2001 PLP 2633 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus ANIL K. HAZARIKA
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2633 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 248ITR8 |
| Bench Members | S. P. Bharucha, D. P. Mohapatra and S. N. Phukan, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus ANIL K. HAZARIKA |
| Primary Law | Income‑tax‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2633 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income‑tax‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 2633 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 248ITR8 bench comprising: S. P. Bharucha, D. P. Mohapatra and S. N. Phukan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2633 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus ANIL K. HAZARIKA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (S.W.A. Quadri and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated June 25, 1996 of the Gauhati High Court in Civil Rule No.4 (M) of 1996). ‑‑‑‑Reference‑‑‑Question of law‑‑‑Incentive bonus‑‑‑Assessable under the head "Salaries "‑‑‑Whether 40 per cent. allowable as deduction‑‑‑Is a question of law‑‑‑Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.16 & 256(2)‑‑‑[CIT v. Ram Krishna Bank (1995) 215 ITR 901 (Gauhati) overruled]. Held, that the question (i) whether the Tribunal had erred in law in allowing 40 per cent. deduction from the incentive bonus granted to the assessee (a development officer) by the employer (the LTC) when the incentive bonus was assessable under the head "Salaries" and (ii) whether such further deduction of 40 per cent. was allowable under section 16 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were questions of law. The Supreme Court, accordingly, set aside the order of the High Court and directed the Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer the questions of law to the High Court. CIT v. Ram Krishna Bank (1995) 215 ITR 901 (Gauhati) overruled.
Judgment & Decree
However, the Tribunal refused to refer to the same. Hence, the present petition. Heard Mr. G.K. Joshi, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, and Dr. A.K. Saraf, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee. Dr. Saraf submits that the case is squarely covered by a decision of this Court rendered in the case of CIT v. Ram Krishna Bank (1995) 215 ITR
901. Mr. Joshi does not dispute the same. We have gone through the aforesaid decision. In our opinion the case is squarely covered by the said decision of CIT v. Ram Krishna Bank (1995) 215 ITR 901 (Gauhati). Accordingly, following the aforesaid decision, we hold that the questions referred to above are questions of fact and, therefore, we are not inclined to give any direction to the Tribunal. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs. The Department preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court. K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (S.W.A. Quadri and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) for Appellant. Respondent: Ex parte. The respondent assessee has been served but has not chosen to put in an appearance. The High Court, by the order under challenge, declined to call for a reference of the questions set out below on the ground that they were questions of fact and covered by the decision of that Court in the case of CIT v. Ram Krishna Bank (1995) 215 ITR
901. The questions read thus: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has not erred in law in allowing 40 per cent. deduction from the incentive bonus granted by the employer when the incentive bonus is assessable under the head Salaries'? (2) Whether on the proper construction of section, 16 of the Income‑tax Act, further deduction at 40 per cent. from the incentive bonus is allowable in addition to specific deduction allowable under that section ?" The decision in the case of CIT v. Ram Krishna Bank (1995) 215 ITR 901 (Gauhati) also holds that identical questions are questions of fact. We are of the view that the questions are questions of law and that the High Court should have directed the Tribunal to refer the same to it for its consideration. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order under challenge is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to refer the questions quoted above to the High Court for its consideration, after drawing up a statement of case. No order as to costs. M.B.A./936/FC Appeal allowed.