COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS J. C. MALHOTRA
1999 P T D 3630
[230 I T R 361]
[Delhi High Court (India)]
Before R. C. Lahoti and J. K. Mehra, JJ
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
Versus
J. C. MALHOTRA
Income-tax Reference No. 162 of 1980, decided on 31/07/1997.
Income-tax-
---Exemption---Reward given to assessee, an ITO, by Central Government in connection with the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme---Separate approval by ,Central Government for exemption not given---Reward not to be excluded from total income---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.10(17B).
A reward had been given to the assessee, who was an Income-tax officer at the relevant time, by the Central Government directly in connection with a Voluntary Disclosure Scheme. However, separate approval of the Central Government for the purpose of exemption under section 10(1718) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not given:
Held, that, clause (1-7B) of section 10 of the Act was not attracted and the reward was not liable to be excluded from the computation of the income of the assessee.
CIT v. S: N. Singh, ITO (1991) 192 ITR 306 (Pat.) fol.
R.D. Jolly and Ms. Premlata Barisal for the Commissioner.
Nemo for the Assessee
JUDGMENT
R. C. LAHOTI, J.---This is a reference-under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, seeking the opinion of the High Court on the following question
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the cash award of Rs. 920 is exempt from taxation under section 10(1713)?"
The reward to the assessee, who was an Income-tax Officer at the relevant time, had been given by the Central Government directly in connection with the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme. A separate approval of the Central Government for the purpose of exemption under section 10(1713) of the Act was not given. That being the position, clause (1713) of section 10 of the Act was not attracted and the reward was not liable to be excluded from the computation of the income. So, is the view taken in CIT v. S. N. Singh. ITO (1991) 192 ITR 306 (Patna).
For the foregoing reasons the question is answered in the negative. i.e. in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
No order as to costs.
M. B. A./3152/FCReference answered.