COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. MADAN GOPAL BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These income-tax appeals under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the IT Act") are directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, "the ITAT") in I.T.A. Nos. 32, 33, 31/JP/2004, dated April 31, 2006, for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2000-01. Since the controversy involved is identical, these income-tax appeals are being decided by this common order.

(2.) The appeals were admitted on the following questions of law:

(3.) The brief facts, as emerging on the face of record, are that the respondent-assessee, is a Development Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short, "LIC"). The respondent-assessee received an amount of Rs. 2,60,306 for the assessment year 1998-99; Rs. 1,56,057 for the assessment year 1999-2000 and Rs. 2,00,000 for the assessment year 2000-01 towards conveyance allowance and additional conveyance allowance from the LIC. Though the same was part of the salary certificate but the contention of the respondent-assessee was that the said amount has been incurred in development of the LIC business to receive the premium on account of various policies and the said amount is entirely exempt under section 10(14) of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer (for short, "the AO"), in view of the judgment of this court (Single Bench) in the case of Shiv Raj Bhatia v. LIC of India (CWP No. 700 of 2000, decided on April 17, 2000), show caused the respondent-assessee as to why the said amount, which has been claimed as exempt, be not added as income as the respondent-assessee was unable to prove that the said amount was incurred exclusively for performance of duties of the employment. However, the respondent-assessee contended that the very nature of the amount granted by the employer, namely; LIC is for the purposes of performance of duties of the employment and since the Development Officer is required to go from place to place to canvass the business, therefore, it was incurred exclusively in the performance of the duties of the employment. However, the Assessing Officer, in view of the judgment of this court, referred to supra, added the said amounts as income of the respondent-assessee in all the assessment years.