Munger ………………..Assessee/Appellant (In Both Appeals v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patna And

9. 28/09/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA M.A. No.337 of 1999 With M.A. No. 338 of 1999 ============================================ Mr. Bharat Pd. Barnwal, Development Officer, son of Late Raghunath Lal, resident of Shastri Nagar, Jamui, Dist. Munger ………………..Assessee/Appellant (in both appeals) Versus 1.Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna and 2.Income Tax Officer, Munger … Assessing Officer /Respondents(in both appeals) 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) These two appeals preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) raise a common 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 Sri Bharat Prasad Barnwal is a Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as `the Corporation’). In the previous years relevant to the Assessment Year 1993-94 and the Assessment Year 1994-95 the appellant was paid incentive bonus in the sum of Rs. 1,59,685.00 and Rs. 2,10,000.00 respectively. In the return filed by the appellant he claimed 40% deduction from the aforesaid amounts of incentive bonus. According to the appellant, ’that part of his income was `income from profession. The Assessing Officer did not allow the said deduction. The order of the Assessing Officer was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by his order dated 11[th] March 1996 made on Appeal (Patna) Nos. 191/95-96 and 192/95-96. The same was confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 23[rd] February 1998 by common order made in I.T.A. Nos. 353(Patna)/96 and 354(Patna)/96. Therefore, the present appeals. Learned Advocate Mr Ajay Rastogi, appearing for the appellant, concedes that the matter at dispute has been finally set at rest by this Court by the judgment and order dated 7[th] February 2008 passed in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar, Patna Vs. Ramjee Prasad (Tax Case No. 13 of 1991). In view of the aforesaid binding precedent, 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. For the aforesaid reason both these appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ( R. M. Doshit, CJ.) Dilip ( Jyoti Saran, J.)