Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs P.M. Kaul
2000 Latest Caselaw 1231 Del

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.

1. On being moved by the Revenue for reference, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-D (in short, "the Tribunal"), has referred the following question, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act"), for the opinion of this court :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the assessed is entitled to claim exemption for the pension of Rs. 1,21,819 received by him from the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund for the assessment year 1976-77 ?"

2. The factual position in a nutshell is as follows :

The assessed, a retired Assistant Director-General of the World Health Organisation (in short "WHO"), at the relevant point of time, i.e., the assessment year 1976-77, was in receipt of pension. The assessed claimed before the Income-tax Officer exemption in respect of the pension amount received from the WHO and referred to a decision of the Tribunal in the

case of Dr. P.L. Narula to substantiate the claim. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the stand vis-a-vis the conclusions of the Tribunal on the purported ground that reference in Dr. P.L. Nanda's case was pending before this court. The matter was carried in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (in short "the AAC"). The said authority allowed the assessed's claim relying on the Tribunal's decision in Dr. P.L. Nanda's case. The matter was carried in further appeal before the Tribunal by the Revenue. On consideration of the submissions made by the parties, the Tribunal held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's conclusions were in order and, therefore, dismissed the Revenue's appeal. As indicated above, on being moved for a reference, the question as stated above has been referred for the opinion of this court.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue. There is no appearance for the assessed in spite of service of notice.

4. The stand of the Revenue is that pension does not qualify for exemption. It is however fairly accepted that in the case of Dr. P.L. Narula to which the Tribunal had made reference, this court had upheld the Tribunal's conclusion in CIT v. Dr. P.L. Narula [1984] 150 ITR 21. Following the reasons indicated in the said case, with which we are in agreement, the question referred is answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessed and against the Revenue.

5. The reference stands disposed of accordingly.