9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (10) TMI 697 - AT - Income TaxVoluntary Retirement Scheme - VRS - Rule 2BA - assessee in default section 201(1) - Assessee claimed that wherever any payment is made in excess of Rs.5 lacs has been made in regard to early bird incentives the tax has been deducted by the company on such payments and paid to the Govt - This aspect has already been remitted to the Assessing Officer for verification of the veracity of the statement - Thus it is also not the case of the Assessing Officer that company has failed to deduct and paid the tax for good and sufficient reasons - Assessee has clearly demonstrated that it had good sufficient reasons for non-deduction of tax for payment of VRS upto Rs.5 lacs - As per the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Nestle India Ltd. (2000 -TMI - 15273 - DELHI High Court) has dismissed the revenue s appeal - Do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in this regard and uphold the same - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Conformity of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) with Rule 2BA of the Income Tax Rules. 2. Applicability of Section 10(10C) exemption for amounts exceeding specified limits. 3. Treatment of the assessee as in default for non-deduction of tax at source. 4. Charging of interest under Section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Conformity of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) with Rule 2BA of the Income Tax Rules: The primary issue raised by the revenue was whether the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) introduced by the company adhered to Rule 2BA of the Income Tax Rules. The Assessing Officer (AO) concluded that the scheme did not conform to Rule 2BA because: - Salary payments exceeded three months for several workers. - Payments exceeded Rs. 5 lakhs for multiple employees. - The scheme was not uniformly applicable to all employees, granting additional benefits to those opting for early retirement. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) disagreed with the AO, referencing Circular No. 640 issued by CBDT and the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Arun Kumar Makwana (286 ITR 502). The CIT(A) held that the scheme was in conformity with Rule 2BA and the provisions of the Act, stating, "The payments made by the Company under the VRS can; under no stretch of imagination, be treated 'as profit in lieu of salary.'" 2. Applicability of Section 10(10C) Exemption for Amounts Exceeding Specified Limits: The AO contended that payments exceeding Rs. 5 lakhs per employee were not eligible for exemption under Section 10(10C). The CIT(A) clarified that only the excess amount above Rs. 5 lakhs is subject to income tax, as per Circular No. 640, Question No. 6. The CIT(A) directed the AO to verify that tax was deducted on amounts exceeding Rs. 5 lakhs and to charge interest under Section 201(1A) for any delay or short deduction. 3. Treatment of the Assessee as in Default for Non-deduction of Tax at Source: The AO treated the company as an assessee in default for not deducting tax on VRS payments, invoking Sections 201(1) and 201(1A). The CIT(A) referred to judicial precedents, including the Delhi Tribunal's decision in Nestle India Ltd. (61 ITD 444), emphasizing that the company acted in good faith and had "good and sufficient reasons" for its belief that the payments were exempt. The CIT(A) concluded, "There is no scope to treat the appellant as assessee in default as provided in section 201(1) of the Act." 4. Charging of Interest under Section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act: The CIT(A) noted that the charging of interest under Section 201(1A) is consequential. The CIT(A) directed the AO to verify the company's compliance with TDS provisions and charge interest accordingly. The CIT(A) reiterated that the company's belief in the non-taxability of certain payments was bona fide and based on a fair estimate. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the revenue's appeals. The Tribunal found that the VRS scheme was in conformity with Rule 2BA and that the company had acted in good faith regarding TDS deductions. The Tribunal emphasized that the company's conduct was not mala fide and that the CIT(A)'s directions for verification and interest charging were appropriate. The appeals were dismissed, with the order pronounced in open court on 22.10.2010.
|
