9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Taxability of devaluation allowance received by the assessee. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the taxability of a devaluation allowance received by the assessee, who was a Captain in a shipping company. The devaluation of the Indian rupee in June 1966 led to Indian employees on ships facing difficulties due to receiving less money in foreign currency. An agreement was negotiated between the Indian National Shipowners' Association and the unions for devaluation compensation to be paid to both officers and crew only for the period the vessel was away from Indian shores. The assessee received Rs. 2,469 as devaluation allowance, which the Income Tax Officer (ITO) assessed as salary. The Appellate Authority Commissioner (AAC) held it to be reimbursement of expenses and not income, thus deleting the amount. The appeal was filed against this decision. The departmental representative argued that the devaluation allowance was taxable as it was paid due to the devaluation of the Indian rupee, not as an expenditure incurred for services on duty. On the other hand, the counsel for the assessee contended that the allowance was reimbursement for expenses and exempt from tax. The Tribunal considered the nature of the devaluation allowance, emphasizing that it was paid to meet extra expenses for the assessee and family due to the devaluation of the rupee, not for expenses incurred in the performance of duties. Citing precedents like Corry v. Robinson and Fergusson v. Noble, it was established that such allowances are considered part of the salary and taxable. Referring to CIT v. J. Jenkin Thomas, it was highlighted that allowances not for meeting duty-related expenses but for personal benefit are taxable. The Tribunal differentiated the case from CIT v. D.R. Phatak concerning compensatory allowance, stating that the devaluation allowance was not for expenses wholly and exclusively incurred in the performance of duties. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the devaluation allowance of Rs. 2,469 received by the assessee was taxable income, overturning the AAC's decision and restoring the ITO's order. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of taxability, considering the devaluation allowance as part of the salary and not a perquisite exempt from tax. The decision was based on the nature of the allowance, which aimed to cover extra expenses due to devaluation, similar to other taxable allowances in previous cases.
|
