9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (8) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are 1982-83 and 1983-84. The original returns in respect of these assessment years were filed on 30th December, 1982 and 24-10-1983. In these returns the income under the head " Salary " was shown at Rs. 73,456 and Rs. 46,064. In the revised returns filed on 22-3-1985 and 26-3-1985 respectively the income from the same source was reflected at Rs. 25,515 and Rs. 11,510. 3. In the letters accompanying the revised returns the assessee stated that he had not received his salary in full from the company and since the same had gone into liquidation the unpaid amount was not liable to be received. A further submission which was made was that it was the real income which was liable to be taxed under the Income-tax Act and not any notional income. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt years the amounts which had been shown in the salary certificates filed along with the original returns. The CIT (Appeals) confirmed the action of the ITO on the same lines. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant at the outset stated that nothing had been received by the assessee till today from the company vis-a-vis the difference in the amounts shown in the original returns and those shown in the revised returns. According to him the word " due " had to be strictly interpreted and since the amounts received by the assessee were the ones shown in the revised returns these were liable to tax and not the amounts shown in the original returns. It was the further submission that there was no scheme for claiming bad debts in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome " theory did not apply to income taxable under the head " Salary " but related primarily to the computation of income under the head " Business ". (7) That the various decisions relied upon on behalf of the assessee were distinguishable on facts as had been rightly done by the ITO. The learned D.R. finally made, an impassioned plea for the confirmation of the orders of the CIT (Appeals). 7. In reply, the learned counsel for the assessee stated that the tax was deducted at source not at the time of making the actual payment but at the time of making a provision in the books of accounts. According to him it was not a disputed fact that a part of the amount stated in the salary certificates had not been received by the appellant. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal returns the assessee included these amounts as having become due to him on the basis of his terms of appointment which had been approved by the Government of India. In other words M/s. Sarangpur Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. was required to pay the assessee the amounts which he had reflected in the original returns of income. If subsequently these amounts were not paid over to the assessee on the ground that the company had gone into liquidation then the only action to which the assessee could have resorted was to stand in line with other creditors and await the outcome of the liquidation proceedings. 9. It may not be out of place to point out that the revised returns were filed in March 1985 and in case the ITO had completed the assessments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
