9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Whether a sum of Rs. 36,000 received by the assessee as house rent is taxable in his hands. Analysis: The appellant, a retired Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, was functioning as the Chairman of the Advisory Board under the National Security Act. The dispute revolved around the taxability of the house rent allowance of Rs. 36,000 claimed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim, stating that the exemption for house rent was only available to a sitting Judge of the High Court, not a retired one. The CIT(A) upheld this decision, leading the assessee to appeal. The appellant argued that he was entitled to the same salary and benefits as a sitting Judge, citing relevant legislation, constitutional provisions, and a previous court decision. The Departmental Representative supported the lower authorities' decisions. The Tribunal examined the notifications related to the appellant's appointment, which clearly indicated that he was entitled to the same salary and allowances as a sitting Judge of the High Court. The Tribunal referred to constitutional provisions and the National Security Act, emphasizing that the Chairmanship of the Advisory Board was reserved for a retired or serving Judge of a High Court. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant, in his capacity as the Chairman, should receive the same benefits as a sitting Judge. The definition of a Judge under the relevant Act was broad enough to include retired Judges in such roles. The Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to the exemption claimed for the house rent allowance received in his capacity as the Chairman of the Advisory Board. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee, ruling that the house rent allowance of Rs. 36,000 received by the appellant was not taxable in his hands.
|
