- (1.) THIS is an income -tax reference at the instance of the CIT. The Tribunal, Delhi Bench -B, New Delhi has referred the following question to this Court for its opinion: Whether, the Tribunal is right in holding that amounts paid by way of travelling allowance to the trustees by the assessee trust would not be subject to the provisions of Rule 6D of the IT Rules
(2.) THE dispute relates to the asst. yr. 1982 -83. The assessee is a family trust deriving income from manufacture and sale of allopathic and ayurvedic medicines. During the relevant assessment year, it claimed deduction of Rs. 17,824 (sic) as travelling allowance expenses. The ITO found that the travelling allowance claimed by the assessee was excessive. He invoked Rule 6D of the IT Rules and held that travelling allowance as per the aforesaid Rule 6D was admissible to the extent of Rs. 29,965. However, in the first appeal as well as in the second appeal, it has been held that Rule 6D of the rules has no application to the facts of the present case. Heard Shri R.K. Upadhyaya, learned standing counsel for the parties and Shri Shubham Agarwal, learned Counsel for the assessee and respondent. It was contended by learned Counsel for the Department that phrase 'any other person' clause in Sub -rule (2) to Rule 6D is wide enough to include even the assessee also. He submits that in view of the said phrase, the Rule 6D(2) is already attracted.
(3.) SHRI Shubham Agarwal, on the other hand submits that on a true and correct interpretation, the phrase 'any other person' will include only such persons, who are akin to 'an employee'. Considered respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties.;