Dwarika Prasad, Development Officer, Son Of Ram Narain Rai, Resident Of Rod v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patna And

10. 28/09/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA M.A. No. 689 of 1999 ============================================ Dwarika Prasad, Development Officer, son of Ram Narain Rai, resident of Rod No. 3 Ashok Nagar, P.S. Kankarbagh, Dist. Patna ……………………………. Assessee/Appellant Versus 1.Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna and 2.Income Tax Officer,Patna…Assessing Officer/Respondents APPEARANCE For the appellant: Mr. Ajay Rastogi, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Harshwardhan Prasad and Mrs. Archana Sinha, Advocates. CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) This appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) raises a question of law “whether the incentive bonus earned by the assessee, a Development Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, is a `salary’ as defined in Section 17(1)(iv) of the Act and whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee is not entitled to deduction of expenses to the extent of 40% of such incentive bonus.” The appellant Dwarika Prasad is a Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as `the Corporation’). In the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 1995-96, the appellant was paid incentive bonus in the sum of Rs. 2,39,996.00/-. The appellant returned the amount of incentive bonus under the head `Income from other sources’ after deducting 40% of the amount. The Assessing Officer did not allow the said deduction. The appellant preferred Appeal No. 212/P/96-97 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by his order dated 20[th] September 1996 dismissed the appeal. The same was affirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 30[th] August 1999 by order made in I.T.A. No. 702/Pat/1996. Therefore, the present appeal. Learned Advocate Mr Ajay Rastogi has appeared for the appellant. He has relied upon the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Kiranbhai H. Shelat & Anr. (235 ITR 635). He has submitted that as held by the Gujarat High Court the appellant is entitled to a deduction of the amount actually spent by him to the maximum of 30% of the bonus. Learned Advocate Mrs. Archana Sinha has appeared for the department. She has contested the appeal. She has submitted that the matter is set at rest by this Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bihar, Patna Vs. Ramjee Prasad (Tax Case No. 13 of 1991). For the reasons recorded by us in our judgment and order dated 28[th] September 2010 passed in Tax Case No. 30 of 1990, we hold that the amount of incentive bonus received by the appellant was a `salary’ within the meaning of Section 17(1)(iv) of the Act and that he was not entitled to 40% deduction claimed by him. The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ( R. M. Doshit, CJ.) Dilip ( Jyoti Saran, J.)