2024 (9) TMI 1719 - AT - Income Tax

Relief u/sec. 89 - payment of ex-gratia compensation received - capital receipts or as profits in lieu of salary u/s 17(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 - HELD THAT - As recently decided in Ashok Raghunathrao Kulkarni 2024 (8) TMI 821 - ITAT PUNE the payment of ex-gratia compensation received by the assessee was voluntary in nature without there being any obligation on the part of the employer to pay further amounts to the assessee in terms of any service rule and therefore would not amount to compensation in terms of section 17(3) of the Act. We therefore set aside the order of the CIT (A) / NFAC and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed.

2025 (4) TMI 400 - AT

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues considered in this judgment are:

Whether the compensation received by the taxpayer under a voluntary retirement scheme should be classified as capital receipts or as profits in lieu of salary under Section 17(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Whether the taxpayer is entitled to tax relief under Section 89 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the compensation received.
Whether the principles of fair representation were violated due to the lack of opportunity for the taxpayer to make further legal submissions and personal representation.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Classification of Compensation

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The case hinges on the interpretation of Section 17(3) of the Income Tax Act, which defines "profits in lieu of salary" to include compensation received in connection with the termination of employment. The taxpayer argued that the compensation was a capital receipt, not taxable under Section 17(3), citing precedents such as the Calcutta High Court decision in CIT vs. Ajit Kumar Bose.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal considered the nature of the compensation received under the voluntary retirement scheme, noting that similar cases had treated such compensation as capital receipts. The Tribunal referenced previous judgments where ex-gratia payments were deemed voluntary and not compensation under Section 17(3).
Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal reviewed the terms of the Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. Financial Scheme, which indicated that the payments were voluntary and not obligatory under any service rule. The taxpayer provided evidence of similar cases where compensation was treated as capital receipts.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the legal principles from previous cases, concluding that the compensation was not "profits in lieu of salary" under Section 17(3) due to its voluntary nature.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal considered the Revenue's position but found no significant distinction in facts or law from previous cases that had ruled in favor of treating the compensation as capital receipts.
Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the compensation received by the taxpayer was a capital receipt, not taxable as profits in lieu of salary under Section 17(3).

Issue 2: Entitlement to Tax Relief under Section 89

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 89 of the Income Tax Act provides relief for salary received in arrears or in advance. The taxpayer initially claimed relief under this section but later argued that the compensation should be treated as a capital receipt.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the taxpayer had withdrawn the claim under Section 89, arguing instead for the classification of the compensation as a capital receipt.
Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that other employees in similar situations had their compensation treated as capital receipts, with no relief under Section 89 being applicable.
Application of Law to Facts: Given the classification of the compensation as a capital receipt, the Tribunal found that Section 89 relief was not applicable.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal did not find any compelling arguments from the Revenue to counter the taxpayer's position.
Conclusions: The Tribunal determined that the compensation did not qualify for relief under Section 89, as it was not taxable as salary income.

Issue 3: Fair Representation and Opportunity for Legal Submissions

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The principles of natural justice require that parties have a fair opportunity to present their case. The taxpayer argued that this was not provided.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal did not make a specific ruling on this procedural issue, as the substantive issues were resolved in favor of the taxpayer.
Key Evidence and Findings: The taxpayer claimed insufficient opportunity for representation, but the Tribunal focused on the substantive tax issues.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal's decision on the substantive issues rendered the procedural complaint moot.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal did not address competing arguments on this procedural issue, focusing instead on the substantive tax classification.
Conclusions: The Tribunal's decision on the substantive issues effectively resolved the procedural complaint.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Core Principles Established: The Tribunal reinforced the principle that compensation received under a voluntary retirement scheme can be classified as a capital receipt if it is voluntary and not obligatory under any service rule, thus not taxable under Section 17(3) of the Income Tax Act.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal allowed the taxpayer's appeal, classifying the compensation as a capital receipt and not subject to tax under Section 17(3). The claim for relief under Section 89 was deemed inapplicable due to the classification of the compensation as a capital receipt.
Verbatim Quote of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "As the payment of ex-gratia compensation was voluntary in nature without there being any obligation on the part of employer to pay further amount to assessee in terms of any service rule, it would not amount to compensation in terms of section 17(3)(i) of the Act."

← Previous Next →