1972 (12) TMI 21 - HC - Income Tax

Foreign Technician - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the skipper of the fishing trawler is a technician as laid down in the Explanation to section 10(6)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of the term 'technician' under the Explanation to section 10(6)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The case involved a question regarding whether the skipper of a fishing trawler could be considered a 'technician' as per the Explanation to section 10(6)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The definition of 'technician' in the Explanation requires a person with specialized knowledge and experience in industrial or business management techniques, employed in India in a capacity utilizing such knowledge. The court considered whether the skipper, a Japanese specialist in deep-sea fishing, fell within this definition. The court noted that the skipper's work required specialized knowledge and experience, but doubted if it qualified as 'industrial or business management techniques' as per the Explanation.

The Appellate Assistant Commissioner had previously held that the skipper qualified as a technician, exempting his salary from tax. The department argued that a skipper did not meet the criteria of a technician under the Explanation. The assessee contended that the skipper's role included training Indian crew in fishing techniques, making him a technician. The court analyzed the Ministry of Finance's circular and the conditions imposed on the skipper, but ultimately disagreed with the assessee's interpretation.

The court concluded that the skipper did not fit the definition of a technician under the Explanation to section 10(6)(vii) of the Act. Despite the skipper's specialized knowledge and training responsibilities, the court held that 'industrial or business management techniques' had a specific meaning that did not encompass the skipper's role. Therefore, the question was answered in the negative, ruling in favor of the department. Each party was directed to bear their respective costs, and a copy of the judgment was to be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.