1. Expenditure incurred by a professional for the purpose of keeping himself abreast of the latest developments and techniques in his profession is revenue expenditure and not capital expenditure. 2. A receipt is casual and non-recurring if it is not part of the assessee's business or profession and is not likely to recur.

( 1 ) IN this reference under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the act ) the following two questions of law have been REFERRED TO to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench a New Delhi) :

(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 5,282. 00 incurred by the assessee in connection with his foreign tour was a revenue expenditure entitled to deduction in computing his professional income ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 3. 000. 00 received by the assessee was receipt of a casual and non-recourring nature exempt from tax u/s. 4 (3) (vii) of the Indian Income-tax Act 1922?the respondent, who will herein-after be REFERRED TO to as asscssee is a medical practitioner and is a specalist in the treatment of skin diseases. The assessment year is 1958-59, the relevant previous year being the financial year, ending on 31st March, 1958.

( 2 ) DURING the previous year, the assessee went from New Delhi to. Stockholm to attend the International Congress of Dermatology as an official delegate. from India. The assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 5682. 00 as expenses incurred by him, on this tour. According to him before he went to Stockholm he also visited Russia for a week and the United Kingdom for two weeks. In Stockholm he stayed for K. about a week. The expenses claimed were Rs. 4 ,032- on air passage and the balance of Rs. l,650. 00 was on living and other miscellaneous expenses

( 3 ) THE Income-Tax Officer dis-allowed the entire expenses on the ground that this is an expenditure of a capital nature as visit of the assessee to attend the International Congress of Dermatology was ostensibly to further his knowledge and as such it brought into existence an asset or an advantage of an enduring nature. The Incometax Officer also mentioned that there was no voucher for hotel expenses and as such the expenses to the extent of Rs. 1650. 00 were not verifiable.

( 4 ) AGAINST the decision of the Income-tax Officer the assessee preferred TO an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Con-ir. lissioner. D Relying on a decision of the Madras High Court in Dr. P. Vudunialyan v. Commissioner of Income-fax Madras (40 I. T. R. 501) the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that expenditure of Rs. 4,032. 00 on air passage was not an expenditure of a capital nature but was an expenditure of a revenue nature and was therefor::. allowable. As regards the expenses of Rs. l,650. 00 on boarding and lodging etc. the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that having regard to the fact that the assessee was abroad for a period of about 40 days. the expenses were not excessive. The entire sum uf R:;. 5. 682.- was therefore held as admissible deduction in computing the asscssee s professional income.

( 5 ) THE second contention of the assessee was with respect to another sum of Rs. 3. 000. 00 which according to the Income-tax Officer was his income from un-disclosed source and had, therefore, been added to his income. This amount formed part of the house-hold expenses incurred by the assessee during the previous year. It was found by the Income-tax Officer that after excluding the expenditure in the nature of house, rent, life insurance premium, income-tax etc. the assessee had only a sum of Rs. 5,159. 00 for being apent on household expenses. According to the Income-tax Officer, the sum of Rs. 5,159. 00 was in-adequate in view of the standard of living of the assessee. When called upon to explain the smallness of the household expenses the assessee stated before the Income-tax Officer that he had obtained a sum of Rs. 3,000. 00 from an American family to whom he had given a flat on care-taker basis when he was going abroad and his family was not staying at Delhi. The assessee stated before the Income-tax Officer that if this sum of Rs. 3,000. 00 was taken i