9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (2) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in its view that the sum of Rs. 12,000 was assessable in the hands of the assessee (Adam Sahib) for the assessment year 1971-72 ? " The relevant facts are in a short compass. It is enough to mention the facts in the case of Abdul Rahiman as the facts in the case of Adam Sahib stand on the same footing. Abdul Rahiman was the managing director of A.R.T. Bus Service (P.) Ltd., Jayankondan. During the previous year ending December 31, 1970, the ITO considered that a sum of Rs. 24,000 had accrued to him as his salary. As he had not returned the amount the ITO brought it to tax. In doing so, the ITO relied on a resolution passed by the board of directors of the company on January ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 967, or modifying it in any manner. There is also no documentary evidence to show that the assessee had irrevocably waived the right to receive the salary at any time before the close of the accounting period. " From the facts and from the findings of the Tribunal it is thus clear that the salary accrued to the respective assessees under the terms of the resolution dated January 2, 1967, and that there was actually no waiver as such by them before the accrual. The amounts were not taken by them because the company had suffered loss. The Tribunal's further finding was that there was a debt due by the company to the respective assessees which could have been enforced by them in view of the resolution which subsisted during the relevant year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court in CIT v. Bachubhai Nagindas Shah [1976] 104 ITR 551. It was a case of salary. The decision in Nataraja Sastri's case[1976] 104 ITR 245 (Mad) has been followed in T.C. No. 426 of 1971 in the case of CIT v. V.R.Rajaratnam [since reported in [1979] 119 ITR 89 (Mad)], which was also the case of a managing director who was being assessed under the head " Salary ". Taking into account these decisions, the Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any error in its conclusion. The learned counsel for the assessee drew our attention to a passage in the decision of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Bachubhai Nagindas Shah [1976] 104 ITR 551, at page 563, and wanted us to make an observation similar to those made therein. It has been pointe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
