D.b. Income Tax Appeal v. The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation Of India, Balotra

The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Balotra DATE OF ORDER : 10.08.2007 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. MAJMUDARHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEO NARAYAN THANVI Mr. K.K.Bissa for the appellant.Mr. Anjay Kothari for the respondent. BY THE COURT : (PER MAJMUDAR,J.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.2.2003passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench,Jodhpur in ITA No.126(JDPR)/1998 for assessment year 1996-97. The Tribunal decided two appeals by a common orderpassed in ITA No.126(JDPR)/1998 for assessment year 1996-97as well as ITA No.125/JDPR/1998 for assessment year 1997-98.The Tribunal while deciding the said appeals has followed thedecision given by this Court in the case of LIC Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.,reported in (2003) 179 CTR 432 and held that the DevelopmentOfficers of LIC are entitled to exemption under Section 10(14) inrespect of conveyance allowance and additional conveyanceallowance upon satisfying the condition that such allowance haveactually been spent for the purpose for which they were given.On that basis, the Tribunal dismissed both the appeals preferredby the Revenue. It has been pointed out to this Court that thedecision on which reliance has been placed by the Tribunal in thecase of LIC Vs. U.O.I. (supra), Special Leave to Appeal was preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court but the same hasnot been entertained on the ground of delay. Even, on merits ofthe case also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that theamount of conveyance allowance paid to the DevelopmentOfficers is to be treated as exempted from tax and no tax needbe deducted at source from the monthly payment made to theDevelopment officers. Since the Division Bench's judgment of this Court has beenconfirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and since the Tribunalhas relied upon the said decision of this Court, we do not findany substance in this appeal. In our view, no substantialquestion of law arises for determination in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. (DEO NARAYAN THANVI), J. (P.B.MAJMUDAR), J. ms rathore