Judgment:
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
This is a petition under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent- assessee was working as a Development Officer with the Life Insurance Corporation of India. He had claimed deduction at the rate of 50 per cent out of incentive bonus received by him. In the revised return the claim was reduced to 40 per cent. This claim having been finally accepted by the Tribunal the revenue has filed this petition. It prays that the Tribunal be directed to refer three questions of law to this court for opinion. Mr. Sawhney has pressed only the following question and states that the answer to this question would cover the entire controversy :
'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing the claim of the assessee on account of deduction of claim of the assessee on account of deduction at the rate of 40 per cent out of incentive bonus when this allowance forms part of salary in view of the provisions of section 17(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?'
2. On 8-4-2002, it was pointed out by the counsel for the revenue that the respondent had passed away. His legal representatives were impleaded. Mr. Kanwar Girdhar, one of the legal representatives, had appeared on 14-5-2002, The case was adjourned to enable him to engage a counsel, However, no one has put in appearance today.
3. Mr. Sawhney states that the issue as arising in this case is covered in favour of the revenue by the decision of this court in B.M. Parmar, Development Officer, LIC of India v. CIT .
4. It is the admitted position that the assessee has already passed away. It is also not disputed that the total claim made by the assessee was for an amount of Rs. 12,608. The tax effect shall not be more than Rs. 5,000. So far as the issue is concerned, it has already been settled by this court. So far as this case is concerned, we do not find that the efforts shall be worth the result. Ultimately, the widow and her children may have to spend more on litigation than the tax effect. Thus, in the circumstances of the case, we do not find any ground to direct the Tribunal to make a reference to this court.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.