COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. A K GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this batch of appeals preferred under Section 260a of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"), the Revenue has called in question the legal propriety of the orders passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in a number of appeals. It is seemly to state here that in some appeals a singular question of law has arisen and in some appeals two questions have cropped up for adjudication but the singular question being common to all, these appeals were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order. However, for the sake of clarity and convenience we shall advert to the facts in I. T. A No. 32 of 1999.

(2.) THE facts which are essential to be stated are that the respondent/assessee, a Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation, was assessed to income-tax by the Income-tax Officer, Jabalpur, For the assessment year 1989-90, the assessee claimed deduction on account of conveyance allowance for a sum of Rs. 9,600, additional conveyance allowance for an amount of Rs. 36,940 and 40 per cent, of the incentive bonus quantified at Rs. 50,175. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deductions claimed under the heading "conveyance, Additional Conveyance" after referring to the provision contained in Section 10 (14) of the Act As far as incentive bonus is concerned it was disallowed upon referring to certain guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, wherein it has been indicated that the Development Officer is not entitled to get deductions on incentive bonus.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Assessing Officer the respondent-assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Jabalpur. Before the appellate authority it was contended that the Assessing Officer had decided the matter without affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and further disallowance of the deductions claimed by the assessee was not justified in law. The first appellate authority addressed itself to the merits of the case and came to hold that the assessee was entitled to the sum claimed towards conveyance allowance and additional conveyance allowance as the said amount was spent wholly and exclusively for the purpose of conveyance and as regards incentive bonus was concerned the order of the Assessing Officer was reversed and a direction was issued to grant 40 per cent, of the amount of incentive bonus towards deduction.