High Court Of Kerala
K.P. Harihara Kumar vs. Union Of India & Anr.
Section10(5), Rule 2B(a)
G. Sivarajan, J. OP No. 13431 of 1996
18th May, 2004
Counsel Appeared
K. Shrihari Rao & K.R. Raghunath, for the Petitioner : H. Sivaraman & George K. George, for the Respondents
JUDGMENT
G. Sivarajan, J. :
The petitioner at the time of filing the writ petition was an officer of the State Bank of India. As per service conditions of the officers of the bank they are entitled to LTC facilities including travel by air. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the provisions of r. 2B(a) of the IT Rules making the difference between the air travel charges and the railway first class AC charges exigible to tax under the IT Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). According to the petitioner, this rule is ultra vires the provisions of s. 10(5) of the Act.
2. I have heard Sri K. Shrihari Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri George K. George, learned standing counsel, Government of India (Taxes), appearing for the respondents. The petitioner being an officer of the State Bank of India is entitled to the expenses for air travel by availing the leave travel facility without any limitation. The grievance of the petitioner, as already noted, is that the difference between the air travel fare and the first class AC fare by rail is being assessed to income-tax. The question regarding exemption is a matter which is covered by the provisions of the IT Act. Unless there is an exemption in respect of the amount received from the bank for the leave travel facility availed, the petitioner cannot claim any exemption from tax in respect of the amount received. Sub-s. (5) of s. 10 of the Act provides that in computing the total income of a previous year in the case of an individual the value of any travel concession or assistance received by or due to him (a) from his employer for himself, his spouse and children, in connection with his proceeding on leave to his home-district in India, and (b) from his employer or former employer for himself, his spouse and children, in connection with his proceeding to his home-district in India after retirement from service or after the termination of his service subject to such conditions as may be prescribed including the number of journeys and the amount which shall be exempted per head having regard to the travel concession or assistance granted to the employees of the Central Government shall not be included. By virtue of the provisions of s. 10(5) of the Act, r. 2B of the IT Rules is issued prescribing the conditions for the purpose of s. 10(5). Sec. 10(5) which is referred to above clearly provides for prescribing the conditions regarding the amount which shall be exempt from tax having regard to the travel concession or assistance granted to the employees of the Central Government. It is by virtue of this provision r. 2B has been issued. The petitioner is not able to point out any illegality in regard to the condition imposed in r. 2B(a) as it stood prior to 1st Oct., 1997.
In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.
[Citation : 270 ITR 194]
