Judgment :- Sethuraman, J. In these references u/s 256(1) of the IT Act, the following question of law has been referred : "Whether on the acts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law holding that the sum of Rs. 1, 704/- for the asst. yr. 1965-66 and Rs. 1, 602/- for the asst. yr. 1966-67 are not allowable as revenue expenditures" The assessee carries on business in the manufacture of bricks. During the course of the assessment proceedings for 1967-68 the ITO noticed that the deduction claimed by the assessee in computing the taxable income, included a sum of Rs. 1, 506/- which did not represent actual expenditure, but only a notional debit intended to take into account the depreciation in the value of the assessee's lands consequent on the removal therefrom of the mud for use in the manufacture of bricks. He disallowed the claim. The ITO negatived the claim for deduction in these years in the proceedings u/s 147(1)(b) of the Act. On appeal, the AAC confirmed the assessments so made and the Tribunal also held that the assessee's claim in effect was for depreciation of the land shown as its business asset and not any expenditure actually during the accounting year and that therefore, the claim could not be upheld. The question already extracted has been referred as arising out of this order of the Tribunal. 2. In the manufacture of bricks the assessee takes out the mud from the earth. The assessee claims that the removal of the mud depreciates the value of the land, and therefore the estimated value should be allowed as deduction. In the assessee's own case fort eh earlier asst. yrs. this court held in T.C. Nos. 406 of 1971, 10 of 1972 and 226 of 1972 in the judgment dated 20th September, 1976, the assessee's claim could not be accepted. In the course of the Judgment it was observed after referring to a decision of the Supreme Court in CIT West Bengal v. Hantapara Tea Co. Ltd. that the Supreme Court was not considering claim like the present one where the notional value for the mud taken out from a capital asset was claimed as a deduction for arriving at the business income of the assessee. Ltd. that the Supreme Court was not considering claim like the present one where the notional value for the mud taken out from a capital asset was claimed as a deduction for arriving at the business income of the assessee. Unless there is a provision providing for depreciation allowance, on the land from which mud is taken for making bricks, the assessee would not be eligible for getting any such allowance. An allowance can be had for expenditure. The word 'expenditure' had been understood in Indian Molasses Co. v. CIT as follows : "Expenditure' is what is paid out or away is something which is gone irretrievable." * 3. There is no such expenditure in the present case. The amount is only a debit for a notional amount entered in the books. 4. In Coltness Iron Co. v. Black the House of Lords pointed out that the profits from capital which was consumed and exhausted in the process of realisation may nonetheless in taxable as income. The Privy Council in dealing with a mining case in Kamakshya Narain Singh v. CIT observed : "If the receipts are income, it is not material for tax purposes that that for which they are paid comes from a wasting property. If the payment ceases because the source ceases, so does the tax. Once it is established that the royalties are income within the meaning of the Act it is not material that the mines are in course of being exhausted unless there is provided in the Act that there should be a deduction from the income on that particular ground." * 5. As there is no such provision in the Act, the claim for deduction was rightly negatived. The question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. There will be no order as to costs.