9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (6) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of Rs. 3,500. According to him, the Tribunal there held that, since car was provided to the assessee by only one of his employers, the assessee could not be denied standard deduction in full. He, however, rejected the assessee's claim of standard deduction of Rs. 1,000 over and above the deduction of Rs. 3,500 agreeing with the ITO that the salaries from all employments had to be aggregated for the purpose of section 16(i). 3. This appeal is on the ground that 'the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the assessee is entitled to full deduction of Rs. 3,500 under section 16(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961'. 4. Section 16(i) grants deduction to the assessee from salary. However, the provisos reduce that deduction in certain circumstances stated therein. If those circumstances exist, the deduction is not to exceed Rs. 1,000. If the motor car is provided to the assessee 'by employer otherwise than wholly and exclusively for the performance of his duties, the deduction is not to exceed Rs. 1,000. In this case the assessment 'order states that Anil Starch had provided a car to the assessee partly for the purpose of his duties and partly for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eyance to the assessee, has to be taken into consideration. In the light of the above we must hold that the proviso to section 16(i) is applicable to the assessee's case and the assessee is entitled to the deduction of Rs. 1,000 only and no more. 6. In the result. the appeal is allowed. Per Shri P. K. Mehta, Accountant Member--Unfortunately I could not persuade my brother, the Judicial Member, to my view despite a Division Bench decision of the Tribunal, Delhi Bench B, in the case of Bimal Kumar Jain, etc., having been cited before us by the assessee's counsel. Apart from the fact that with the help of Delhi Division Bench decision, this becomes a case of three opinions to one, I have been a party as a Member of Amritsar Bench to a still more liberal interpretation than that of the Delhi Bench. This further appears to me to be a case where the statute being silent, a view favourable to the subject, i.e., the assessee, be preferred than a possible view adverse to him. 2. Section 14 lays down the heads of income under which income is to be classified and computed and 'salaries' is one of the heads there which is relevant for our purpose. A head of income is not the same thing a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... my humble opinion, it may be more logical. It is another thing that it may result in a more favourable interpretation in case of an assessee having more than one employment, such as, the assessee now before us. The section, it appears to me, does not lay down anything to restrict the deduction only in respect of one employment and not in respect of the other, when an assessee is having more than one employment. It is this factor implicitly which is responsible for the view of the Delhi Bench to the effect that 'since the car was not provided to the assessee by both of his employers, he could not be denied standard deduction in full by only considering the employer who had provided a car to the assessee for the performance of his duties'. In other words, if the case of the assessee is viewed from the angle of salary received from Saraspur Mills amounting to Rs. 55,277, the assessee will be entitled to full standard deduction of Rs. 3,500. But if the case is viewed only from the angle of employment with Anil Starch Products Ltd., from which remuneration amounting to Rs. 1,05,238 was received and which had provided a car to the assessee partly for personal and partly for the purpose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which came to be considered by me as a Member of Amritsar Bench, but the principle there is only partly applicable in the facts and in the circumstances of this case. 5. In the result, I will uphold the order of Commissioner (Appeals) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue. ORDER UNDER SECTION 255(4) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961--As there is a difference of opinion between us in respect of the following question, we refer the case to the President of the Tribunal as provided in section 255(4) of the Act. " Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the standard deduction under section 16 of the Income-tax Act admissible to the assessee will be Rs. 3,500 or Rs. 1,000 ? " THIRD MEMBER ORDER Per Shri V. Balasubramanian, Vice President--This Third Member case has come up before me for hearing on account of a difference of opinion between the two members worded as under : " Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case the standard deduction under section 16 of the Income-tax Act admissible to the assessee will be Rs. 3,500 or Rs. 1,000 ? " The assessee has salary from Anil Starch Products Ltd., and Saraspur Mills Ltd. He received a sum of Rs. 1,05,238 from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if each employment was considered separately ; it would in fact be more logical to do so. The learned Accountant Member also held that while looking to one employment of the assessee a deduction of Rs. 3,500 was available, there was nothing in this section to reduce the deduction by taking note of the circumstances of another employment. Whereas the learned Accountant Member followed a decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal, the learned Judicial Member found that to be distinguishable on facts. The decision of the Madras High Court in the case of M. N. Rajam was relied upon by the learned Judicial Member to support his case whereas according to the learned Accountant Member the principle of an interpretation favourable to the assessee being adopted was relevant in the circumstances. 4. The learned counsel for the department has pointed out referring extensively to the provisions of sections 14, 15 and 16 that deduction under section 16(i) is to be granted on, the basis of the overall income assessable under the head 'Salaries'. Section 15 requires aggregation of all the income from salaries so that where an assessee is in receipt of salary from more than one employer all th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should be read into this expression as such in view of the clear provisions of section 15 than that it deals with salaries received from different types of employers. The statute thus considers the salary received from each employer independently and cannot be regarded as referring to any aggregation of all the salaries received from different employers. Emphasis is also laid on the obligation to give the deduction of Rs. 3,500 from the salary received from Saraspur Mills whether the assessee had any other income from any other source or not. 6. A combined reading of sections 14, 15 and 16 throws up the issue of deciding whether in the case of an assessee having more than one employment, the salaries received from all the employments are to be aggregated before a deduction under section 16 is granted. The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal dealt with a case where the assessee was in receipt of salary from two employers and the decision given therein may be helpful in deciding the question before us but since the very question of the assessee being in receipt of a conveyance allowance seems to have been raised as a point of doubt in that decision, it may not be proper to treat that decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... employment of 'all the employers together'. The assessee may be an 'employee' but the employment he has with each employer is an independent acitivity and the expenses incidental to that employment will also be relevant to that employment but independent of all other employments. Interpretation, therefore, of sections 15 and 16 apart from the general concept of deductions under the statute also clearly leads to the position that where an assessee is under different employments the income from each employment has to be separately worked out. Section 15 and section 16 along with the other relevant sections such as section 17 support this and not a contrary view. There is no support for the proposition advanced by the learned counsel for the department or for the view expressed in Chaturevedi's Income-tax that all gross salaries are to be aggregated before applying section 16. 8. In the above view of the matter the present assessee having a salary income from Saraspur Mills to which the proviso to section 16(i) will not apply is prima facie entitled to a deduction under section 16(i) of Rs. 3,500 from the salary from Saraspur Mills. The only other question would be whether he is en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
