Commissioner, Income Tax, Dehradun & Another. ……… v. M/S Enron Oil & Gas India Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Income Tax Appeal No. 148 of 2007 Commissioner, Income Tax, Dehradun & another. ………. Appellants Versus M/s Enron Oil & Gas India Ltd. ..………. Respondent Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. S.K. Posti, Advocate for the respondent. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. BARIN GHOSH, C. J. (Oral) In the instant case, there is no dispute that there was an agreement, as contemplated in Section 42 of the Income Tax Act. The said agreement, in Clause 15.2.1(b) provided that the exploration expenses incurred before or after commercial production in respect of drilling or exploration activities are to be allowed as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer noticed that an expenditure of ` 24,15,292/- was incurred under the head ‘home office support’, which related to pre PSC expenses. In other words, the Assessing Officer purported to hold out that those expenses are not such expenses, which have been contemplated in Clause 15.2.1(b) of the PSC. The appellate Commissioner looked at the said Clause and came to the conclusion that the expenditure concerned is covered by the said Clause and, accordingly, is a PSC expenses. The appellate Commissioner, accordingly, gave relief to the assessee in that regard. The same has been affirmed by the Tribunal. 2. We have found no reason to interfere with the findings of the appellate Commissioner and the Tribunal. The questions posed in the present appeal as questions of law, in fact, do not arise. The fact remains that those expenses were accepted as home office support expenses by the Assessing Officer, but were disallowed for the reason as above. The appeal is dismissed. G (U.C. Dhyani, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C. J.) 27.11.2012 27.11.2012