R.M. Mehta, Judicial Member - (1.) THE only issue for determination in this appeal is whether a sum of Rs. 36,000 received by the assessee as house rent is taxable in his hands.
(2.) The assessee in this case is a retired Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court but during the assessment year under consideration was functioning as the Chairman of the Advisory Board constituted under the National Security Act for the State of Punjab. The aforesaid appointment was made by the President of India and Notification dated 14th August, 1984 was issued by the Punjab Government stating therein the terms of appointment. The aforesaid Notification was modified subsequently on 4-7-1986, 2-7-1987 and again on 27-1-1988. It is not disputed between the parties that the salary and other benefits to which the assessee was entitled were the same as admissible to a sitting Judge of the High Court. In the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed house rent allowance amounting to Rs. 36,000 as exempt. This was done by referring to the relevant provisions of the Legislation pertaining to the Salaries and Service Conditions of High Court Judges. The attention of the Assessing Officer was also invited to Article 22 of the Constitution of India, Section 9 of the National Security Act, 1980 and other relevant provisions of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. The Assessing Officer, however, rejected the arguments advanced by the assessee and opined that the exemption in respect of house rent was available only to a "sitting Judge" of the High Court and not one who had retired and was functioning as a Chairman of the Advisory Board. In this view of the matter, he rejected the claim.
(3.) BEING aggrieved with the action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee took up the matter before the CIT(A). The first appellate authority after referring to the relevant provisions of the respective Acts, agreed with the view taken by the Assessing Officer.;