1984 (2) TMI 179 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal overturns Commissioner's order, reinstates Income Tax Officer's assessment. Incentive bonus deemed special allowance.

K. Rami Reddy. Versus Income-Tax Officer.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the Commissioner's order under section 263 modifying the assessment, and restored the Income Tax Officer's ... Incentive Bonus, Special Allowance Issues:1. Whether the deduction of expenses claimed by the assessee against salary income is admissible.2. Whether the incentive bonus received by the assessee should be considered as salary income or a special allowance.3. Whether the Commissioner's order under section 263 modifying the assessment should be upheld.Analysis:1. The primary issue in this case was whether the deduction of expenses claimed by the assessee against salary income was admissible. The assessee, a development officer, received a salary and incentive bonus based on business done. The ITO allowed only a portion of the claimed expenses, which the Commissioner later disallowed entirely under section 263. However, the Tribunal found that the incentive bonus included an allowance for expenses incurred for employment purposes, which should be treated as a special allowance under section 10(14) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal held that the ITO's decision to allow a deduction for proved expenses or a reasonable expenditure was justified, and there was no legal infirmity in the order.2. The second issue revolved around whether the incentive bonus received by the assessee should be considered as salary income or a special allowance. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions and guidelines, including a CBDT circular, to determine that a portion of the incentive bonus should be treated as reimbursement for expenses incurred in the course of employment. The Tribunal upheld that 40% of the incentive bonus could be considered as a reasonable deduction for such expenses. It was argued that treating the entire income as salary without allowing for expenses would result in undue hardship for the assessee, and the real income principle should apply to all heads of income.3. The final issue pertained to the Commissioner's order under section 263 modifying the assessment. The Commissioner had disallowed certain expenses and revised the income amount. However, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner's order was not justified as the incentive bonus included an allowance for expenses, and the ITO's decision to allow a deduction for proved expenses was reasonable. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and restored the ITO's assessment. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering the special relationship of development officers with the Corporation and the need to assess income under appropriate heads to avoid taxing amounts that do not constitute real income.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the Commissioner's order, and restored the ITO's assessment, highlighting the importance of considering expenses incurred for employment purposes and the real income principle in determining taxable income.