1989 (7) TMI 163 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of the definition of 'salary' as per Explanation 1 to Rule 3 of Income-tax Rules, 1962 for working out the value of the perquisite, namely, rent-free accommodation.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue for the assessment years 1981-92, 1982-83, 1983-84, and 1984-85, relating to the treatment of rewards paid to an employee as part of the salary for calculating the value of rent-free accommodation. The key issue was whether the rewards should be included in the definition of salary as per Explanation 1 to Rule 3 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.

The Revenue argued that the definition of salary for Rule 3 should be inclusive, similar to the definition in Section 17 of the Income-tax Act. They contended that rewards should be considered part of the salary based on various dictionary definitions. On the other hand, the assessee's counsel argued that the phraseology used in the Act and the Rule was different, and rewards were not explicitly included in the definition of 'salary' under Rule 3.

The Tribunal analyzed the situation and emphasized that the payment of rewards was a regular feature and was linked to the employee's work performance. Referring to legal precedent, the Tribunal applied the test of whether the payment accrued to the employee by virtue of their office. It was concluded that the rewards were directly related to the employee's office and should be treated as part of the salary.

Additionally, the Tribunal referred to dictionary definitions of 'salary' to support its interpretation. It noted that the word 'reward' was considered a form of salary in various dictionaries. The Tribunal also cited a Madras High Court case to highlight that the definition of 'salary' in Rule 3 was not exhaustive and aimed to exclude certain items rather than restrict the meaning itself.

Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the rewards received by the employee should be considered while calculating the value of rent-free accommodation, as they were not covered by the specific exclusions in the definition of salary under Explanation 1 to Rule 3. Consequently, the orders of the CIT (Appeals) were reversed, and the orders of the ITO were restored. The appeals by the Revenue were allowed.