COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. G B SHUTTELWORTH
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Click here to view full judgement.
P.GOVINDAN NAIR, J. -
(1.) A very short question involving a small sum of money is covered by the question referred to us by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench, reading as follows :
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the passage money amounting to Rs. 1,525 paid to the assessee by his employer being the cost of the trip made by the assessee's son from India to the U. K. during the relevant previous year is exempt under S. 10(6)(i) of the IT Act, 1961 ?"
(2.) THE year of assessment was 1969 70 and the assessee was one Mr. G.B. Shuttleworth. He proceeded on home leave to the U.K. on June 1, 1969, and returned to India on October 3, 1969.
His son, who was in the U.K., came to India on July 20, 1968, and returned from India to the U.K.
on September 16, 1968. The assessee received a sum of Rs. 3,050 from his employer which was
the passage money for the trip for his son from the U.K. to India and from India to the U. K. The
assessee claimed one half of that amount, Rs. 1,525 as not includible in his income in view of S. 10
(6)(i) of the IT Act, 1961, for short, "the Act". This claim was rejected by the ITO. Bat the assessee
succeeded in his appeal before the AAC and in further appeal before the Tribunal by the
Department, the decision of the AAC has been upheld.
Sec. 10(6)(i) is in these terms:
" 10. In computing the total income of a previous year of any person, any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included . .......... (6) in the case of an individual who is not a citizen of India, (i) subject to such conditions as the Central Government may prescribe, passage moneys or the value of any free or concessional passage received by or due to such individual, (a) from his employer, for himself, his spouse and children, in connection with his proceeding on home leave out of India."
(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the Central Government has not prescribed any conditions as envisaged by S. 10(6)
(i). The Board of Revenue issued a circular dated May 19, 1958. It is not contended before us that the terms of the circular had been violated. We are assuming without deciding that the circular would apply. So the only question arising for decision is whether the sum of Rs. 1,525 allowed as passage money for the trip of the son of the assessee from India to the U. K. on September 16, 1968, was passage money received by the assessee for his child in connection with his proceeding on home leave. There is a clear finding of the AAC that this passage money was received by the assessee in connection with his proceeding on home leave and as we understand paragraph 7 of the order of the Tribunal r/w paragraphs 8 and 9 of its order, the finding of the AAC has been confirmed by the Tribunal. That finding has not been canvassed before us by any appropriate question having been referred to this Court for its opinion. The answer to the question referred to us can, therefore, only be in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. ;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.