2006 (4) TMI 64 - HC - Income Tax

LIC Payment of additional conveyance allowance was a reimbursement for actual expenditure incurred by D.Os have direct nexus with performance of their duties their allowance are allowed to be exempted proceeding for default for non-deduction at source of expenses reimbursed is invalid

Summary

Issues:
1. Taxability of expenses reimbursed to Development Officer under Reimbursement of Expenses Scheme, 1997.
2. Treatment of reimbursed expenses as part of the salary of the Development Officer.
3. Obligation to deduct TDS on expenses reimbursed by Life Insurance Corporation to Development Officers.
4. Applicability of exemption under section 10(14) of the Income Tax Act to conveyance allowances.
5. Admissibility of expenses claimed by the assessee.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The Revenue challenged the taxability of expenses reimbursed to the Development Officer under the Reimbursement of Expenses Scheme, 1997. The primary contention was that these expenses should be treated as part of the salary of the Development Officer, necessitating TDS deduction.

Issue 2: The Income Tax Officer considered the expenses reimbursed by the Life Insurance Corporation to its Development Officers as part of their salary, leading to the assessee being treated as default for not deducting TDS. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ruled in favor of the assessee, citing a previous appeal by the Life Insurance Corporation on the same issue.

Issue 3: The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal, maintaining that the reimbursed expenses should be treated as salary and subject to TDS. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, noting that previous orders on similar issues were not challenged by the Revenue.

Issue 4: The Tribunal referenced a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, emphasizing the duties and obligations of Development Officers in the Life Insurance Corporation. It highlighted that the conveyance allowances were exempt under section 10(14) of the Act, subject to conditions of actual expenditure for performance of duties.

Issue 5: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, aligning with the Rajasthan High Court's decision and finding no substantial question of law. The Revenue's plea regarding the admissibility of claimed expenses was deemed irrelevant to the appeal's scope under Section 260 A of the Act.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision and holding that no substantial question of law arose in the case. The judgment emphasized the exemption under section 10(14) for conveyance allowances and upheld the treatment of reimbursed expenses to Development Officers as not subject to TDS.