9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (2) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... staff. For the asst. yr. 1975-76 in terms of his order dt. 9th Feb., 1982 the ITO computed the assessee's total income at Rs. 1,23,150. Included in this income was the salary from M/s Burmah Sehll of Rs. 91,140, Which among others included redundancy compensation of Rs. 87,300. 3. Against the assessment as made the assessee filed an appeal on two issues, one related to the action of the ITO in bringing to charge in the assessment an amount of Rs. 551,19 which in terms of the employer's letter dt. 14th April, 1974 was to accrue and become due to on 15th April, 1975. The second dispute related to the assessee's claim for relief under s. 89(1) of the Act. Whereas on the first issue, the CIT (A) decided the appeal in favour of the assessee f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Bom) 1979. 5. Having heard the parties and examined the record we find that whereas Sequeira like the assessee before us today was an employee of a petroleum company. Pakvasa was an employee of IDM. Excepting this difference we find no difference whatsoever regarding the terms of voluntary retirement offered by the employer. Accordingly, we find no justification to interfere with the decision of the CIT (A) on the issue raised by the Revenue's appeal. As such, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 6. Turning to the assessee's appeal, Shri Mistry submitted that all what the CIT (A) has stated is that s. 89(1) deals with salary paid in arrears or in advance having been received in any financial year for more than twelve months. Shri Mistry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding. Shri Prem Kumar relied on the order of the CIT (A). 7. Having heard the parties and examined the record, we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) erred in coming to the decision that the payment off the type of Rs. 32,181 is not covered by the provisions of s. 89(1) of the Act. We find merit in Shri Mistry's submission that the words specifically brought to our notice govern the issue and that the assessee is entitled to relief under s. 89(1) of the Act. We find merit in Shri Mistry's reliance on the AAC's order in the assessee's own case for the subsequent year. Accordingly, we vacate the order of the CIT (A) so far as the second issue in the assessee's appeal is concerned and restore the matter tot he file of the ITO for enabling him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
