COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. DIPALI GOSWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Dipali Goswami, the respondent assessee, is the widow of the late Gurdas Goswami, an I.A.S. Officer of West Bengal Cadre, who had been employed under the United Nations Organisation. During his service with the United Nations Organisation, Shri Goswami had been contributing to the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund (hereinafter referred to as "the Pension Fund"). On the death of Shri Goswami, the assessee became entitled to a pension from the United Nations Organisation. During the course of the assessment proceeding for the assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74, it was claimed by the assessee that the pension received by her from the United Nations Organisation was exempt from tax. In support of this claim, the assessee relied on Section 18(b) of the United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947.

(2.) The ITO rejected this claim and held that, in terms of Section 17(1)(ii) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the amounts were includible in the assessee's total income inasmuch as the expression " salary " included any annuity or pension and, as such, pension received by the assessee from the Pension Fund was a taxable receipt.

(3.) In appeal, the AAC held that the pension received by the assessee from the United Nations was to be excluded from the assessment. The Revenue, being dissatisfied with the order of the AAC, filed an appeal before the Tribunal and argued that the amount received by the assessee could not be treated as salary or emoluments in her hands and, as such, the assessee was not entitled to the exemption claimed. It was also argued that the exemption Clause is to be construed strictly and since the assessee was not an " official " of the UNO, exemption was wrongly allowed to her by the AAC. The Tribunal observed that when salary includes pension and when salary is exempt from taxation in the hands of the officials of the United Nations, a fortiori, it could be held that recompense of the amount received by the beneficiary as a result of the contribution by her husband should not come within the purview of the concept of salary or pension. The Tribunal was of the view that when pension received by an assessee from the United Nations was held to be exempt, a fortiori, it applied to a beneficiary also because two different meanings to a word cannot be given, one for purposes of taxation and the other for purposes of exemption. The Tribunal accordingly confirmed the view taken by the AAC and dismissed the .Departmental appeal.