B. GUPTA, A.M. These two appeals by above named assessee, who are brothers and Directors of M/s Pawa Brokers (P) Ltd. and M/s Pawa Industries Pvt. Ltd. does identical grounds and therefore, these are consolidated and disposed of by common order. In asst. yr. 1980-81, Shri Sushil Kumar Pawa and originally filed return of income of Rs. 1,14,870. Thereafter on 15th Jan., 1983 revised return had been filed showing value of perquisites of Rs. 4,079 also from employer companies. Similarly Shri Satish Kumar Pawa had filed return of income of Rs. 1,14,290 which had been subsequently revised on 15th Jan., 1983 by showing income of Rs. 120, 810, which included value of perquisites received from employer companies. Alongwith revised returns filed by two assessees and letters. dt. 15th Jan., 1983 had been furnished and it had been stated therein that since Directors had used car of company for personal purposes, perquisites representing free user of car may be included in total income. Accordingly, ITO adds sum of Rs. 3,600 in cases of each of two appellants as perquisite representing free user of car. Since conveyance had been provided to assessees, standard deduction under s. 16(i) of IT Act, 1961 had been restricted to Rs. 1,000 only. assessees felt aggrieved of addition on account of perquisite for free user of car and for curtailment of standard deduction which was fixed at Rs. 1,000 as against Rs. 3,500 which had been claimed by them. CIT(A) rejected appeals filed by two assessees as according to him assessment of perquisites was in order and in keeping with decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of Lakshmipat Singhania vs. CIT (1974) 93 ITR 162 (All). He further approved curtailment of standard deduction as according to him that was in keeping with provisions of s. 16. It is in background of these facts that assessee are in appeal raising common grounds. In effect it is contended by them that user of company's car did not amount to any perquisite and that in any case since it was unauthorised or casual perquisite, it was not assessable under s. 17. It is further identically contended in two petitions of appeals that there was no jurisdiction on part of ITO to curtail standard deduction and restrict it to Rs. 1,000 in two cases. Shri S.N. Mathur, ld. counsel for appellants has argued at length in support of above grounds. He has relied on decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in (1973) 91 ITR 90 (Mad) and submitted that unauthorised user of car by two Directors was not assessable as perquisite and as part of salaries of two Directors. He has further relied on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of CIT vs. L.W. Russel (1964) 53 ITR 91 (SC), in order to contend that perquisite by way of user of car did not form part of salary income. With regard to curtailment of standard deduction, ld. counsel has contended that provisions of s. 16 had been wrongly interpreted by lower authorities in order to restrict allowance to Rs. 1000 in each of two cases. On other hand Shri J.R. Malhotra, ld. departmental representative has relied upon order passed by CIT(A). We have considered rival submissions. So far as accessibility of value of perquisite enjoyed in shape of free use of car is concerned it was clearly assessable as part of total income of two assessees under s. 17. Apart from decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of Lakshmipat Singhania vs. CIT (1974) 93 ITR 162 (All) there are several decisions of ITAT reported in IAC vs. S. Gurmukh Singh (1984) 9 ITD 48 (Del), Virendra Madhavlal vs. ITO (1984) 8 ITD 666 (Bom) and ITO vs. Tukaram S. Pai (1983) 3 ITD 589 (Bang). Where it has been held that even though perquisite may not have been sanctioned to assessee in writing. It would be liable to assessment as perquisite provided in fact that perquisite was so enjoyed it has been admitted in letters sent on 15th Jan., 1983 that assessees were in enjoyment of perquisite in shape of free use of car. Even though subsequently different stand had been taken by letters dt. 25th Jan., 1983, fact remains that free use of car had been enjoyed by two appellants as Directors of companies. There may not have been any specific resolutions barring free use of car nu Directors. In other words, there was implied sanction of company which enabled Directors to have free use of car. If, in fact use of car had not been authorised company would have contemplated action against Directors or least that it could do was that it would have asked Directors not to use car for their personal purposes. That was never done. In these circumstances we are of view that sue of car by two Directors was not unauthorised. In these circumstances, decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court reported in CIT vs. Adaikappa Chettiar & Anr. (1973) 91 ITR 90 (Mad) on which reliance has been placed by appellant's counsel is of no avail. decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of L.W. Russel (1964) 53 ITR 91 (SC) also does not help case as made out by ld. counsel for appellants. facts in that case were wholly different. In that case, question involved was as to whether employer's share of contribution to pension scheme of employees was assessable as income under s. 7(1) of Indian IT Act, 1922. Their Lordships of Supreme Court held that until employee attained age of superannuation he did not acquire any vested right in employer's share of contribution and therefore, that was not assessable as income. We have not been able to discern as to how that decision helps case that has been made out. Having regard to decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court reported in (1974) 93 ITR 162 (All) and also having regard to ratio of three decisions of Tribunal reported in 3 ITD 589, 8 ITD 666 and 9 ITD 48 we are of view that free use of car by two Directors was certainly assessable as perquisite. It was neither casual perquisite nor unauthorised perquisite and therefore, IT Authorities were justified in assessing sum of Rs. 3600 as perquisite in hands of each of two assessees. We may also state here that as far as quantum of perquisite is concerned, no arguments have been addressed. As regards only other point in these two appeals we find that provisions of s. 16 had been properly understood by ITO and by CIT(A). It is clearly provided that where motor car is provided to assessee by his employer otherwise than wholly and exclusively for purpose of his official duties, deduction under s. 16 shall not exceed 1000. Since in present cases can had been provided or allowed to be used by Directors for their personal purposes, standard deduction was rightly fixed at Rs. 1000 in two cases. In result, both appeals are dismissed. *** SUSHIL KUMAR PAWA v. INCOME TAX OFFICER