Commissioner of Income Tax vs V. SEKAR

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.

The question referred to us at the instance of the revenue is :

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that 80% of the additional conveyance

allowance should be allowed as a deduction?

The assessment year is 1986-87.

The assessee is Development Officer in Life Insurance Corporation. The assessee claimed that additional conveyance allowance received by

him should be allowed as a deduction. The assessing officer rejected that claim. On appeal by the assessee, the Deputy Commissioner, following

its earlier decision has held that 2096 of additional conveyance allowance should be allowed as a deduction. The Appellate Tribunal following the

decision of the Tribunal held that 8096 of the additional conveyance allowance should be allowed as a deduction. Hence, the reference at the

instance of the revenue.

The issue involved in this case has already been considered by this court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. P. Arangasamy and

Others, wherein this court held that, ""the Development Officer is not an independent contractor nor is he partner with the LIC in the business of life

insurance by reason of the fact that he is able to reduce the percentage of the expenditure incurred on him in relation to the premium income

generated by him to a figure below 20 per cent. As a full time employee, the Development Officer receives salary and that salary is liable to suffer a

decrease if his efficiency falls below a standard which is measured by the cost ratio. He is given an incentive for efficient performance which has

resulted in the cost ratio being brought down. The amount paid as incentive, the amount paid as remuneration as also the amount paid after

deducting the disincentives constitute the salary in the hands of the employees receiving those amount. Such payments do not have any other legal

character"". By holding so, the Bench answered the question in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.

In the light of the above decision, we answer the question referred to in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.