Business expenditure – Deduction u/s 42(1)(a) of ITA, 1961 – Exploration and extraction of oil – Conditions precedent for deduction – Expenditure should be infructuous or abortive exploration expenses, and area should be surrendered prior to commencement of commercial production – Meaning of expression ‘surrender’ – Does not always connote voluntary surrender – Assessee entering into production sharing contract with Government of India and requesting for extension at end of contract period – Government refusing extension – Assessee entitled to deduction u/s 42(1)(a); A.Y. 2008-09

43. Principal CIT vs. Hindustan Oil Exploration Co. Ltd. [2020] 423 ITR 465 (Bom.) Date of order: 25^th March, 2019 A.Y.: 2008-09

Business expenditure – Deduction u/s 42(1)(a) of ITA, 1961 – Exploration
and extraction of oil – Conditions precedent for deduction – Expenditure should
be infructuous or abortive exploration expenses, and area should be surrendered
prior to commencement of commercial production – Meaning of expression
‘surrender’ – Does not always connote voluntary surrender – Assessee entering
into production sharing contract with Government of India and requesting for
extension at end of contract period – Government refusing extension – Assessee
entitled to deduction u/s 42(1)(a); A.Y. 2008-09

The assessee was engaged in the business of exploration and extraction of
mineral oil. It entered into a production-sharing contract with the Government
of India on 8^th October, 2001 for the purposes of oil exploration.
According to the contract, a licence was issued to a consortium of three
companies, which included the assessee, to carry out the exploration initially
for a period of three years and the entire exploration was to be completed
within a period of seven years in three phases. At the end of the period,
extension was denied by the Government of India. In its Nil return of income
filed for the A.Y. 2008-09, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 42(1)(a) of the
Income-tax Act, 1961 on the expenditure on oil exploration on the ground that
the block was surrendered on 15^th March, 2008. The A.O. was of the
opinion that it had not surrendered the right to carry on oil exploration since
the assessee was interested in extension of time which was denied by the
Government of India and disallowed the claim.

The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal. The Tribunal found that
according to article 14 of the contract, relinquishment and termination of
agreement were two different concepts and that by a letter dated 28^th
March, 2007 the assessee was informed that its contract stood relinquished. The
Tribunal held that the assessee was covered by the deduction provision
contained in section 42, that such expenditure was not amortised or was not
being allowed partially year after year and it had to be allowed in full, and
therefore there was no justification to deny the benefit of deduction to the
assessee.

On appeal by the Revenue, the Bombay High Court upheld the decision of the
Tribunal and held as under:

‘i) As long as the commercial production had not begun and the expenditure
was abortive or infructuous exploration expenditure, the deduction would be
allowed. The term “surrender” itself was a flexible one and did not always
connote the meaning of voluntary surrender. The surrender could also take place
under compulsion. The assessee had no choice but to surrender the oil blocks
because the Government of India had refused to extend the validity period of
the contract. Admittedly, commercial production of oil had not commenced. The
act of the assessee to hand over the oil blocks before the commencement of
commercial production was covered within the expression “any area surrendered
prior to the beginning of commercial production by the assessee”.

ii)   The
provisions of section 42 recognised the risks of the business of exploration
which activity was capital-intensive and high in risk of the entire expenditure
not yielding any fruitful result and provided for special deduction. The
purpose of the enactment would be destroyed if interpreted rigidly. For
applicability of section 42(1)(a) the elements vital were that the expenditure
should be infructuous or abortive exploration expenses and that the area should
be surrendered prior to the beginning of commercial production by the assessee.
As long as these two requirements were satisfied, the expenditure in question
would be recognised as a deduction. The term “surrender” had to be appreciated
in the light of these essential requirements of the deduction clause. It was
not the contention of the Department that the expenditure was infructuous or
abortive exploration expenditure.

iii) The interpretation of section 42(1)(a) by the Tribunal and its order
holding the assessee eligible for deduction thereunder were not erroneous.’