1982 (12) TMI 55 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Taxability of refund of contribution from superannuation fund received by an employee.
2. Interpretation of relevant provisions under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Application of section 17(3)(ii) and section 10(13) in determining tax liability.
4. Burden of proof on the department to establish taxability of income.
5. Exclusion of amount received from an approved superannuation fund from tax liability.
6. Applicability of rule 6 of Part B of Fourth Schedule in tax deduction.

Analysis:

The judgment addresses the issue of taxability concerning the refund of contribution from a superannuation fund received by an employee. The assessee claimed the amount as a capital receipt, contending it was not taxable. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disagreed, citing rule 6 of Part B of Fourth Schedule and section 10(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that section 17(3)(ii) excludes such amounts from being treated as 'profit in lieu of salary' and directed the ITO to exclude it. The revenue appealed this decision. The departmental representative argued that since the employer deducted tax, the amount was taxable. However, the assessee's counsel maintained that without a specific provision, the amount cannot be taxed.

The Tribunal examined the relevant provisions, including section 17(3), section 10(13), and rule 6 of Part B of Fourth Schedule. It noted that under section 17(3)(ii), payments from an approved superannuation fund are excluded from 'profit in lieu of salary.' The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the department to establish tax liability. It highlighted the absence of a provision to tax the received amount and the exclusion under section 17(3)(ii) for approved superannuation funds. The Chokshi Committee's recommendation to recast the provisions was also considered.

Regarding the applicability of rule 6 of Part B of Fourth Schedule, the Tribunal clarified that it only prescribes tax deduction rates under section 192(5) and does not apply if the assessee falls under section 10(13). Since the assessee's case fell under section 10(13)(iv) due to leaving the service voluntarily, rule 6 was deemed inapplicable. The Tribunal concluded that the received amount was not taxable under section 17(3)(ii) and could not be considered income from other sources. Consequently, it upheld the AAC's decision to exclude the amount from tax liability, dismissing the revenue's appeal.