Back
2008 Supreme(Gau) 78
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Anima Hazarika, J.
Abdur Rahman -Appellant
Versus
Dealer Selection Board (Assam and Manipur) and Ors. -Resopndent
W.P.(C) No. 4890 of 2001
Decided On : 01-02-2008
M.Jain, M.Khataniar, P.Bora, P.P.Baruah, R.J.Saikia, S.Senapati, I.Choudhury, G.N.Sahewalla, K.N.Choudhury, A.K.Goswami
The definition of gross total income under the Income-tax Act and the permissibility of deductions for expenses and salaries.
Headnote:
Gross Income - LPG Dealership Selection - Income-tax Act, 1947, Section 2(24); Income-tax Act, Section 80B(5) - The court discussed the definition of gross total income under the Income-tax Act and held that depreciation, expenses, and salaries are deductible from the gross total income. The court dismissed the case as the petitioner failed to establish a favorable case.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner challenged the decision of the Dealer Selection Board for selecting respondent No. 5 as the first nominee for LPG dealership, alleging that respondent No. 5's gross income exceeded the specified limit.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the definition of gross total income under the Income-tax Act should be applied, and deductions for expenses and salaries are permissible. The court dismissed the case as the petitioner failed to establish a favorable case.
Issues: The determination of what constitutes 'Gross Income' as stipulated in the notice inviting application for LPG dealership.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the definition of gross total income under the Income-tax Act and held that deductions for expenses and salaries are permissible.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the case as the petitioner failed to establish a favorable case.
2. The pleaded case of the petitioner, in short, is that, the respondent No. 4, i.e., the Territorial Manager (Retail) BPL published a notice inviting application for LPG distributorship of Bharat Gas manufactured by the respondent No. 2 for various places under open category as well as under reserved category. The date of submission of the application was fixed within 24.11.2000. One of the condition amongst others, mentioned in the notice, stipulated that the gross income of the family of the candidate should not exceed Rs. 2 lakhs for the last financial year, i.e., 1999-2000, as specified in the advertisement. It was also made clear therein that the income for this purpose will include that of self, spouse and dependent children.
3. In pursuance to the aforesaid notice, the writ petitioner as well, as Respondent No. 5 had submitted their applications under open category along with other candidates for dealership at Moranhat. The petitioner was asked to appear in an interview fixed on 22.6.2001 along with original documents. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the Interview Board on the fixed date.
4. Subsequently, the Dealer Selection Board (respondent No. 1) short listed 3 candidates for Moranhat location under the open category placing respondent No. 5 in the first position, the writ petitioner in the second position and one Dhrubajit Chetia at third position.
5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid selection, the writ petitioner has challenged the decision of the Dealer Selection Board in the present proceedings as mentioned herein above.
6. Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. M. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P.P. Barua, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5, Mr. P.J. Saikia and Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
7. The main grievance of the petitioner is that, as per the condition of the notice, gross income of the family of the candidate should not exceed Rs.2 lakhs for the last financial year, i.e., 1999-2000. However, the gross income of the respondent No. 5 for the last financial year, i.e., 1999-2000 was more than Rs. 2 lakhs which has been suppressed by him. Since the respondent No. 5 is not eligible to submit an application for the dealership of LPG under open category, as his gross income exceed Rs. 2 lakhs in the last financial year, the selection of respondent No. 5 and placing his name against serial No. I in the list in order of merit is illegal and therefore his name from the list is liable to be struck off.
8. Appearing for the writ petitioner, Mr. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel referring to various provision of Income-tax Act as well as Assam Profession Tariff, Calculation and Implementation Tax Act, 1947 has submitted that respondent No. 5 being proprietor of the firm in the name and style "Brahmaputra Valley Construction and Suppliers" carrying the carriage and transport business on lease to various corporations like ONGCL etc. and therefore, the total income would be assessed under the income head "Profits or gains of business or profession." In the income-tax return submitted by respondent No. 5, it has become apparently clear that the gross income of the respondent No. 5 is the bill received from the various corporations, viz. ONGCL etc. with respect to Tankers, Trailers etc. from the vehicles is about Rs. 33 lakhs but the income taken into consideration by the respondent authorities, i.e., the Dealer Selection Board is the computed taxable income, i.e., net income of respondent No. 5. Therefore, respondent authorities erred
