2025 (1) TMI 1537 - AT - Income Tax

Relief u/s 89 - compensation on termination of employment - treated as capital receipts/payments to the employees who were affected depending on the balance service left on their service records - assessee submitted Form 10E before the AO showing the calculation of relief u/s 89 - HELD THAT - We have perused the order of the Tribunal in the case of Ashok Raghunathrao Kulkarni 2024 (8) TMI 821 - ITAT PUNE wherein the Tribunal has set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and directed the AO to delete the impugned addition. Thus we set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and direct the Ld. AO to delete the addition. Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues considered in this judgment are:

• Whether the amounts received by the assessee from Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. under the financial scheme for employees at Aurangabad are to be treated as capital receipts or as profits in lieu of salary under section 17(3) of the Income Tax Act.
• Whether the relief under section 89 of the Income Tax Act was correctly denied by the Assessing Officer (AO) and upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)).
• Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's disallowance of claims under sections 10(5) and 10(10C) of the Act.
• Whether the assessment completed by the AO was biased and unlawful, violating principles of natural justice and reasonable opportunity.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Treatment of Amounts Received as Capital Receipts vs. Profits in Lieu of Salary

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The primary legal question revolves around the classification of the amounts received by the assessee under the financial scheme as capital receipts or profits in lieu of salary under section 17(3) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal referenced several judicial precedents, including decisions from the Pune ITAT, Calcutta High Court, and Delhi High Court, which have held that voluntary payments made by employers, not conditioned by any legal obligation, are capital receipts and not taxable as income.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that the payments made by Pfizer were voluntary and not linked to any contractual obligation. The scheme was offered on humanitarian grounds due to the company's decision to cease operations at the Aurangabad plant.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal considered the financial scheme's terms, which indicated that the payments were made voluntarily and not as compensation for services rendered. The scheme was a voluntary offer from Pfizer, and the payments were not linked to any legal obligation under the employment contract.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the legal principles established in previous judgments to conclude that the payments received by the assessee were capital receipts. This conclusion was bolstered by the fact that similar payments to other employees were treated as capital receipts in reopening assessments by the AO.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the payments were profits in lieu of salary, noting the absence of any legal obligation for Pfizer to make such payments.
• Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the payments received by the assessee were capital receipts and not taxable under section 17(3) of the Act.

2. Denial of Relief under Section 89

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 89 of the Income Tax Act provides relief for arrears or advance salary. The AO denied relief under this section, arguing that the payments were not salary in advance but compensation for termination.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal agreed with the AO's interpretation that section 89 was not applicable as the payments were not salary in advance.
• Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the denial of relief under section 89, aligning with the AO's reasoning.

3. Disallowance of Claims under Sections 10(5) and 10(10C)

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Sections 10(5) and 10(10C) provide for certain exemptions. The AO disallowed claims under these sections, which was upheld by the CIT(A).
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal did not specifically address these disallowances in detail, as the primary focus was on the classification of the payments as capital receipts.
• Conclusions: The Tribunal's decision on the primary issue rendered these disallowances academic, and they were not further adjudicated.

4. Alleged Bias and Unlawful Assessment

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The principles of natural justice and reasonable opportunity are fundamental to fair assessments.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal did not find substantial evidence of bias or unlawful conduct by the AO. The focus was on the legal classification of the payments.
• Conclusions: The Tribunal did not find merit in the allegations of bias and upheld the assessment process as lawful.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Core Principles Established: The Tribunal reaffirmed the principle that voluntary payments made by an employer without any legal obligation are capital receipts and not taxable as income under section 17(3) of the Income Tax Act.
• Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and directed the AO to delete the addition, treating the payments as capital receipts. The denial of relief under section 89 was upheld, and other grounds were rendered academic or dismissed as not pressed.

The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, with the Tribunal directing the deletion of the addition and classification of the payments as capital receipts.