Judgment 1. A statement of the case has been submitted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench B, Patna, under Sec.256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, pursuant to a direction of this court and the following question of law has been referred for our opinion : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the sum of Rs. 4,970 spent by the assessee was of the nature of revenue expenditure allowable under Sec.37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or was in the nature of capital expenditure ?" 2. The assessee, an individual, derived income from house property and transport busineSections The assessee was an eight annas co-sharer with his father in the business run under the name and style of Ray Talkies, Dhanbad. The assessee purchased the half share owned by his father for rupees three lakhs by a registered sale deed. As he could not pay the entire amount of the consideration, he mortgaged the property to his father for the unpaid consideration money to the extent of Rs. 2,75,000. A sum of Rs. 4,970 was spent over the stamp papers and registration fees, etc., for the execution of the mortgage deed. A copy of the mortgage deed dated May 8, 1968, has been marked as annex. A and forms part of the case. 3. In the assessment proceedings before the ITO, the assessee claimed the aforesaid sum of Rs. 4,970 as revenue expenditure. The ITO, however, rejected the claim and held that the expenditure was of a capital nature. A copy of the assessment order has been marked, annex. B. In appeal, the AAC confirmed the order of the ITO by his order dated May 1, 1969, a copy of which has been marked as annex. C and forms part of the case. The assessee preferred a second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing the submissions of the parties, came to the conclusion that : "The expenditure incurred over the stamp paper and registration fee to the tune of Rs. 4,970 for the mortgage deed can be said to be for the purpose of the business as this expression includes measures for the preservation of the business and for the protection of its assets and property from expropriation, coercive process or assertion of hostile title." 4. It is this finding of the Tribunal which is sought to be assailed by the Revenue. It is this finding of the Tribunal which is sought to be assailed by the Revenue. The contention of Mr. B. P. Rajgarhia, senior standing counsel for the Department, is that since the expenditure of Rs. 4,970 over stamp papers, registration fees, etc., was for the purpose of acquiring a capital asset, the expenditure must be treated as capital expenditure. We do not find any substance in this submission, as the Tribunal has held that the sale deed had already been executed by the father in favour of the asses-see. Thus, the title to the property which may be called a capital investment was already complete. The subsequent execution of a mortgage deed for securing the unpaid consideration money was not for the purpose of obtaining any capital asset. The point is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of India Cements Ltd. V/s. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52. The Tribunal has rightly placed reliance upon the Supreme Court decision. The distinction which Mr. Rajgarhia has sought to draw between the expenditure over a capital outlay and that for running the business had also been made by the Kerala High Court in the case of Western India Plywood Ltd. V/s. CIT [1960] 38 ITR 533. The Supreme Court, however, held that (p. 61) : "This distinction may be valid in English law but we are unable to appreciate how the distinction is valid under the Indian Income-tax Act." 5. Even assuming in favour of the Revenue, on a question of fact, which has been decided against it by the Tribunal, that the expenditure was incurred over stamps for obtaining a capital asset, the principle will not be different, as the Supreme Court has now settled the law. It has been laid down that expenditure incurred in raising loans is allowable as business expenditure on revenue account irrespective of whether the funds are borrowed for capital outlay or for revenue disbursement. We must make it however, clear that such an assumption is unwarranted on the facts of the present case as found by the Tribunal. 6. We, accordingly, find no infirmity in the Tribunals appellate order and decide the question referred to us by holding that, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the sum of Rs. We must make it however, clear that such an assumption is unwarranted on the facts of the present case as found by the Tribunal. 6. We, accordingly, find no infirmity in the Tribunals appellate order and decide the question referred to us by holding that, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the sum of Rs. 4,970 spent by the assessee was of the nature of a revenue expenditure allowable under Sec.37 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 7. The case is thus decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs.