Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Associated Film Industries (P.) Ltd. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....lecturers and full-time teachers for purpose of granting retrial benefits cannot be said to be unconstitutional or bad in law -- consumer protection act, 1986 -- article 16; right to pension held, it is true that the pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer. however, the right of pension is always subject to the rules. it is not inherent in the employment. though pension is a payment for a past service rendered and it is a social welfare measure, but it is well settled that an employee is not entitled to pension de hors the rules. in the instant case the government resolution dated 21.7.1983 held that the said pension scheme is only applicable to the employees covered therein. a part time teacher, unfortunately, is not covered by the said scheme and, therefore, not entitled. retirement benefit; differentiation between full time teachers and part-time lecturers government resolution providing for retrial benefits to full-time teaching staff part-time lecturer were not entitled to said benefit held, it is true that the pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer......orderr. p. garg, a. m. :this is an appeal by the revenue against the order of the cit(a), cancelling the penalty levied by the assessing officer under s. 273(a) of the it act, 1961, for the asst. yr. 1983-84.2. advance estimate was filed in this case on 22nd sept., 1982 and 11th march, 1983 and payments were made in accordance therewith. the assessment was completed on a higher income. the difference was attributed by the assessee to the demand made by the union on 6th march, 1982 led by dr. datta samant, president, maharashtra general kamgar union, demanding a substantial wage hike w.e.f. 1st april, 1982. labouring under this threat, the assessee apprehended that it would be saddled with heavy burden of liability, reducing its profit and this led it to file a lower estimate of advance tax. the matter was finally referred to arbitration and resulted in an amicable settlement on 14th nov., 1983, whereby the union agreed not to press retrospective effect to their demand and the additional wage liability was only to be prospective. these circumstances led the assessee to under-estimate its income for the purposes of payment of advance tax. this, in our opinion, was a reasonable.....

Judgment:

ORDER

R. P. GARG, A. M. :

This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A), cancelling the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under s. 273(a) of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yr. 1983-84.

2. Advance estimate was filed in this case on 22nd Sept., 1982 and 11th March, 1983 and payments were made in accordance therewith. The assessment was completed on a higher income. The difference was attributed by the assessee to the demand made by the Union on 6th March, 1982 led by Dr. Datta Samant, President, Maharashtra General Kamgar Union, demanding a substantial wage hike w.e.f. 1st April, 1982. Labouring under this threat, the assessee apprehended that it would be saddled with heavy burden of liability, reducing its profit and this led it to file a lower estimate of advance tax. The matter was finally referred to arbitration and resulted in an amicable settlement on 14th Nov., 1983, whereby the union agreed not to press retrospective effect to their demand and the additional wage liability was only to be prospective. These circumstances led the assessee to under-estimate its income for the purposes of payment of advance tax. This, in our opinion, was a reasonable cause, and the CIT(A), therefore, was justified in deleting the levy. We sustain his order.

3. The appeal is dismissed.