Hardeva Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment)

.....question not only having regard to pay packet the employee carries home at the end of the month but also other perks which are beneficial to the members of the entire family. loss caused to the family on a death of a near and dear one can hardly be compensated on monetary terms. section 168 uses the word just compensation which, in our opinion, should be assigned a broad meaning. it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the private sector companies in place of introducing a pension scheme takes recourse to payment of contributory provident fund, gratuity and other perks to attract the people who are efficient and hard working. different offers made to an officer by the employer, same may be either for the benefit of the employee himself or for the benefit of the entire family if some facilities are being provided whereby the entire family stands to benefit, the same, must be held to be relevant for the purpose of computation of total income on the basis whereof the amount of compensation payable for the death of the kith and kin of the applicants is required to be determined. the amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted. - the contention that the amount of interest received by the petitioner on the enhanced compensation cannot be split and assessed in the assessment years in dispute can as well be canvassed before the higher authority constituted under the act, if any assessment order is passed and the petitioner feels dissatisfied with it......under section 148 were invalid and, secondly, the petitioner had not been supplied the reasons in pursuance of which the notices under section 148 were issued. both these contentions were repelled by the court and the writ petition was dismissed. it appears, that the petitioners thereafter participated in the assessment proceedings. in paragraph 26 of the present writ petition it is, however, averred that the hearing in pursuance of the notices under section 148 has already been concluded and the assessment orders, if any, are awaited. on these facts the petitioner has chosen to institute this writ petition. the grounds for assailing thenotices under section 148 are the same which were urged in the earlierwrit petition though put in different form.2. we have considered the submissions urged before us on behalf of the petitioner. in our opinion, the petitioner is not entitled in law to institute a second writ petition on the same grounds on which the impugned notices were earlier assailed before this court. if the petitioner felt aggrieved by the decision rendered in the earlier writ petition the remedy of the petitioner lay to approach the higher court ; this court cannot sit in judgment over the earlier decision that was given by a division bench of this court. the contention that the amount of interest received by the petitioner on the enhanced compensation cannot be split and assessed in the assessment years in dispute can as well be canvassed before the higher authority constituted under the act, if any assessment order is passed and the petitioner feels dissatisfied with it. the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed without entering into the merits of the case.