1978 (1) TMI 52 - HC - Income Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the sum of Rs. 53,333 paid as gratuity to Mr. Knight was allowable as a deduction under the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Facts and Background:
The case concerns the income-tax assessment of Messrs. Chloride and Exide Batteries (Eastern) Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 1963-64. The company paid Rs. 53,333 as gratuity to Mr. Knight, the manager of its Bombay branch, upon his retirement. The payment was shown under "Salaries, wages and bonus amount" in the company's accounts. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the deduction of this amount, stating there was no general resolution or policy for gratuity payments to senior staff and no evidence that the payment was made exclusively out of business consideration.

2. Appellate Assistant Commissioner's Findings:
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the Income-tax Officer's decision, noting there was no contractual obligation to pay gratuity to Knight, no general resolution for gratuity payments to senior executives, and no prior payments of gratuity to senior executives. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Gordon Woodroffe Leather Manufacturing Company v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1962] 44 ITR 551 were applied.

3. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal considered additional documents, including a letter dated September 26, 1961, and a resolution dated February 19, 1962, and found that Knight had prior knowledge of the gratuity payment. The Tribunal concluded that the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in Gordon Woodroffe Leather Manufacturing Co. were fulfilled and allowed the deduction.

4. Question Referred:
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 53,333 paid as gratuity to Mr. Knight was allowable as deduction?"

5. Revenue's Argument:
Mr. A. K. Sengupta, counsel for the revenue, argued that the chart filed did not show a basis for the lump sum payment to Knight, who joined the assessee in 1950, and that the payment was not made out of business considerations. He contended that the Tribunal did not inquire whether the amount was expended wholly and exclusively for business purposes and that the tests laid down by the Supreme Court should be construed conjunctively.

6. Assessee's Argument:
Dr. Debi Pal, counsel for the assessee, argued that the employee had a reasonable expectation of receiving the gratuity, the payment was bona fide, and the amount was not excessive. He contended that the tests laid down by the Supreme Court were disjunctive and alternative, not conjunctive.

7. Supreme Court's Decision in Gordon Woodroffe Leather Manufacturing Co.:
The Supreme Court held that for a gratuity payment to be deductible, it must be made as a matter of practice affecting salary, expected by the employee, or expended on the ground of commercial expediency. The payment in question was voluntary and not in pursuance of any scheme or expectation, thus not deductible.

8. High Court's Analysis and Conclusion:
The High Court found that the Tribunal's conclusion was based on evidence that the assessee had a practice of paying gratuity since 1959, Knight was informed of the gratuity payment during his service, and a resolution was passed by the board. The Court held that the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in Gordon Woodroffe Leather Manufacturing Co. were disjunctive and alternative. The expectation test was directly satisfied, and the commercial expediency test was indirectly satisfied. The Court concluded that the payment was admissible as a deduction under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Judgment:
The High Court answered the question in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee, stating that the sum of Rs. 53,333 paid as gratuity to Mr. Knight was allowable as a deduction. The reference was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →