Kayaom S. X. D11sJ,

520 SUPREME , COURT REPORTS (19G2] SUPP.

The short facts are these. The respondent firm carried on hnssinoss in the purchase and sale of couch shells (called chanks). It used to acquire the stock of lJonch shells {I) by .,purchase from diver•, (2) by purchase from tlie Fisheries Department of the Government of Madras, ·and (3) by fishing fur antl g»thering such shells from tho sea. It dispo3cd of tho stock so acquired at. Calcu-tta, the difference bet.ween the cost price and sell-ing price less expenses being its profit made in. business. On November 9, 1945 it took on lease from tho Director of Industries·. and · Commere, Madras, tho exclusive right, liberty and authority to fish for, take and carry away "chank" shells in the sea off the coa9t line of tho South Arcot District including the French Kuppania of .Pondicherry. Tho boundary of the area within which the ·'right could ho exercised waf! ,given in schedule to the lease. The lease wtis -for period of three years from July' I, 1944 to June 30, lfl47 on considera-tion of an yearly i:ent of Rs. 6111/· to be paid in advance. Clause 3 of ._the lease contained the material terms thereof anil may be set out in full. "3. The lessor hereby convenants-' with the lesson as follows :-' ~

• {i) To pay the rent on the day a."Ua- -in manner aforesaid .

. ' '\il.l To 'deliv;er to the Assistant Director of Pearl arid Chank Fisheries, ,T~tico~n all· Velampuri" shells that may be obtaincq. 'by the lessee upon payment of their value' as determined by the Assistant Director.

{iii) To collect chanks c;aught in nets and by means of-diving as well. In the process of sucli collectio~ of shells not to. fish c):J.ank shells less than 2t inches in diameter and if any chank shells leRB than 21 inches ill

(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

diameter be hrouht inadvertently to shore, to return at once alive to t.he ~ea all such undt>rsized shells.

(iv) Not at any time hereafter to

transfer or underlet or part with posse· ssion of this grant or the rights and pr i vile~es hereby granted or any part thereof without the written consent of the lessor.

(v) At the encl or sooner determi-

nation of the term hereby created peace-ably aml quietly to yield to the lesson the rights ftn<:l privileges hereby granted, and

(vi) To report to the Assistant

Director of Pearl and Chank Fisheries (South), Tuticorn the actual number of shells kept unsold in different stations after the expiry of the lease period.

For the assessment year 1946-47, the respondent

firm submitted return of its income to the Income-tax Officer, Karaikudi Circle, showing its income from sale of ch inks purch'lscd from divers at Rs. 7191/-by sale of chanks purchased from Government Department at Rs. 23, 588/· and Rs. 2819/- by aalo of chanks gathered by themselves (through divers) after deducting Rs. 6111/- being the rent paid to Government under the contract referred to abov,J. It sought to deduct Rs. 6111/-from its profits from business on the ground that this was an expenditure not of capital nature but wholy and exclusively laid out for the purpose of business under s. I0{2)(xv) of the Income-'tax Act. This claim was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer and on appeal by the :Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On further appeal to the Appella,te Trib~nal the respondent firm conteqded that the

The CommiSJiontr of lncome•IAX Madras •• K.T.M.T.M. Aldul Kayoom S. K. Das J,

Tit. Comminioner of l"'om1-tox, MoJrOJ

v. K. T. M. T.M. Abdul Kayoom

S. K. D.,J,

5!12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1!162] SUPP.

decison of the Privy Council in Mohanlal Hargovind

v. Commissioner of Jncome.taz(')applied to this case inasmuch as the payment was to secure tho stock-in-trade for its busim-ss. Tho Appellate Tribunal was of the opinion that the Privy Council decision covered the case, but felt itself bound by the decision of tho Full Bench of the Madras High Court in K. '!'. M. 'l'. M. Abdul Kayum Hussain Su.hib v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras ([1]). The Tribunal acceded to tho demand for referen-ce to the High Court, and accordingly referred the following question to the High Court for it.s decision.

"Whether on the facts and circ::mMtances of the case the payment of the sum of Rs. GI 11 /- made by the assessee under tho terms of the agreement entered into with the Director of Industries and Commerce, Madras on 9th November, 1945 was not an item of revenue cxp<>nditure incurred in the course of carrying on the business of the assessee and, therefore, allowable under the provisions of section I 0 of the Indian Income· tax Act?"

The reference first came before Division

Bench and was then referred to J<'ull Bench. By its judgment dated April 2, 1953 .the Full Bench answered the question in favour of the respondent firm. On certificate of fitness granted by the High Court tho Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, brought the present appeal to this Court.

In A,.~am Bengal Cement Co., Ltd. v. The Com-

mis~ioner of lncome-m ('I, this Court referred to the decision in Benarlli.das Jagannath. In re.(') and accepwd the following broad principles for the purpose of discriminating between capital and revenue expenditure.

(li (19Hl I. T. R. 652.

(II (19'9) 17 I. T. R. 473 (P.C.I

(19461 15 I. T. R. 185.

(31 [1955] I S. C. R, 972.

(I} S.C.R,

(I) The outlay is deemed to be capital when it is

made for the initiation of business, for extension of business, or for substantial replacement of equipment (See Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Granite City Steamship Company Ltd.(')]. Such expenditure is regarded as on capital account, for it is incurred not in earning profits but in setting the profit-earning machinery in motion. In my opinion this test does not apply in the present case where no profit-earning machinery was set in motion.

(2) Expenditure may be treated as propel'!y attri-butable to capital when it is made not only once and for all, but with view to bringing in•o exis-tence an asset or an advant<>ge for the enduring benefit of trade. (See Atherton v. British lnsu/,at-ed and elsby Cables Ltd. ( ')). In elucidation of this principle it has been laid down in several decisions that by "enduring" is meant "enduring in the way that fued cal'ital endures" and it does not connote benefit t'hat 1 ndures in the sense that for good number of years it relieves the assessee of revenue payment. In Robert Addie & Sons Collieries Ltd. v. Comminioners of Jnl,a,nd Revenue ('} Lord Clyde formulated the same test in these words:

"What is 'money wholly and exclusively laid out for the purposes of the trade' in question which must be determined upon the principles of ordinary commercial trading. It is necessary accordingly to attend to the true nature of the expenditure, and to ask one's self the question, is it part of the Company's working expenses?-is it expenditure laid out as part of the process of profit-earning?-or, on the other hand, is it capital outlay?-is it expenditure necessary for the acquisition of property or of rights of permanent character, (l) (1927) 13 T. C. l, 14. (2) (1925) 10 T. C. 155, (3) (l92f) 6 T. C. 671, 676.

The Commissioner of lncome-iax, Madtas

K. T. M. T. M, Abdul Kay(;om

S. K. DasJ,

524" SUPltEME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.

the possession of which is condition of carrying on its trade at all?''

Tiu CommUsion1r of Income-tax, Madras v. K.T.M.T.M. .Abdul Kayoom S. K. DasJ.

This test was advo,.rted to by the Privy Council in Tata Hydro-Ekctric A!(ilncies Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income tax('). In my opinion the application of this te'Bt makes it at one; clear that the sum ofRs.6111/-which "tho respondent firm' spent was expenditure laid out· as part.of. the process of profit-earning;_ it was not capital outlay, tliat is, expenditure nec;:es-sary for the acquisition of property or of rights of permanent character, the possession of whiol:i was condition of carrying on its, trade. Under the contract in question the ,respondc•rit firm did not acquire any right" to, immpvablc P.roperty. It acquired no right in t.he bed .of' the sea or in the sea. The. only right conferred on the respondent firm was the right to fi'sh for,. gat-her and carry away conch ·shel1" (in motion under tho surfacQ of the sea) 01' specified type and size. The respondent firm wa.s under an ·'"obligation to return to the sea conch shells less than 21 in.ch es · in diameter. The busines~ of the respondent firm consisted in buying and selling conch shells. No m,l}nufacturing process was involved in it. Therefore, tho stock-in-trade of the respondent firm ~:as conch shells. It scour: ed this stock-in-trade in many different ways, by purchase from divers, by purchase from Govern-ment and private parties; and also by gathering conch shells under the contract in question. In my

_ opinion1 the contract into w~ich the respondent firm ente!'ed was merely for securing its stock-in-tra.de. It is indeed true that.im considering whether a.n item of expenditure is of capital or revenue nature,_9ne must .consider- the ·nature of the con-cern, the ordinary course of business· usually adopted in that· concern, and the object with which the -expJnse is ipcurred. The. true nature of the tra.nsactfon must be cpllectcd from the entire

( 1) (1937) 5 I. T. R. 202,

(l) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

document with reference to all the relevant facts and circumstances. Having regard to the nature of the respondent firm's business and the course adop-ted by it for carrying it on, it appears to me to be rather far-fetched to hold that by the contract in question the respondent firm acquired property or right of rermanent character, the possession of which was condition of carrying on its trade. To me it seems that the better view, in busini·ss sense, is that the respondent firm merely acquired by means of the contract its stock-in-trade, rather than source or enduring asset for producing the stock-in-trade.

It was argued before us, as it was argued in the High Court, that what was acquired in the present case was the means of obtaining the stock-in-trade for the business rather than the stock-in-tra.de itself. I am unable to accept this argument as correct. The contract entered into by the respondent firm was wholly and exclusively for the purpose of obtaining conch shells, which were its stock-in-trade. As I havo stated earlier, the contract granted no interest in the sea, sea bed, or sea water etc. It was simply contract giving the grantee the right to pick and carry away conch shells of specified type and size which of course implied the right to appropriate them as its own property. In my opinion, in case of this nature no distinction can bf. drawn in a. business sense between the right of picking and ca,rrying away conch shells and the actual buying of them. It is not unusual for business-men to secure, by means of contract, supply of raw materials or of goods which form their stock-in-trade, extending over several years for the payment of lump sum down. Even if the conch shells were stored in godown and the respondent firm was given riirht to go and fetch them and so reduce them into its ownership, it could scarcely have been

IHI

Thi Commi'asiorur of /neomc•te:x Madra1 v. X.TM.T.M. AtdvlXo.-S.". DosJ.

w11 suggested that the price paid was capital expendi-l'Jommi.<'i°'" of of ture. I may ex11lain what I have in mind by giving ex11lain what I have in mind by giving what I have in mind by giving I have in mind by giving in mind by giving mind by giving by giving giving .lfadra; simple illustration. · Take the case of fisher may K. T.ii-r.M. T.ii-r.M. who sells fish. Fish is his stock-in-trade. He man Abdul Kayoom Kayoom . __ buy the fish he requires from other persons; or he sx. DasJ.\ DasJ.\ · : may obt3in the supply of fish he requires by catch-. ing. the fish of specified size and type in particular water over short period under contract entered into by him and take them away. I do not think that in business sense any distinction can be made between the two means of ·obtaining the stook-in-trade. Both really amount to securing the stock-. in·trad~ rather than acquiring an.enduring asset or . permanent right for producing the stock·in-trade. And business man, like . the fisher man in the illustration given above, would indeed be surprieed to learn that. buying of fish for his business is revenue expenditure whereas catching fiish in particular water under contract entered into by him for the purpose of obtaining his stock-in-trade on payment of lump sum down, is capital expenditure.

T;,, l'Jommi.<'i°'" of of ture. I may ex11lain what I have in mind by giving ex11lain what I have in mind by giving what I have in mind by giving I have in mind by giving in mind by giving mind by giving by giving giving

Inw•e-t« .lfadra;

K. T.ii-r.M. T.ii-r.M. Abdul Kayoom Kayoom sx. DasJ.\ DasJ.\ ·

(3) The test whether for the purpose of the expen-

diture any capital was withdrawn,· or, in other words; whether the object of incurring the expendi-ture was to employ what was taken in as capital of the business does not arise in the present case and need not be considered.

, No different principles w~re laid down by my learned brethren in their decision in Pringle Indus-tries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax(') and so far a> that c~se is concerned, their decision must · hold the field. The difficulty and difference of opinion that arise now relate to the application of those principles to the facts of the '}Jresent case:

One is reminded in this case of what Lord

Macmillan said in Tata Hydro-Electric Agencies Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax(') at page 209:

(2) [1937] 5 I.T.R. 202.

(ll [1960] 3 S.C.R. 681.

(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

"Their Lordships recognise and the decided cases show how difficult it is to dis-criminate between expenditure which is and expenditure which is not, incurred solely for the purpose of earning profits or gains."

Tiu Cammisllioner of

/1uome-tax, .ltadras

v. /(. T. ii-t. T. Al. Abdul Kayoom S. K. Das J.

Lord Greene (Master of the Rolls) expressed himself more strongly and adverting to the distinction between capital and income, said:

"There have been many c1tses where this

matter of capital or income has been debated. There have been many cases which fall upon the borderline: indeed, in many cases it is aimost true to say that the spin of coin would decide the matter almost as satisfac-torily as an attempt to find reasons."

[Vi(ie Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. British Salmson Aero Engines Ltd.I•)].

Perhaps, the case before us is not as bad as the cases whroh the Master of the Rolls had in mind when he made the above observations. It is, how-ever, truism that each case must_ turn upon its own facts. Nevertheless the decisions are useful as illustrations of some relevant general principles. The nearest illustration that we can get is the decision of the Privy Council in JllolUJnlal Hargovind v. Commissioner of Income-tax('). That decision was binding on the Indian Courts at the time when it was given and as I think that it is still good law and is indistinguishable from the present case, I offer no apology for referring to it in great detail. The facts of that case were these. The assessees there carried on business at S\)Veral places as manufacturers and vendors · of country-made cigarettes known as bidis. These cigarettes were composed of tobacco rolled in leaves of tree known as tendu leaves, which were obtained by the assessees by entering ihto number of (I) (1938) 221'. C. 29, 43. (2) 1194~!.)7 I. T. R. 473 (P .. C,).

Th• C<lmrnissionv oj f1te01QC-iax, MQtltas •. K. T.M. T.M. !du/ K ayoom S. K. Da1J.

528 SUPREME OOURT REPORTs [l!J62) SUPP.

short term contracts with the Goveruml'nt an<l other owners of forests. Under the cnl! tracts, in consideration of certain sum payable by i11staJ. ments, the. a8sessees were granted the ex-clusive right to pick and carry away the tendu leaves from the fo1 est area described. Tho asseseee were allowed to coppice small tendu plant11 few months in advance to obtain good leaves and to polls.rd tendu trees few months in advance to obtain better and bigger leaves. The picking of tho leaves however had to start at once or practically at once and to proceed continuously. On these essential facts, the Privy Council held that the contracts were entered into by the assessees wholly and exclusively for the purpose of supplying themselves with one of the raw mat.-rials of their busineee, that they granted no interest in land, or in the trees or plants, that under them it was tho tendu ll'aves and nothing hut tho tendu loaves that were acquired, that the right to piCk the leaves or to go on to the land for the purpose was merely ancillary to the real purpose of the contracts and if. not exprt>sscd would bo implied by law in the sail' of growing crop, and that therefore the expenditure incurred in acquiring the raw material was in business sense an expenditure on revenue account and not on capital, just as much ae if the tendu le:wes had been b•Jught in shop. I can find no distinction which would make any difference between the facts of that case and the facts of the 1iresent case. Let me compare the essential facts of these two cases and see whether there is any difference.

11) Two of the contracts were taken as typical of the rest by the Privy Coundl. One contract was for the period from September 5, 1939 to June 30, 1941 and tho other was for the period from Ocober 1, 1938toJune30, 19·11. Thus one of the con-tracts was for period of about two years and the other oontra.ot for period of about three yea.re.

(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

In the case under our consideration the period of the contract is three years. Indeed, there is no vital difference between the periods in the two cases.

( 2) In the case before us the contract area is described in schedule. In the two contracts which were under consideration by the Privy Council the f.Ontra.ct area was also indicated in schedule. The ; boundaries of the forests in which tendu leaves · could be plucked were delimited by the schedule. Same is the case with the contra.ct before us. The contract area in which conch shells of specified type and size can be picked and gathered is described in schedule. Such description does not mean that the assessee gets any right other than the right to gather conch shells. In the Privy Council case the assessees were granted no interest in land or in the· trees or plants; it was the tendu leaves and nothing but the tendu leaves that were acquir-ed. In the case before us no interest was given in the sea bed or in the sea water or in any of the products thereof. Con ch shells of specified type and size and nothing hut such conch shells were acquired by the contra.ct. I do not think that the reference to the coast line off the· South Arcot District makes any difference between the present case and the case on which the decision in M oha:nlal, Hargovind v. Commissioner of Income-tax (')was rendered. If in the matter of plucking of te:ndu leaves the expenditure under the contract was, in business sense, expenditure on revenue account, I fa.ii to see why similar expenditure for gathering conch shells in motion under the surface of the sea near the coast line should not, in business sense, be considered as expenditure on revenue account. This aspect of the case was emphasised by their Lordships in the following para.graph:

(I) (1949) 17LT.R.473(P. C.).

Tlte CommissfMJW •I lncom1·tax, M4rlrt1. s

K.T.M. T.M. .A.;1u1 Ka_,..,,, · S. K. n.;J.

T ltt C0111mission" of Income-ta, Maritas •• Ir. T, 11. T, M, Ab~l llayoom .•, K. D., J,

"It appears to their Lordships that there

has been some misapprehension as to the true nature of these agreements and they wish to state at L'ncc what in their opinion is and what i8 not the effect of them. They are merely examples of many similar contracts entered into by the appellants w},Jolly and exclusively for the purpose of their business, that purpose being to supply themselves with one of the raw materials of that business. The contracts grant no interest in land and no interest in the tree~; or plants themselves. They are simply an<l solely contracts giving to the grantees the right to pick and carry away leaves, which of course, implies the right to appropriate them M their own property."

In the 04oe under our consideration the only right

granted to the respondent firm was to take and carry away conch shells of specified type and Hize, which of course, implies the right to appropriate them as the respondent firm's own property. The right to go into the sea and cast nets etc. was merely ancillary to the real purpose of the contract.

Nor do I think that the circumstance that

the contracts conferred an exclusive privilege or right is matter of any significance. In M ohanlal llargovind v. Commissioner of Income-tax (') the contracts were exclusive and their Lordships s~tcd:

"It is true that the rights under the

contracts are exclusive but in such case as this that is matter whieh appears to their Lordships to be of no significan<',e.

These observations are as apt in their application

to the present case as they were in the case before their Lordships of the Privy Council.

(3) The Privy Council draw distinction

between cases relating to the purchase or leasing of

(I) (1949) 17 I. T. R. 473 (P. C.).

(1) S.C.R.

mines, quarries, deposits of brick earth, land with standing timber etc. On one side and the case under its consideration on the other. It referred to the decision in Alianza Go. v. Bell(') and said:

Tht Commiuian11 of Income-fox, Madras v. K.T.M.T.M. Abdul Kayoom S. K. DasJ.

""·the present case resembles much more closely the case described and distinguished by Channell, J. at page 673 of the re-port in Alianza Co. v. Bell of the cost of material worked up in manufactory. That side the learned Judge, is current expenditure and does not become 'a capital expenditure merely because the material is provided by something like forward contract, under which person for the payment of lump sum down secures supply of the raw material for period extending over sever'll years'.'' In.Kaur£ Timber Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Taxes(') the company's business consisted in cutting and disposing of timber. It acquired in som.e cases timber bearing lands, in other cases it purchased the standing timber. The leases we1e for 99 years. So far as the cases where the land was acquired were concerned there could have been no doubt that the expenditure made in acquiring it was capital ex-penditure. In the case of the purchase of the standing timber what was acquired was an interest in land. The purcha.sers bought the trees which they could allow to remain standing as long as they liked. It was pointed out that so long as the timber at the option of the company remained upon the soil, it derived its s:istenance and nutriment from it. The additional growths became ipso jure the property of the company. In these circumstances it was held that the expenditure was capital expendi-ture. In the case before us some reliance was placed by the appellant on the term that shells less than 2t inches in diameter brought inadvertently to shore had to be returned at once alive to the sea. (1) [1904) 2 K. B. 666 (affirmed on appeal in [1905] 1 K. B. 184and [906] A. C. 18.) (2) [1913] A. C. 771.

1961 '1 h1 Commissioner of Incom1•tax, Mad1os v. K.T.M.T.M. Aitlrd Kayoom S. K. DosJ.

532 SUPI~EME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.

The argument was that such, shells might ·later grow in size by recei "ing sustenance and nutriment from sea water and could be later gathered by the res· pondent firm when they reached the size of 2t inches in diameter or more. This, it was argued, brought the present case nea.rer' the decision in Kauri Timber case ([1]). I am unable to agree. It is to be remembered that live shells move under I.he surface 7f the sea. and they do not ramain at the same pl~ce; as trees do. shell less than 2~ inches ih dig.meter returned a.live to the sea may move away from the contra.at area and may never be gathered by the 'respondent firm. In these circumstances tho· a.p-pellant is not entitlecl ,to ca.II to his aid the test of "further vegetation" or "suste-nance and nutriment" referred to in the Kauri Timber case (1). , ' From. whatever point of view we may !oak at the case, it seems to me that the facts of the pnsent case a.re indistiriguis~ble from those o~ the case in 1l:fohanlal llargovind ,., Gommiisioner of Inc.orne-tax{') In Mohanlal Harg1n1ind's case(') the right was to pluck tendw leave~; in our case the right is/ to gather conch shells of·specified type and size. This distinction, it is obvious, makes no difference. Irr the High Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that Mohanlal Hm·govind's case(') related to the. acquisition of ·raw materials whereas the present case relates to the acquisition of "chanks" by dealer who sells thenr without subjecting them to· any manufacturing process, aria this-distinction, it was contended, made the decision in Mohanlal Hurgovind's case (') inapplicable to the present case . . The High Court rejected this contention and in my opinion rightly. I agree with the High Court -that on principle and in business sense, there is no distinction between acquiring raw materials for manufacturing busim·ss~nd [Lcquiring or purchasing goods by it dealer for the ·purpose of sale, parti-cularly when there ii; no question of any excavation (1) [1913) A. C. 771. (2) (1949) 17 I.T.R. 473 (P.C.).

( 1) S.C .. R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

etc .. in order to win the g.Jod8 and make su.,h goo.Is

parts of the stock-in-trade, point which weighed with the Court of Appeal in .'!iow B1irdulph Gravel ( [1]0. Lf.l. v. Poole(') and with my leame<I brethren 1 1 Pingle lndmtries Ltd. v. Oon1missi"nr[1]r of lnr.mne-'.ax ('}. No such point is priwnl in this case. I have been unable to find any other distinction between the two cases which w(l\t!d make difference in the application of the principles for discrimina-ting between capital expe11rliture and revenue t>xpenditure.

To adopt again the language of Lord Green,

I see no ground in principle or reason for differf'n-tiating the present case from the case in Mohanlal H11rgovind v. Commissioner of Income-tax ('}.

On behalf of the respondent firm further

question was agita.ted. namely, whether an allow-ance for the cost of gathering the conch shdls by nets etc., should not be given, even though the rent paid under the contract was not allowable, under s. 10 (2) (xv) of the Income-tax Act and reference was made in th is connection to the decision in Hood Barrs v. Commissioners of Inland Re·i•enue ('). I do not think that we are concemed with that matter in the present appeal. The only question which arisAs for decision is the one referred to the High Court. I have held that the High Court correctly answered the question which related to the payment of the sum of Rs. 61 ll/- only. The question having been correctly answered by the High Court, the appeal fails and must be dismissed with cost.

HIDAYATULLAH, J.-TJ?is appeal was heard

with Pingle Industries, Ltd., Sccunderabad v. The Commissioner of Income-tax ('), in which judgment wa.s delivered by us on April W l 960. In accord-ance with the decision in Pingh Industries case ([1 ]),

(I\ [1954) 35 T. a. 459.

(2\ [i960J s s. a. R. 681.

(3) (1949) 17 1.T.R. 473 (P.C) (4) 195137 T.C. 188.

'.5\ [19601 3 S. C.R. 681.

The CommissiQRIT Pf Income-tax, 14 adras •• K T.M. TM. TM.

K T.M. TM. TM. Abiul Kayoom

Hidayatu/lah .J,

!i34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.

this appeal was allowed. Ll\ter, review potition (No. 16 of l!l60) was filt>d on the ground that this appeal was not governed hy the rlecision in Pingle h1,-/u.,fri1~' mse ([1]), an<l that as it was not fully argued, it 5ho11ld he rnh<·•ir<l. It is um;ec<·B!'ary to go into the rcason8 why the rehearing was granted, except to say that there was perhaps mis11ndcr-Rtanding about t.he concessions made by counsel. We were, thereforP, satisfied that we should grant tho r"hcaring. and have since heard full arguments in this appeal.

Ll\ter, review potition

Tit, Co·11r'fliJJio[1];tf of !11conu-1~x • • \ladrtu v. A·. TM. T. M. Ah1i11I 1i·,1_room

K. T. M. T. !If. Abdul Kayoom and Hussain

Sahib {respon<ll'nt) is 1i regi><trrPd firm, and r.arrks on business in conch shells lncallv known as ''c·hanks", which are found on the bed 'of the sea all along the coast-line abutting on the South Arcot DiBtrict. The rcspon<lcnt took on lease from the Director of Ill'lustries an<! CommP.rce, Madras "the rxduaivl' right, liberty and authority to take and carry away all chanks found in tho sea"' for period of three years ending on Junu 30, 1947 .. The consideration was Hs. 6, 111/- per y(·ar payable in advance. Fur the year of assessment, l!l464 7 (the ye!\!" of account ending .Tune 30, 1945) the respon-dent in showing its profits from business sought to deduct Rs. fi, 111 /- on the ground that this was a.n expenditure not of capita 1 nature but wholly and exclusiv<>ly laid out for the purpose of business . under a. 10 (2) (XV) of the Income-tax Act. This claim was disallowed by tho Income-tax Officer, and on appeal, by the Appellate Assistant Commis-Rioner. On further appeal tu the Appellate Tribunal, the r<.'spondent contended that tho mling of tho Privy Counril in .MolVJ11/al llaraovind'.s case (') applie<l to the <'ase, inasmuch as the payment was to s"curo the btock-in·trade for its businl'BS. The Appellate Tribunal, though it was of opinion that the Privy Council rase applied, felt itself bound by the •.>arlicr Full Bench d"cision of the Madras High 111fl960i3 S. C.R. 681. t71(1949)171. T. R. 473 IP. C.i.

Court in K.T.M.T.M. Abdul Kayoom Hu8sain Sahib v. Oommis8ioner of Income-tax, 11fadras (') relating to thi3 respondent, and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal, however, acceded to demand for case, and referred the following question to the High Court for its decision :

"Whether on the facts and circumstances

of the case the payment of the sum of Rs. 6,111/- made by the assessee under the terms of the agreement entered into with the Director of Industries and Commerce, Madras; on 9th November 1945 was not an item of revenue expenditure incurred in the course of carrying on the business of the assessee and, "therefore, allowable under the provisions of section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act".

The reference went before Divisional Bench,

which referred the case for decision of Full Bench. The Full Bench held that the case was covered by the Privy Council case above referred to, observing:

"In our opinion, the facts in the case

before the Judicial Committee are indisting-uishable from the facts of the present case. In one case, the leaves had to be picked from trees by going upon the land, while in the other case the chanks had to be collected and gathered by diving into the sea. It is impos-sible to construe the documents in the present case as conferring any interest in t.hat portion of the sea from which the exclusive right of winning the chanks was conferred upon the asses see."

The High Court also did not see any difference between raw materials acquired for manufacturing business and the acquisition of chanks in the present case, and held that the chanks were acquired as the stock-in-trade of the respondent and the transaction was tantamount to purchase of goode.

(ll (1939) 1.T.R. 652.

lllfll

The Commissioner 'J lncotnrtox, M•tirt1s

K. T.M. T. M. Abdul /(ayoom Hidqyatu//ah J.

If/el T., CttmlCissiotUT of /11(ttrM·Wt, JI Uras K. T. II. '· T.M. JUlll K•YI"" liii•1.iull•• J.

536 SUPREME COUltT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.

The High Court, however, certifierl the case as fit for appeal, and the Commiasioner of Income-tax hM filed thia appeal.

The material terms of the agreement in the case are as follows :

"!. The lessor hereby grants unto the

lessees the full free and exclusive right, liberty and authority to fish or take and carry away all chank shells in the sea off the coast line of the South Arcot District including the French Kuppams of Pondicherry more parti-cularlv described in tl1'i schedule hereto to hold "the premises to the lessees from the first day of July 1944 for period of three years ending 30th June 1947 paying therefor the yearly rent of Rs. 6, 111 (rupees six thousand one hundred and eleven only) to be paid yearly in advance, the first payment to be made within fifteen days from the date of intimation of acceptance and the second and third payment~ to be made on or before the 15th June 1:?45 and 19·16, respectively at the Government Treasury at Tuticor-in or Madras.

3. The lessee hereby covenants with the lessor as follows :-

(ii) To deliver to the Assistant Director

of Pearl and Chank l<'ishcries, Tuticorin all Velampuri shells that may be obtained by the le&1ces upon payment of their value as determined by the Aseistant Director.

(iii) To collect Chan ks in nets and by

means of diving as well. In the process of such collection of shell not to fish chank shells less than 2! inches in diamel<'r if any

r.hank shells leis than 2t inches in diameter

(I) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

be brought inadvertently to shore, to return at once alive to the sea all such undersized shells.

(iv) Not at any time hereafter to trans-

fer or underlet or part with possession of tbis grant or the rights and privileges hereby granted or any part thereof without the written consent of the lessor.

(vi) To report to the A1sistant Director

of Pearl and Chank Fisheries (South), Tuti-corin the actual number of shells kept unsold in · different stations after the expiry of the lease period."

An analysis of the agreement shows that the

respondent obtained an exclusive right to fish for "chanks" by the method of diving and nets and to appropriate them except those below 2 inches in diameter, which had to be returned alive to the sea and Velampuri shells which had to be sold compulsorily to Government. The respondent had also to report to its lessors at the end of the term, the numher of shells not sold. The right was exclusive, but was -not capable of being transferred or underlet, and it was for fair-ly long period. The coast line involved was also fairly long.

There is no doubt

that the payment of

Rs. 6,l ll/· was an expenditure wholly and exclusive-ly for the purpose of the business of selling shells, just as the payment to the divers and other sundry expenses were. But an expenditure for the pur-pose of the business may be of capital nature, and if it is so, it cannot be claimed as deduction. The question is whether this payment was of capital nature.

What is attributable to capital and what, to revenue has led to long strin~ of eases Ii.ere aqq

TIM Commissioner of lncome·tax MJ•as v. K T.M.T.M. Abdul Kayoom Hidayatullah J,

1961 Th. C.-missiontr of Irtctm1-tax, Madras v. K.T.M. T. M. Abdul Koyoom Hidayalul/ah J.

53~ SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.

in the English Courts. The decisions of this Court reported in Assam Bengal Cement Go., Ltd, v. Com-missioner of Income-tax([1]) and Pingle Industries case (i) have consillered all the leading cases, and havo also indicated the tests, which are usually applied in such casrs. It is not necessary for us to cover the same ground again. Further, none of the tests is either exhaustive or universal. Each case depends on its own facts, and close similar-ity between one case and ,another is not enough, bAcause even single significant deta.il may alter the entire aspect. In deciding surh casrs, one sh'mld avoid the• temptation to dPcide r,ases (as sa'd by Cordozo* by matchirg the colour of one case against the colour of JJ,n(>ther. To decide, therefore, on which 'side .of th() line case falls, its broad resemblanc~ to· another case is not at all decisive. What is decisive \s~the nature of the business, the nature of the expenditure, the nature of the right acquired, and their relation inter se, and this is the only key to rcsol vc the issue in the light of the general principles, which are followed in such cases. trader may spend money to acquire his raw materials, or his stock-in-trade, and the pay-ment may .often be on revenue account but· not necessarily. person selling goods by retail may be said to be acquiring his stock-in-trade when he buys snch goods from wholesaler. But the same <!annot be said of another retailer who buys mono-poly right over long period ~rom producer of those goods. ·The· amount, he pays to secure the mono-poly, through part of the expenditure to secure his stock-in-trade is not of the" same character as t.he price he pays in the first 'illustration. By that payment, he secures an enduring advantage and an asset which is capital-asset of his business. In the same w11y, if manufacturer buy~ his raw materi-als he rilakes revenue expenditure, but when he acquires· source fr0m :which he would derive his (I) (1955) 271.T,R. 34. (2) [1960] 3 S.C.R. 681. • The nature of the Judicial Pr~ p. 20,

raw materials for thL' <'nduring benefit, of his busi-ness, he spenrlR on th•' capital side. Thus, manu-facturer of woll<'n gnods who buys his wool buys his raw m11teri11ls, but when be buys sheep farm, he buys ipital asset.. There is then no difference between purchase of factory and the purchase of the sheep farm, because both are c.'tpital asset of enduring nature.

The respondent in this ease has tried to dis-tinguish Pingle lnd·ustries case ([1]} and to bring its case within the ruling of the Privy Council in Molwnl<il liargovind'" wse ('). When the former case wa3 argued, the attemot was to bring it also within the mle of the Privy Council, but now, the differences between the two cases are recognised and Pingle lnd'll.strics case ([1 ]) is said to b3 entirely differ-ent. In deciding the present appeal, it is hardly necessary to do more th•tn analyse once again the facts and drcnmstances of these two cases to show why those two cases were differently decided, and the present case will then be easily disposed of, not on its similarity to another hut on its own facts. We shall begin with the Privy Council.Mohanlal Hargovind and Co., was firm of bidi manufacturers, which needs tendu leaves in which tobacco is wrapped to make bidis. Tendu leaves were thus the raw material of the·business. Tendu leaves can be bought from dealers who sell tendu leaves in large way. Now, what dirl the firm do ? It took leaves of forests with right to pick the leaves. This right carried with it the right to coppice small tendu plants and to pollard the tendu trees. There was, however, no right in the trees or the land and the right to go over the land was merely ancilhry. Looked at from the point of view of business, there was no more than purchase of the leaves, and the leaves were needed as raw materials of the business. In deciding the ease, the Judicial Committee discounted the right to (I )[1960] 3 S, C.R. 681. (2) (1949) 17 I. T. R. 473 (P.C.).

1961 The Commissfoiur oj Income-tax, Madras •• K. T. M. T. M. Abdul h'ayoom lliday11f11llah J.

The Wotruniuiondr nf Incomt·l<V. 1 Marlrfl:. v. K.1'. M. T.M Ah du/ K a)'oont lfidr1yatullrih J.

540 SUPREME QOURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.

coppice small tendu plants and to pollard the tendu trees as very insignificant right of cultivation necessary to improve' the qua.lity of the leaves, but .whinh right ranked no higher than the right to spray fruit tree. The right of entry upon the hnd wa8 also considered ancillary to the Ip.ain purpose of the contract, which was acquisition of !Pndu leaves and tendu leaves alone, and it was observed that even if this right of going on the laud and plucking the leaves was not expressed in the cbntra.ct, it would have been implied by law. Their Lordships then observed that the High Court ti iverted its vie ;v from these points, and ·attached toq much importance to -cases decided. upon quite different facts. They then observed that "oases relating to tho purchase or leasing of mines, quar-ries, deposits of brick earth, land with standing timber ........ .'' wer!l of no assistance, and concluded:

"If the tendu leaves had been stored in

merchant's godown and the appellants had bought the right to go amcl fetch them and so reduce them into' their possession -anct -ownership it could scarcely have been suggest-ed that the purchase price was capital ex-pencliture. Th9ir •Lordships see no ground in pr-inciple or reason for differentiating the present case from that supposed." (p. 478)

That case thus involved no right in land or

trees; the licence to be on the land was merely an accessory right; the right of cultivation was insigni-ficant. .{rhe term was short, and the collection of leaves was seasonal. Leaves once collected, the operation pro tempore was over till the fresh crop came. There was thus no acquisition of an e'nqur-ing asset in the way capipal endures; it was more purchase of crops of two or three successive years shewereQ_ on an agreement to en~re the ~upply !lf r~w l!laterials,

(l) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Contrast this with the facts of Pingle Indust-ries case ( [1 ]). The business of the assessee there, was selling stone slabs called flag stones. These stones were first won from the quarries and then dressed and shaped and then sold. Now, \\<hat did the assessee do ? It took leases of stone quarries in large number of villages for twelve years. PJ;ima!'.ily, this was done to obtain ston~s for its bJlsiness. It could have been contract by which it would have been entitled to so many cubic feet of stones to be extracted in particular period. It took long-term leases of vast :ireas in several villages to ensure supplies for considerable time. The leases were not limited by quantity, nor did they refer to any stones in particular. It could take all or it could take none; but it could not have carried away all the stones, if the eupply outran its efforts. The stones were embedded in earth, layer upon layer, and had to be systematically extracted. Till the stones at the top were removed, it could not remov£ those at the bottom, and there were still more layers further below. In these circumstances, no specific quantity having been bought or sold either expressly or impliedly, the stones being immovable property or pa.rt thereof and the contra.ct being long-te1m contracts, Mohanlal Hargovind's case (') was held inapplicable, and it was held that the as-sessee in Pingle Industries case (1) had acquired an enduring a.sset and the expenditure was on capital account.

These cases between them show adequately the dividing line, which exists between capital ex-penditure and revenue expenditure. To determine on which side of the line the particular expenditure falls, one ma.y often put himself the question posed by Lord Clyde in Robert Addie an& Sons Collieries JM. v. CommiBsioners Inland Revenue\').

(1) [1960) 3 s. a. R. 681. (2) [1949) 17 r. T. R. 473 (P.C.). (3) [1921] 8 T. C. 671, 676.

The Commissionlr of lncome·lax, A-1.adii'i' Y. K.T.M. T.M. Abdul Kayoom id•yalullah J.

71u Com·ni·sumtr uj /ncom-lax, ,\ft1drar •• K. TM. T.M. Abdul Koyoom Hidaya11.illah J.

"Is it part of the Company's working expen· scs, is it expenditure laid out as part of the process of profit earning ?-or, on the other band, is it capi-tal outlay, is it expenrliture necc,sary for the acqui-sition of property or of rights of permanent cha-racter, the possession of which is a. condition of carrying on its trade at all?"

The i;ame question was again poS<'d by the Judicial Committee in Tata Hydro-Electric Agencies, Ltd. v. Commisswner of lnc.omP·fax ('). The answer to this question in each of the two case of 1WoharUal Hargom"nd (') and Pingle lnd11slrie.~ (') is entirely different. The difference c.an lie noticed easily, if

we were t-0 read here what Channell, J. Ra.id in

Alianza Co. Ltd. v. Bell(') :

"In the ordinary case, the cost of the mate-

rial worked up in ma.nufactory i~ not a. capital expenditure, it is current expenditure and does not become capital expenditure mncly l.Joca.usc the mat~rial is provided Ly something like a. forward contract, under whieh person for the payment of lump sum secures sup-ply of the raw material for period cxwnding over several yeara ...... Jf it is merdy manu· facturing husi1wss, then t.hc procuring of the raw material would not be capital expendi-ture. But if it is like the working of par. ticular mine, or bed of brick earth and eonvcr-ting the stuff into mnrketal.Jlc commodity, thon, the money paid for the prim<: cost of the stuff so dealt with is just as mucl) capital a< the money sunk in machinery or buildings." The first. part of the observation is applicable to M ohanla/, fl argovind'8 case (') and the latter part, to Pingle Indu.~trie.• case ([3]). What is said of manufoc. turing concern is equally applicable to non. manufacturing business. It is the quality of the payment ta.ken with what is obtained, t.hat is decisive of the character of the paymt-nt.

(I) (!~137) !.. R. <A I. A. ll5 : 5 l.T.Il. ~O:>. (2) ( !!!49) 17 1.T .R.173 (P.C,). (3) [19GO] 3 S.C.R. 681. (4) [l!!ti0] 5,. c. 60.

(l) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

We may now pass on to the facts of the case

before us. The respondent carried on the business of selling chanks. It obtained its Aupplies from divers, from whom it purchased the chanks, and having got them, perhaps cheap, it . resold theµi a.t a. profit. This is one mode in which it carried oil its business. In this business, it was directly buying its stock-in-trade for resale. The other method was to acquire exclusive right to fish for chanks by employ-ing divers and nets. The business then changed to something different. The sale was now of the product of another business, in which divers and equipment were first employed to get the shells. It thus took leases of extensive coastline with all the right to fish for chanks for some years. The shells were not the subject of the bargain at a.II, as were the tendu leaves; but the bargain was about the right to fi~h. There can be no doubt that what it paid the divers when it bought chanks from them with the view of reselling them was expenditure laid out wholly and exc.Jusively for the purpose of its business, which was not of capital nature. That business was buying goods and reselling them at profit. But different kind of business was invol-ved when it we1;1t in for fishing for chanks. To be able to fish for chanks in reserved ,waters it had to obtain the right first. It, therefore took lease of that right. To Mohanlal Hargovind, the leaves were raw materials, and that firm preferred to buy number of crops over years rather than buy them as it went along. Hence the remark that the leaves were bought, as if they were in shop.

The Commissiorur o., Jncome•tax, Madras v. K.TcM.T.M. Abdul Koyoom HidoJatvlluh J ·

Under the lease which the respondent obtained, it had right to take only chanks of particular dimensions and shape, but it had to fish for them and obtain them first. The rest of the chanks were not its property. The smaller chanks had to be returned alive to the sea, and Velampuri chanks had to be compulsorily sold to the state. Of Courae, the smaller ohanke put back into the sea

IHI Thi Ccmvnissio1ur of ln:on11 .. lOJC, Madras v. J<.T.M.T.M. Abdul Kayo""' HiiayoMlah J.

SUPREME COUl~ H.EPORTI:l [1962] SUPP.

would grow, and if filhed later, be its propel'ty to take, but till they grnw, it had no claim. The chanks were on the bed of the sea. Their exact existence was nut known, till the divers found them, or they got netted. Chanks which were there one day might have been washed back into the deep sea, and might never be washed back into place where they would be within reach. Similarly, other chanks not there one day might come within reach on another day. All these matters make the case entirely different from the case of purchase from the divers. In obtaining the lease, the respondent obtained speculative right to fish for chanks which it hoped to obtain and which might be in large quantities or small, according to its luck. The repondent changed the nature of its business to fishing for chanks instead of buying them. To be able to fish, it had to arrange for an area to fish, and that a'rrangement had to be of some duration to be effective.

This is not case of so much clay or so much salt petre or dump of tailings or leaves on the trees in forest. The two modes in which the respondent did the businCSll furnish adequate dis-tinguishing characteristics. Here is an agreement to reserve source, where the repondent hoped to find ~hells which, when found, became its e&ock-in-trade but which, insitu, were no more the firm's than shell in the deepest part of the ocean be-yond the reach of its divers and nets. The ex-penses 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 par with payments of the other character is to err. It was possible to say of the former, as it was possible to say of the tendu leaves in Mohanlal Hargovirul's case('), that the chanks were bought because the money paid was the price of the chanks. But it would be strain-ing of the imagination to say that the amount paid Ill (19f9) 17 LT. R. 471 (P.C.).

(l) S.C.R. SUPREME COUR'l' REPORTS

for reserving the coastline for future fi8hing wa~ the price of chanks, with which the respondent did its business. That• amount was paid to obtain an enduring asset in the shape of an exclusive right to fish, and the . payment was not related to · the chanks, which it might or might not have brought to the surface in this speculative business. The rights were not trasferable, but if they were and the firm had sold them, the gain, if any, would have been on the capital side and not realising of the chanks as stock-in-trade, because none had been bought by the firm, and none would have been sold by it.

In our opinion, the decision of the High Court, with all due respect, WllAI, therefore, errone-ous, and the ear lier decision of the Full Bench of the same High Court was ri@ht in the circum1-tanceH of the case.

In the result, the appeal is allowed; but there

will be no order about cost .

. BY CoURT.

In accordance with the majority

judgment of the Court, the appeal is allowed, but there will be no order about costs.

MOHAMMAD SERAJUDDIN

R. C. MISHRA

(J. L. KAPUR, II. HlDAYATULLAH and J.C. SHAH, JJ.)

Oustom•-Seizure t( documenu-Warrant · issued by Magi•trate-Ouatodf of 4ocume11t8-lf cuato1r1B aut!iorities •ntitled to-Facili11'8 for iMjHction-Sea Customs 'A.ct, 1878 ( 8 of 187 8), 8. 172,-0otle Ill Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act 5 of 1898), 8. 96, Sclleds/e V 1'orm VIII.

The respondent wao suspected of having exported dutiable goods in contraYendon of the Sea Customs Act and of having secreted docmnentl ia connection therewith in two prem iJes. An applicaP<>n -made w the Chief Presidency

Tlte Commissioner of Income-1t1:>:, /If odros v. K.T. M.T.M . .Abdul Ka)'Oom Hid•yatullah J.

N ovnnb~r 24.