High Court Of Rajasthan : Jaipur Bench
Brigadier Narula vs. CIT
Sections 16(i), proviso (ii), 17
Asst. Year 1978-79
Y.R. Meena & A.C. Goyal, JJ.
IT Ref. Appln. No. 57 of 1984
31st January, 2002
None, for the Applicant : Anroop Singhvi, for the Respondent
BY THE COURT :
On an application filed under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court : “Whether the Tribunal was right in law in its interpretation of proviso (ii) to s. 16(i) of the IT Act, 1961 and thereby holding that the assessee is entitled to standard deduction at Rs. 1,000 only and not at Rs. 2,500 as allowed by the CIT(A).” “Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that providing the car in terms of the Instruction dt. 20th Nov., 1964, amounts to a perquisite under s. 17 of the IT Act, 1961 and in sustaining addition at Rs. 2,400 in the hands of the assessee ?”
The assessee, an individual, was a managing director of a public sector undertaking, namely, Instrumention Ltd. Assessee declared income of Rs. 30,207 that has been determined at Rs. 30,992. During the course of assessment it came to the notice of the AO that the employer has provided a chauffeur driven car for the use of assessee that was partly for official purpose and partly for non-official purpose. Even though assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 2,400 under s. 16(i) of the IT Act, 1961, that has been disallowed by the ITO. AAC has allowed the claim of the assessee and Tribunal has restored the view taken by AO. None appeared for the assessee. Heard learned counsel for the Revenue. Learned counsel for the Revenue brought to our notice that relevant assessment year is 1978-79 and in that year the provision was that if car has been provided to the assessee by his employer, he is entitled to deduction under s. 16 of only Rs. 1,000. The relevant proviso of sub-s. (i) of s. 16 reads as under : “1. Where any motor-car, motorcycle, scooter or other moped is provided to the assessee by his employer for use by the assessee, otherwise than wholly and exclusively in the performance of his duties; or 2. Where one or more motor-cars are owned or hired by the employer of the assessee and the assessee is allowed the use of such motor-car or all or any of such motor-cars, otherwise than wholly and exclusively in the performance of his duties, the deduction under this clause shall not exceed one thousand rupees;”
4. Considering the plain reading of proviso 2, cl. (ii) of sub-s. (i) of s. 16, we find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal.
In the result, we answer both the question in affirmative i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The reference so made stands disposed of.
[Citation : 257 ITR 751]