2011 (5) TMI 442 - AT - Income Tax

Exemption of leave encashment and gratuity - As per the decision of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. D.P. Malhotra 1997 -TMI - 17389 - BOMBAY High Court , held that since the assessee has resigned from M/s Hygenic Research Institute on 31-12-2004, the assessee is entitled to the exemption of leave encashment u/s 10(10AA)(ii) and gratuity u/s 10(10)(iii) of the Act - However, in the absence of any calculation and the limit as provided by the Central Government by notification in the official gazette as mentioned in the respective sub-sections, are of the view that the matter should go back to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the same afresh in the light of our directions given hereinabove and according to law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee - The grounds taken by the assessee are, therefore, partly allowed for statistical purpose. Interest u/s 234A and 234B - perusing the material available on record and keeping in view the submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee that the consequential relief be allowed to the assessee in respect of levy of interest u/s 234A and 234B, we hold and order accordingly - The grounds taken by the assessee are therefore partly allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for exemption under sections 10(10AA)(ii) and 10(10)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Application of the Supreme Court's decision in McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO.
3. Levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for Exemption under Sections 10(10AA)(ii) and 10(10)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:

The primary issue revolves around whether the assessee, who resigned as CEO of M/s Hygenic Research Institute, is entitled to exemptions for leave encashment and gratuity under sections 10(10AA)(ii) and 10(10)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the exemption, interpreting that these sections apply only to retirement and not resignation. The AO relied on the Tribunal's decision in ITO v. Capt. S.S. Dhillon, which distinguished between resignation and retirement. The AO also argued that the arrangement was a ploy to evade tax since the assessee continued in the same job profile without any break.

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the AO's decision, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO, which condemned tax avoidance schemes as colorable devices.

However, the assessee argued that the High Court's decision in CIT v. D.P. Malhotra, which stated that resignation falls within the ambit of "retirement" for the purposes of section 10(10AA), should apply. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's interpretation, noting that resignation results in the conclusion of the service career, similar to retirement. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in applying McDowell & Co. Ltd., as the assessee's actions were within legal bounds and supported by jurisdictional High Court precedent.

2. Application of the Supreme Court's Decision in McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO:

The CIT(A) invoked McDowell & Co. Ltd. to argue that the assessee's arrangement was a colorable device to evade tax. However, the Tribunal distinguished the present case from McDowell, noting that the transactions in question did not violate any legal provisions. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Azadi Bachao Andolan, which clarified that legally permissible transactions reducing tax liability cannot be deemed illegitimate. Thus, the Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) wrongly applied McDowell & Co. Ltd. to the assessee's case.

3. Levy of Interest under Sections 234A and 234B:

The assessee also contested the levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, directed that consequential relief be provided to the assessee regarding the interest levied under these sections, based on the outcome of the reassessment.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that the assessee is entitled to the exemptions for leave encashment and gratuity under sections 10(10AA)(ii) and 10(10)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in line with the High Court's decision in D.P. Malhotra. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh examination of the calculations and limits as prescribed by the Central Government. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, and consequential relief was granted regarding the interest levied under sections 234A and 234B.

← Previous Next →