9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (7) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e purchase of single premium annuity policy on the life of the assessee cannot be regarded as a perquisite within the meaning of section 17(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and consequently cannot be included in the assessee's income under the head 'Salaries' ?" The facts which are relevant for the purposes of this reference may be summed up as follows : The assessee was an employee of Radiant Electric Machinery Co. He retired from the employment of the said company from March 31, 1976. On April 1, 1976, the assessee entered into an agreement with the said company under which he was appointed as a technical consultant to the said company. Under the said agreement, the assessee was to act as consultant in consideration of the annuity of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed at any time and further annuity payments would not be commuted for realisation. There was a special provision to the effect that in case the annuitant dies before the date on which the annuity vested in him the amounts due under the policy would be payable, if any, to the annuitant's wife, Smt. Maria Vaz. It was also provided that if before the date of vesting, the annuitant's wife predeceases him and the annuitant dies before the date of annuity, the amount was payable to the executors or administrators or other legal representatives of the annuitant. On March 22, 1979, the said company took another policy which was to vest in the assessee on October 28, 1983. Under this policy also a single premium of Rs. 24,000 was payable. The cond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee in the year under consideration and, therefore, cannot be taxed under section 15 of the Income-tax Act. It is against this background that the present question of law is referred to this court for its opinion. We have heard at length Mr. R.V. Desai, learned counsel for the Revenue. None appeared for the assessee. Our attention is drawn to the decision of this court in J.H. Doshi v. CIT [1995] 212 ITR 211, In that case the relevant assessment year was 1974-75, for which the previous year ended on March 31, 1974. The assessee was the managing, director of a company, Under the agreement dated May 11, 1970, between the assessee and the company, the assessee was appointed as the managing director of the company for a period of five year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Income-tax Officer held that the amount so paid was an item of perquisite to the assessee and was includible in the computation of the assessee's income. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the amount paid as premium could not be added to the income of the assessee as a perquisite due to him during the year and ordered its deletion. The Income tax Appellate Tribunal reversed the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and hence a reference was made to the High Court it the instance of the assessee seeking the High Court's opinion whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the single premium paid by the company wits includible in the computation of the assessee's income for the assessment year 1974- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
