TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - - Dated:- 11-12-2008 - SWATANTER KUMAR C. J. and N. A. BRITTO J. S.R. Revonkar for the appellant. V. Frank for the respondent. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by SWATANTER KUMAR C. J. - This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), directed against the order of the Tribunal, Panaji Bench, dated May 2, 2002. The appeal was admitted by an order of a Division Bench of this court on October 21, 2002, where it framed the following substantial questions of law: "(A) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material before the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the amount of Rs. 18,73,192 paid by the assessec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partment, the case of the assessee was not covered under permissible deductions under section 36(1)(ii) of the Act inasmuch as under the proviso, deductions permissible have to be within the specified limits of admissible bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act. 3. On the contrary, according to the assessee, there is no settled principles of law stated by the Division Bench of this court in Rajaram Bandekar and Sons (Shipping) P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 628, as contemplated under the first proviso to section 36(1)(ii) of the Act for the relevant assessment year 1988-89. There is no dispute regarding the proposition of law as stated by the Division Bench in Rajaram Bandekar and Sons (Shipping) P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 628 but the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is order dated September 26, 1990, on the basis of record produced before it returned the findings and accepted the contentions by noticing as under: "3. (vii) The appellant has been continuously paying 20 per cent. bonus for the last 10 years and this payment has become customary and necessary for the purpose of business. He points out that during the accounting year 1987-88 bonus was offered less and there was an agitation and subsequently the difference had to be paid to keep the business running. 6. Correctness of the said finding was never questioned by the Department. This order was challenged by the Revenue by filing an appeal. In the grounds of appeal submitted on behalf of the Department not even a whisper was raised that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the finding that such bonus was payable as a general practice followed in similar business or profession. 9. In the case of Workmen v. Kettlewell Bullen and Co. Ltd. [1994] 2 SCC 357, the Supreme Court, while considering the payment of customary bonus, held that where the bonus at a uniform rate of 10.5 per cent. of salary or wages was paid uniformly for an unbroken period of nine years from 1965 to 1973, which was a sufficiently long period, the Tribunal could have reasonably drawn an inference that the said bonus was customary or traditional bonus on the occasion of pooja festivals. 10. The finding in question being a primary finding of fact, there is no reason for us to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
