TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dence is not considered which, if considered, would have led to an opposite conclusion, while the second situation in which interference is permissible is where a finding has been arrived at by placing reliance on inadmissible evidence which if it was omitted, an opposite conclusion was possible. Neither of these two situations arises in the present case. Therefore, on the basis of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court, no substantial question of law would arise on the finding of fact arrived at by the Commissioner and the Tribunal. We may add that no contention is urged that the finding of fact is in any manner perverse, which may warrant interference u/s 260A of the Act. Learned counsel for the Revenue has submitted that the am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o its employees. According to the Assessing Officer, tax on this amount was liable to be deducted by the assessee at source. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the contention urged was that citizens tax is a statutory levy on all Japanese citizens and is required to be withheld by the employer from the salary of the employee and paid over to the appropriate authority. It was said to be an overriding charge constituting a diversion of income at source from the salary to the extent of the amount payable and, therefore, it ought to be excluded from the computation of the taxable income. 6. While dealing with this argument, the Commissioner accepted the contention tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he obligation cannot be said to be a part of the income of the assessee. Where by the obligation income is diverted before it reaches the assessee, it is deductible; but where the income is required to be applied to discharge an obligation after such income reaches the assessee, the same consequence, in law, does not follow. It is the first kind of payment which can truly be excused and not the second. The second payment is merely an obligation to pay another a portion of one\qs own income, which has been received and is since applied. The first is a case in which the income never reaches the assessee, who even if he were to collect it, does so, not as part of his income, but for and on behalf of the person to whom it is pay able. 10. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finding of fact is in any manner perverse, which may warrant interference under section 260A of the Act. 13. Learned counsel for the Revenue has submitted that the amount of citizens tax really represents a part of the salary of the employees and, therefore, payment of that amount by the assessee really amounts to a perquisite in the hands of the employee. We are not in agreement with this contention in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Sitaldas Tirathdas [1961] 41 ITR 367, particularly because the amount does not even come into the hands of the employee at any point of time and is directly diverted by the assessee towards payment of citizens tax. 14. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that no substantial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
