9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (9) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respectively ? " The assessee was the managing director of M/s. Tube Agencies (P.) Ltd. Under a resolution dated January 22, 1961, he was appointed as the managing director on a remuneration of Rs.2,000 per month with effect from January 1, 1961, for a period of three years. On December 27, 1963, when the original period covered by the resolution was about to come to a close, another resolution was passed reappointing him as the managing director for a further period of three years with effect from January 1, 1964, with a pay of Rs. 2,000 per mouth and such bonus as the directors might from time to time declare or sanction to him. The assessee was being paid remuneration at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per month up to May, 1964. He was paid a s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and conveyance, etc." We are concerned in the present reference with the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67. In the assessment year 1965-66, the relevant accounting year ended on March 31, 1965. The assessee claimed in this assessment year that he was assessable on the salary of Rs. 2,000 per month for the months of April to August, 1964,and that he was liable to be assessed only on a sum of Rs. 1,500 being the salary. at the rate of Rs. 500 per month for the month of January, February and March, 1965, he having waived the salary for the months of September to December, 1964. Thus, the amount offered for assessment was Rs. 11,500. The ITO assessed him on a sum of Rs. 24,000 at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per month for the whole year. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rence. The resolution which governs the payment of salary to the assessee was the one dated December 27, 1963. Subsequently, there was a resolution dated April 30, 1965. But that resolution merely noted that the managing director had waived remuneration payable to him for the months of September, October, November and December, 1964. There is nothing in the resolution or anywhere else to show that there was any understanding arrived at between the managing director and the company before the accrual of the remuneration payable to him. The resolution dated April 30, 1965, is itself after the relevant year. The learned counsel for the assessee was not in a position to show that there was any correspondence between the assessee and the company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iable to be taxed on the amount to which he was entitled, is clear from two decisions of this court. The first case is K.R.Kothandaraman v. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 348 (Mad). The second one is CIT v. P. Nataraja Sastri [1976] 104 ITR 245 (Mad) to which one of us was a party. In these two cases, it has been held that the waiver of the amount due to the assessee would only be an application of the income of the assessee. As the income of the assessee had accrued, he was liable to be taxed whatever he may have done in the form of waiver of a part of the income. It would follow that the question that is referred to us has, therefore, to be answered in the negative and against the assessee and we do so accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
