Paramjit Kaur Sarao, Patiala V. ITO, Patiala

MA 15/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0451 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 12-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-06-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RANJIT SINGH
• Section: 10(10AA); 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO.15 /CHD/2013 (IN ITA NO.757/CHD/2012) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) PARAMJIT KAUR SARAO, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, # 1265/1, SUKHDASSPURA WARD 6, B-TANK, PATIALA. PATIALA. PAN : AIOPS-0837K (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI RANJIT SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA DATE OF HEARING : 07.06.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.06.2013 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: THE APPLICANT HAS FILED THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICAT ION FOR RECALLING THE ORDER DATED 27.12.2012 IN ITA NO. 757/CHD/2012 RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE GRIEVANCES OF THE APPLICANT AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL WERE AS UNDER: E. IN THE CITED CASE NEITHER THE HON'BLE HIGH CO URT , MADRAS HAS STATED THAT SALARY MEANS BASIC PAY NOR THE CBDT HAS EVEN SAID SALARY MEANS BASIC PAY. THE REFERENCE OF SEC 2 (H) OF THE FOURTH SCHEDULE PART (A) , IT IS THE WORD SALARY AND NOT B ASIC PAY. F. THE HON'BLE PB. AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIG ARH IN MANJIT SINGH SODHI V/S THE PUNJAB STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK AND OTHERS IN REGULAR SPA-69 OF 2005 HAS DECIDED THE TERM SALARY AS IT ALSO INCLUDES MEDICAL ALLOWANCE AND HOUSE RENT ALLOWANCE . G. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SALARY IS NOT A SINGL E WORD - IT IS A TERM CONSISTING OF MANY OTHER NOMENCLATURES AND SERVES A S BASIS FOR 2 2 CALCULATION OF OTHER BENEFITS LIKE DEARNESS ALLOWAN CE, HOUSE RENT, T.A. D.A. H. MOST IMPORTANT PROVIDENT FUND CONTRIBUTION DEPO SITED IN THE RECOGNIZED PROVIDENT FUND AND ALSO THE PENSION IS CALCULATED O N THE TERM SALARY AND NOT ONLY THE BASIC PAY. I. THE PAYMENTS OF GRATUITY AND LEAVE ENCASHMENT H AS BEEN MADE BY THE BANK (EMPLOYER) UNDER SEC. 10(10) AND 10 (10AA) OF THE ACT. NO EMPLOYER WOULD LIKE TO PAY MORE THAN THE LIABILITY. THERE ARE STATUTORY AU DITORS ,THE AUDITORS SUBMIT REPORT TO INCOME TAX AUTHORITY BUT NO SUCH REPORTING HAS E VER BEEN MADE. J. BI PARTITE SETTLEMENTS OF WAGE REVISION ARE SET TLEMENTS BETWEEN IBA (ON BEHALF OF GOVT.) AND DIFFERENT TRADE UNIONS (ON BEH ALF OF EMPLOYEES OF STATE BANK OF INDIA, ITS SUBSIDIARY BANKS AND MORE THAN 50A CLASS BANKS IN UNION OF INDIA)UNDER SEC.18(1) OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT-1947, READ WITH RULE 58 OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES CENTRAL RULES -1957. SALARY/PAY HAS BEEN DEFINED THEREIN, BANKS AND ASSESSING OFFICERS ARE ACCEPTING TERM SALARY / PAY DEFINED IN THE BI PARTITE SETTLEMENTS. H. BASIC PAY, SPECIAL PAY. FIXED PERSONAL PAY AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATION PAY ARE NOT OTHER ALLOWANCES AND PERQUISITES , WHICH ARE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE SALARY WHILE CALCULATING CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS PROVIDENT FUND UNDER SEC.2(C) OF THE FOURTH SCHEDULE OF PART A .THE TERM SALARY UNDERSTAND FOR AS PERIODICAL PAYMENTS FOR SERVICES RENDERED AND NOT ONLY BASIC PAY. 3. THE APPLICANT VIDE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICA TION IS AGGRIEVED BY THE MEANING OF THE WORD SALARY IN RELATION TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10(10) AND 10(10AA) OF THE ACT AND AL SO THE EXPLANATION, TO SECTION 10(10) OF THE ACT WHICH DEFINES SALARY A ND THE ISSUE HAS FURTHER BEEN DECIDED IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN K.GOPAL KRISHNAN VS. CBDT & OT HERS [206 ITR 83 (MAD)]. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE APPLICANT IS THAT THE MEANING OF THE WORK SALARY IS NOT BASIC SALARY BUT IS ENLARGED D EFINITION INCLUDING OTHER ALLOWANCES I.E. SPECIAL PAY, FIXED PERSONAL P AY ETC., AND SAME ARE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION OF SALARY. 4. WE FIND THAT THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATI ON HAS BEEN MOVED BY THE APPLICANT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL DATED 27.12.2012. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT LIMITED MANDATE IS AVAILABLE TO THE TRIBUNAL TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE TRIBUNAL TO REVIEW I TS EARLIER ORDER AND 3 3 REDECIDE THE ISSUE. IN THE ENTIRETY OF THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICA TION MOVED BY THE APPLICANT AS THE APPLICANT HAS REARGUED THE ISSUE A ND HENCE THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED B Y THE APPLICANT IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 12 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2013. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 12 TH JUNE, 2013 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH