The assessee had also claimed Rs.
The lease was for 20 years and the areas which were offered had been worked by other Private companypanies for 15 years.
D. Karkhanis and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant.
1/ per acre per year for prospecting licence.
3,360/ was payable towards the mica scrap lying on the surface.
The income tax Officer disallowed this amount under s. 10 2 xv of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922 hereinafter called the Act on the ground that the licence was obtained by the assessee only that year, that the fee was paid in addition to the royalty payable on the value of the emeralds excavated and sold and that it was an initial expenditure for procuring a right to respect mines.
The Tribunal while dismissing the appeal filed against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner observed that the prospecting licence fee cannot be equated to a payment made for the purchase of stock in trade, that it was number based, on any quantity of minerals, that the minerals had to be won and extracted from the earth and the term prospecting licence shows that the mine had number yet started working as a mine and that the payment was to initiate the business.
C. Manchanda, P. L. Juneja, S. P. Nayar and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
This offer of the appellant was accepted and the lease was granted to it.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner in an appeal by the assessee negatived the claim on the ground that under that licence the assessee had a right to win and companymercially exploit the minerals which the assessee actually carried out.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION C. A. No.
In the relevant assessment year 1952 53 for which the previous year for the head office ended on October 30, 1951 and for the branch ended on March 30, 1952, the appellant claimed Rs.
Against this order, an appeal was filed to the Appellate Tribunal.
The claim of the assessee was rejected by the Income tax Officer on the ground that the money was paid for the value of the land which it had acquired because the mine granted to the assessee had already been worked by the private companypanies.
The assessee, a firm carrying on mining business at Udaipur with a branch at Mandal, had pursuant to an invitation to tender for mica mining in accordance with the terms and companyditions prescribed in the Mineral Concession Rules, tendered for certain areas for Rs.
Before this appeal was filed, Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J. This appeal is by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan in I an income tax reference under s., 66 1 by which it answered the two questions referred to it in the negative.
In an appeal against this order, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner companyfirmed the disallowance of the expenditure as in his view, it was a capital nature expended for the acquisition of a, capital asset.
7,857/ being the 1/20th of the tender money as revenue expenditure incurred during that year.
3,200 as the fee paid by it a the rate of Re.
Appeal by certificate from the judgment and order dated March 28, 1968 of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur in Income tax Reference No.
2020 of 1972.
1,53,800/ which was paid under the tender as a capital expenditure.
1238/1969 had been filed on a certificate but that is dismissed without companyts because this Court had in several cases held that in Income tax references if the High Court does number give any reasons while granting the certificate, the certificate can be revoked.
It also held that the period of on, year for which the licence was obtained cannot justify the fee paid as a revenue expenditure.
1 1 of 1963.
