ORDER
The matter has been placed before the court for appropriate orders as the revenue, at whose instance the reference has been made, has failed to file the paper books. Since, in our view, answer to the question referred stands concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court, we dispense with the filing of the paper books and proceed to dispose of the matter at this stage itself.
2. No one appears for the respondent-assessed. We have heard Mr. J.R. Goel, learned counsel for the revenue.
3. The Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the directors of the assessed company are governed only by the provisions of section 40(c) and not section 40A(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for taxing the excess perquisites in the hands of the assessed company?”
4. The issue whether in the case of the employee directors, section 40A(5) or section 40(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would be applicable, came up for consideration of the Apex Court in CIT v. Indian Engineering & Commercial Corpn. (P) Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 723 (SC) wherein it was held as under :
“The employees concerned herein also happen to be directors. The provision in clause (c) of section 40 applies to directors among others. Of course, section 40(c) is applicable only to companies whereas section 40A(5) is applicable to employees whether of companies or others. In the case of directors who are also employees, both the provisions will be attracted – the higher of the two ceilings has to be applied.”
5. The question referred is answered accordingly. The reference stands disposed of.