- (1.) ON an application under S. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) by accepting the claim of exemption of Rs. 60,437 which the assessee received after the winding up of the superannuation scheme, when some of the conditions for exemption mentioned in S. 10(13) was not fulfilled ?"
(2.) IN this case the assessee claimed the amount of Rs. 60,437 received from an approved superannuation fund is not taxable under Act, 1961. The ITO has taken the view that when conditions laid down in S. 10(13) of the Act are not fulfilled, the income of Rs. 60,437 is not exempted. In the appeals the CIT(A) and the Tribunal both have allowed the claim of the assessee that the amount in question cannot be a perquisite within the meaning of S. 17(3)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be taxed. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the assessee submits that when the payment was made from the approved superannuation fund the payment so made cannot be treated as perquisite within the meaning of S. 17 of the IT Act, 1961.
(3.) THE relevant provision that is cl. (ii) of sub-s. (3) of S. 17 reads as under : "(ii) any payment [other than any payment referred in cl. (10), cl. (10A), cl. (10B), cl. (11), cl. (12), cl. (13) or cl. (13A) of S. 10], due to or received by an assessee from an employer or a former employer or from a provident or other fund not being an approved superannuation fund, to the extent to which it does not consist of contributions by the assessee or interest on such contributions or any sum received under as Keyman insurance policy including the sum allocated by way of bonus on such policy." ;