IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2008 / 4TH MAGHA 1929 ITA.No. 55 of 2001() -------------------- ITA.691/COCH/1995 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT / APPELLANT : ----------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON(SR.),SR.COUNSEL FOR IT SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------- SHRI.G.SUMANESAN, DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, LIC, KAYAMKULAM. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. ------------------------- I.T.A. No. 55 of 2001 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 24th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J. Even though the I.T.Appeal remains defective for the reason that notice is not served on the respondent assessee, we feel appeal can be disposed of on merits because the issue is already covered vide the Division Bench decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. T.K.Ginarajan, Development Officer, LIC of India, reported in 253 ITR 463. If notice is served on the respondent, it will not benefit him as this Court will certainly follow the Division Bench judgment and decide the matter accordingly. In the circumstances, this appeal is allowed by answering the question referred i.e. incentive bonus as part of salary in favour of the revenue and against the assessee and by reversing the order of the Tribunal. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) jg