9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of tax exemption under section 80R of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Validity of enlarging claim before appellate authority. Applicability of section 10(16) regarding tax exemption for scholarships. Analysis: The case involved an individual working as Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research, who received a scholarship of 18,500 US dollars, equivalent to Rs. 1,55,400, during the relevant assessment year. Initially, the assessee claimed only 50% of the scholarship amount as exempt under section 80R of the Income-tax Act, but the Income Tax Officer (ITO) added the full amount to the assessee's income. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, holding that the scholarship qualified for exemption under section 10(16) of the Act and deleted the addition of Rs. 1,55,400. The department appealed, arguing that the assessee should not have been allowed to enlarge the claim before the appellate authority beyond the original 50% claimed. They contended that documents filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) but not before the ITO should not have been considered. The assessee's counsel maintained that the Commissioner (Appeals) acted in accordance with the law, and the claim was valid under section 10(16) of the Act. The Appellate Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to claim the full amount of scholarship before the appellate authority, even if a lesser amount was initially claimed before the ITO. Denying the legitimate claim based on the initial claim amount would be unfair to the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that revenue authorities should allow all benefits due to assessees under the law, regardless of whether claimed or not, and claiming should not be a condition precedent for allowing benefits. They disagreed with the department's argument and emphasized the duty of authorities to administer the law correctly. Regarding the applicability of section 10(16) for tax exemption on scholarships, the Tribunal relied on the certificate from the institution granting the scholarship, which indicated the scholarship was for meeting the cost of education. This fell within the scope of section 10(16), justifying the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision to exempt the Rs. 1,55,400 from tax. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal based on these findings.
|
