D.K.SETH, J. - (1.) HIS appeal relates to the asst. yrs. 1993 -94, 1995 -96 and 1996 -97. Only one Court fee has since been paid. But now Court fee in respect of each assessment year is payable. The appellant shall put in the balance Court fees for the two assessment years within a period of four weeks. In default, this appeal shall be treated as appeal only in respect of the asst. yr. 1993 -94 and the appeal in respect of the other two asst. yrs. 1995 -96 and 1996 -97 shall stand dismissed.
(2.) WE have passed an order yesterday on the question of payment of Court fees after which the hearing commenced and continued till today. Subject to the above order, we propose to dispose of the appeal in the manner hereafter. The questions :
(3.) IN this appeal we are called upon to answer the following two questions on which the appeal was admitted : "(a) Whether the respective sums shown as salary in the return for the asst. yrs. 1993 -94, 1995 -96 and 1996 -97 shall be treated as income assessable under s. 15 or under s. 56 of the IT Act, 1961 ? (b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the conclusion of the learned Tribunal that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the company and the assessee is perverse and/or sustainable in law - Facts : The facts of this case as would be relevant for the purpose of answering the said question are summarized thus. The assessee was a wholetime director for the relevant assessment years of the company. The company is a private limited company in which the assessee held 24,254 equity shares of Rs. 10 each. His father Y. Mowjee, a director of the said company, held 24,101 equity shares, whereas the balance 570 shares were held by 40 other persons. In this background, the AO found that the assessee having full control over the affairs of the company by holding number of shares as well as paid -up capital, no relationship of employer and employee between the company and the assessee could be established. According to him, the assessee having full control over the company his attempt to establish himself as an employee thereof cannot be sustained. This order was affirmed by the CIT(A) and the learned Tribunal. Following the order of the learned Tribunal in respect of the asst. yr. 1994 -95 in these three assessment years, the assessee was held not to be an employee of the company and as such the receipt of remuneration as wholetime director could not come under the head salary and, therefore, it was taxed as income from other sources. Submission on behalf of the appellant/assessee : ;