1986 (4) TMI 41 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the phrase "service has been terminated" in clause (ii) of rule 8 of Part A of the Fourth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether resignation by an employee can be considered as termination of service under the said rule.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of the Phrase "Service Has Been Terminated":
The Tribunal referred the question to the High Court to determine whether the use of the words "service has been terminated" in clause (ii) of rule 8 of Part A of the Fourth Schedule of the Income-tax Act, 1961, includes termination by resignation. The assessee had resigned due to a reduction in status and mental agony caused by changes in the company's management. The Income-tax Officer included the accumulated provident fund balance in the assessee's total income, as the service period was less than five years and did not meet the conditions for exemption under rule 8.

The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the assessee's resignation was due to circumstances beyond his control, thereby qualifying for exemption under rule 8. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that resignation is distinct from termination of service and does not fall under the exemption criteria.

2. Resignation as Termination of Service:
The High Court examined whether resignation under duress or due to circumstances created by the employer can be considered as termination of service. The court noted that resignation is typically a voluntary act, but if compelled by the employer's actions, it might be regarded as termination. The court referenced several cases, including Raj Kumar v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court held that acceptance of resignation amounts to termination of employment.

The court also considered the case of Southern Roadways Ltd. v. K. Padmanabhan, where the resignation obtained under coercion was deemed termination under the Industrial Disputes Act. The court concluded that resignation, when influenced by the employer's actions, could be seen as termination of service.

Conclusion:
The High Court held that the Tribunal did not fully consider whether the resignation was due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. The court stated that if the Tribunal agrees with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's findings, the resignation should be treated as termination of service under rule 8(ii). Therefore, the court answered the reference in the negative, against the Department, and in favor of the assessee, instructing the Tribunal to reconsider the case in light of the observations made.

Summary:
The High Court of Rajasthan addressed the interpretation of "service has been terminated" in the context of an employee's resignation under rule 8 of Part A of the Fourth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961. It concluded that resignation due to circumstances beyond the employee's control might be considered termination of service. The court directed the Tribunal to re-evaluate the case based on the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's findings and the legal principles discussed.