1979 (12) TMI 55 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of rule 8 of Part A of Sch. IV to the I.T. Act, 1961 regarding exclusion of accumulated balance from total income.
2. Determination of whether the assessee's resignation constituted termination of service beyond his control.
3. Consideration of the circumstances surrounding the resignation and its impact on the provident fund benefits.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, where the main issue revolved around the interpretation of rule 8 of Part A of Sch. IV. The assessee's service history with two companies, specifically in Burma, was a point of contention. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) contended that the assessee did not render continuous service for five years and therefore, the provident fund benefits were not applicable. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment under s. 143(3) and s. 174, determining the total income. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) considered the circumstances leading to the assessee's resignation, deeming it beyond his control, and applied rule 8(ii) to grant the benefit of exclusion from total income.

Upon appeal to the Tribunal, the revenue argued against the applicability of the rule, emphasizing the timing of resignation and employer's motives. The Tribunal, however, found in favor of the assessee, considering the circumstances of resignation and the employer's letter as justifying the exclusion under rule 8(ii). The Tribunal rejected the revenue's contentions regarding the employer's actions and the nature of service with the Burma company. The Tribunal directed the ITO to compute the provident fund balance based on the service in India, granting the necessary benefits under rule 8.

The Tribunal referred a question to the High Court regarding the justification of the assessee's entitlement to exclusion under rule 8. The High Court, based on the factual findings and interpretation of the rule, upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that the resignation was beyond the assessee's control and the exclusion applied. The judgment concluded with an affirmative answer to the question referred, ruling against the department. The judges, Sankar Prasad Mitra C.J. and S. C. Deb J., concurred on the decision without costs.