1979 (12) TMI 55

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e, the assessee was in the service of M/s. A. W. Heilgers & Co. (P.) Ltd. The ITO found that the assessee joined the above company in Calcultta on February 5, 1957. His services were thereafter lent to M/s. Heilgers (Burma) Ltd., in Burma on and from the 1st September, 1957. He rejoined the Calcutta company on the 22nd February, 1965. He served the Calcutta company for some time and, then he resigned and left Calcutta. From the salary certificate, the ITO found that the assessee's salary was paid up to April, 1968. The service agreement entered into on the 20th December, 1956, stipulates that the assessee was to serve the employers for three years and nine months from the date of his arrival. The issue before the ITO related to the rebat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he ITO's finding was that as soon as the assessee left the employers on September 1, 1957, there was termination of the assessee's service with the Calcutta company. In that view of the matter, according to the ITO, the Calcutta company's contribution to the assessee's provident fund account during the period of his absence from India, i.e., from September 1, 1957, to February 21, 1965, was nothing but an ex gratia payment by the employers. The ITO completed the assessment under s. 143(3) read with s. 174 of the Act, 1961, on a total income of Rs. 1,51,945. He simultaneously completed the assessments for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68. Before the AAC the assessee's representative placed a copy of the employer's letter dated 23r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he employer's contribution to the assessee's provident fund account during the period from September 1, 1957, to February 21, 1965, was in the nature of an ex gratia payment. Learned counsel for the submitted to the Tribunal that in the Burma company the Calcutta Company was holding 1,700 out of 5,000 shares. The Calcutta company, therefore, was not an independent entity and it was wrong to suggest that the assessee's period of service with the Burma company should not be taken into account as services rendered under the Calcutta company. The Tribunal found that the circumstances leading to the assessee's resignation from his services with M/s. F. W. Heilgers & Co. (P.) Ltd., in Calcutta, should be construed as beyond his control and ....