COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. GOPINATH J G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent is an ITO working as junior authorised representative in the Tribunal. As an ITO, he was in receipt of cash, a reward of Rs. 1,060, granted by the Central Government for his meritorious work in discharging his public duties as an ITO at the time of the voluntary disclosure scheme. The assessee claimed that this reward was exempted under S. 10(17B) of the IT Act, 1961. The ITO disallowed the claim stating that there was no notification issued under that provision exempting this reward from assessment. The AAC accepted the assessee's claim and granted the exemption. The ITO took the matter on appeal to the Tribunal and the Tribunal agreed with the AAC in regard to the grant of exemption. It is this order of the Tribunal which was challenged by filing an application for reference which was dismissed, and the matter has now been brought before this Court under S. 256(2) of the IT Act. The following are the questions that are sought to be raised as question of law arising out of the Tribunal's order :

(2.) WE understand that the tax effect in this case is Rs. 1,060 and the ITO who had to do his duties today, had to be present himself in Court for quite some time, because of the petition made under s. 256(2) of the Act. The work he discharges had to suffer to this extent. When such cases are brought before this Court the time of this Court is taken up in such temporary matters. We find no merit at all in this petition. Learned counsel appearing for the CIT did not contend that any notification as such was necessary for the purpose of grant of exemption under S. 10(17B) though the ITO said so in his order. Sec. 10(17B), in so far as it is relevant, runs as follows :

(3.) THE above extract makes it clear that such reward was granted in public interest. It would be surprising if the Government were to grant rewards for reasons other than public interest. It is, therefore, evident that the terms of S. 10(17B) are completely satisfied in the present case as the circular gives the circumstances under which the rewards are granted. The voluntary disclosure scheme could only have been conceived in public interest as we do not see any other reason for this scheme coming into existence. If any person rendered sincere work to make this scheme a success, and if he is rewarded for it, such grant of reward cannot but be in public interest. There is no specific mode of approval indicated in the statute. No further approval is necessary or called for. The section is clear in its language and does not raise any problem of construction. Therefore, we do not find that any question of law arises out of the Tribunal's order. Even assuming that a question of law arises, the answer is self -evident and, therefore, the reference shall be wholly academic and unnecessary. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Only because the respondent appears in person and not through counsel, we do not award any costs.