TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 769X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee, Late M.K.S. Mohamed Abobacker Sahib, for the four assessment years, viz., 1986-87, 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92, against the common appellate order dated 25-11-1997 of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-V, Chennai, consist of identical grounds, the same were clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common and consolidated order, for the sake of brevity and convenience. 2. Following common grounds are raised by the revenue in all these appeals : 2.11 The CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of reward amount received by the assessee as an informer from the Customs. 2.12 The CIT(A) failed to note that the prime condition for exemption of the reward received by the assessee, viz., approval by Central Gov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roved by the Central Government, then also it is exempted from tax. For this, he relied on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of M.K. Mohamed Ebrahim v. ITO (Eleventh) [1983] 3 ITD 461. After considering the submissions made by the assessee, the Assessing Officer held that though the assessee claimed the amount was received by him as Gallantry award, it is seen from the records that it is a reward given to him for the meritorious services rendered by him to the Department in certain cases listed by them. Thus, the Assessing Officer treated these receipts from the Government as income in the hands of the assessee in the absence of any notification issued by the Government under section 10(17A)(ii) of the Income-tax Act. Aggrieved, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clusive decisions of Hon ble Supreme Court, in support of her argument for the proposition that definition of income is inclusive in nature : (1) CIT v. G.R. Karthikeyan [1993] ITR 8661 (SC) (2) Emil Webber v. CIT [1993] 200 ITR 4832 (SC) 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the assessee placed on record a copy of notification issued by Customs and Central Excise Commissionerate, Nagpur and drew our attention to the following specific sentence in the said Notification : This reward is exempted from income-tax. He also relied on the decision of the ITAT Bombay Bench in the case of M.K. Mohamed Ebrahim (supra) wherein similar issue was dealt with. Further, he also relied on the decision of Madras High Court in the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was right in holding that the reward granted by the Central Government was exempt under section 10(17B) of the Act. Further, the ITAT, Bombay Bench in the above cited case, has held that the amount received by a person from Customs authorities as a reward cannot be taxed. We find that though it is the normal duty of the income-tax personnel to comply with the statute in the normal course, the Government is giving reward for the successful completion of Voluntary Disclosure Scheme and such reward was held to be exempt under section 10(17B) of the IT Act. In our opinion, if the reward given to the income-tax personnel for the normal work done is exempted under section 10(17B), the reward received by the informer also stands on same footing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
