COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS S. R. PATTON
1999PTD 1211
[233 1 T R 166]
[Supreme Court of India]
Present: Suhas C. Sen and Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, JJ
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
Versus
S. R. PATTON
Civil Appeal No.307 of 1993, decided on 16/12/1997.
(Appeal from the judgment and order, dated December 15, 1989 of the Kerala High Court in Income-tax Reference Nos.173 of 1985 and 52 to 55 of 1985).
Income-tax---
----Income deemed to accrue or arise in India---Salary of foreign technician---Explanation to S.9(1)(ii)---Effective only from 1-4-1979---
Salary paid to foreign technician for services rendered in India in accounting years relevant to assessment years 1973-74 and 1976-77---Tribunal finding that salary paid not by Indian company but by foreign company---Is a finding of fact---Income did not arise in India---Salary and living allowance not assessable to tax---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.9(1)(ii).
C.I.T. v. S. R. Patton (1992) 193 ITR 451 to the effect that the salary and living allowance paid by the foreign company to the foreign technician for services rendered in India in the accounting years relevant to the assessment years 1973-74 and 1976-77 did not arise in India and hence, they were not assessable to tax, the Revenue preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal holding that the Tribunal had found that the salary of the assessee was not paid by the Indian company but by the foreign company, which was a finding of fact, and that that finding had not been challenged on the ground of perversity.
C.I.T. v. S. R. Patton (1992) 193 ITR 49 affirmed.
T. L. Vishwanatha Iyer, Senior Advocate (T. C. Sharma and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates with him) for Appellant.
C. N. Sree Kumar, Advocate for Respondent.
ORDER
The basic question in this case is:
(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the
Tribunal was right in holding that the salary of the assessee was not paid by FACT but by the foreign company, Davy Power gas Inc.?"
This is a pure question of fact. The finding of the Tribunal has not been challenged on the ground of perversity. The finding will have to be taken as correct. Therefore, the answer to this question must be in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.
In view of bur answer to question No. l the other questions raised in this case need not be answered.
The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
M.B.A./1911/FC Appeal dismissed.