9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the payment of Rs. 30,96,805 as retrenchment compensation to the employees of the company could be allowed as a deduction by holding it to be a revenue expenditure. Summary: 1. Background and Facts: The assessee, a non-resident sterling company, was engaged in prospecting and extracting petroleum and running a refinery in Assam. The Government of India granted the assessee prospecting licenses for new areas with the condition that these areas would eventually be transferred to a resident rupee company, Oil India Ltd. This transfer occurred in 1959, and the employees of the assessee working in the new areas were transferred to Oil India Ltd. without retrenchment compensation. Subsequently, the assessee's operations were restricted to Digboi fields, which were depleting, necessitating a reduction in manpower. 2. Voluntary Severance Scheme: To address overstaffing, the assessee introduced a voluntary severance scheme in 1966, offering financial incentives to surplus employees to resign. The scheme resulted in 312 employees resigning, and the assessee paid a total of Rs. 30,96,805 as compensation. 3. Initial Assessment and Appeals: The Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected the assessee's claim for deduction of the compensation amount, arguing that the scheme was selective, discretionary, and not a general scheme applicable to all employees. The ITO also held that the expenditure was capital in nature as it resulted in an enduring benefit to the assessee. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) allowed the deduction, finding that the payments were not related to the business transferred to Oil India Ltd. and were necessary for economy and efficiency. 4. Tribunal's Findings: The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal remanded the case for further examination, and after additional proceedings, upheld the AAC's decision. The Tribunal found that the compensation payments were business expenditures and did not confer any enduring benefit to the assessee. 5. Legal Question: The Revenue appealed, and the Tribunal referred the question of whether the retrenchment compensation could be allowed as a revenue expenditure to the High Court. 6. High Court's Analysis: The High Court considered various precedents, including Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT, CIT v. Gemini Cashew Sales Corporation, Indian Cable Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, and Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT. The Court concluded that the compensation payments were made for commercial expediency to effect economy and rationalisation of personnel, and did not result in any enduring benefit or creation of a new asset. 7. Conclusion: The High Court answered the question in the affirmative, holding that the payment of Rs. 30,96,805 as retrenchment compensation was a revenue expenditure and deductible. The findings of fact against the Revenue were conclusive and unchallenged, establishing that the payments were made to effect economy and rationalisation without resulting in any enduring benefit. Order: The question referred was answered in favor of the assessee, with no order as to costs.
|
