9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Hence, this appeal. The facts in this appeal are that for the assessment year 2001-02, the assessee G.V. Venugopal filed return of income on July 5, 2001, declaring the total income of Rs. 3,33,280. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee has made inadmissible claim for relief under section 89(1) on the amount received from the employer in excess of Rs. 5,00,000 in lieu of the assessee's voluntary retirement/separation from the employment. The assessee had been an employee of the State Bank of India and had opted for voluntary retirement and was paid Rs. 5,85,072 by the employer under the special scheme of VRS framed in accordance with the guidelines described under rule 21A of the Income-tax Rules (In short "the Rules") This amount received by the assessee under the special VRS package was in addition to the regular retirement benefits such as gratuity, leave encashment salary, etc. The assessee claimed exemption of income of Rs. 5 lakhs from the said VRS amount under section 10(10C) of the Act and offered balance amount for tax as income from the salary. At the same time, the assessee also claimed relief of Rs. 8,883 under section 89(1) on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ided that the schemes of the said companies or authorities or societies or Universities or the Institutes referred to in sub-clauses (vii) and (viii) as the case may be, governing the payment of such amount are framed in accordance with such guidelines (including inter alia criteria of economic viability) as may be prescribed. Provided further that where exemption has been allowed to an employee under this clause for any assessment year, no exemption thereunder shall be allowed to him in relation to any other assessment year." The Assessing Officer held that: "Thus section 10(10C) gives a one time relief of maximum of Rs. 5 lakhs out of retirement benefit but it is restricted to one year only. Now the assessee is trying to claim further relief out of retirement benefit not only over and above Rs. 5 lakhs, but spread over earlier three assessment years also. Hence, the proviso to section 10(10C) is clearly violated if the assessee's version is accepted." In appeal the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was of the view that the Assessing Officer was not justified in disallowing the relief under section 89(1) in addition to exemption allowed under section 10(10C). The Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e aforesaid amount in the case of-an employee. The Finance Act incorporates the aforesaid intention in the law itself by providing that the amount exempt under section 10(10C) shall not exceed five lakh rupees. 16.2 The guidelines prescribed by the Board for framing the schemes of voluntary retirement further specify that the employee should not have availed of the benefit of any other voluntary retirement scheme in the past. It may be difficult for the employers to comply with this requirement where the employees do not disclose the fact of their having availed of such benefit in the past. It has, therefore, been provided that where exemption has been allowed to an employee under section 10(10C) for any assessment year, no exemption shall be allowed to him "thereunder" in relation to any other assessment year.' 5.3 Thus, 'thereunder' does not mean any section other than section 10(10C). This means the appellant is entitled for relief under section 89(1). Further, there is no specific or express provisions laid down in the Act that when exemption is allowed under section 10(10C), relief under section 89(1) is not allowable. In this connection, reference can be made to other provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 57] 8 STC 561 (SC); AIR 1957 SC 657, the Supreme Court of India stated the principles as follows: If the Revenue satisfies the court that the case falls strictly within the provisions of the law, the subject can be taxed. If, on the other hand, the case is not covered within the four corners of the provisions of the taxing statute no tax can be imposed by inference or by analogy or by trying to probe into the intentions of the Legislature and by considering what was the substance of the matter. Hence, in taxing statutes the language cannot be strained (State of Punjab v. Jullundur Vegetables Syndicate [1966] 17 STC 326 (SC); AIR 1966 SC 1295). If the words of a taxing statute fail, so must the tax. The courts cannot, except rarely and in clear cases, help the draftsman by a favourable construction ITO v. T.S. Devinatha Nadar [1968] 68 ITR 252 (SC); AIR 1968 SC 623 and CIT v. Elphinstone Spg. and Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. [1960] 40 ITR 142 (SC); AIR 1960 SC 1016. However, a fair and reasonable construction must be given: CWT v. Kripashankar Dayashanker Worah [1971] 81 ITR 763 (SC); AIR 1971 SC 2463 and R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 570 (SC)). In Innamuri Gopalam and Madda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the section used the word "resale" simpliciter, and hence it referred to all resales and could not limited to resales within Delhi alone. Thus, the Supreme Court went by the plain language of the statute, and did not speculate on the intention of the Legislature. In Hemraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave, Assistant Collector [1978] 2 ELT 350, the Supreme Court of India considered the language of a notification under the Central Excise Tariff and held that all that was required claiming an exemption was that the cotton fabric must be produced power looms owned by the co-operative society. There was no further requirement in the language of the notification that the cotton fabric must be produced by the society for itself. The Supreme Court refused to go into the question of the intention behind the exemption since the language the notification was clear. In Assessing Authority-cum-Excise and Taxation Officer v. East India Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1981] 48 STC 239 (SC) the concessional rate under the Punjab sales tax was payable if certain raw materials were used in the manufacture of goods for sale. The contention of the assessee was that the word used in the Act was "for sale" and not "for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for a statutory penalty (for making an incorrect return of income) of 20 pounds and trebling "the tax which he ought to be charged under this Act" referred not to the tax on the amount which the taxpayer had failed to declare, but to the whole tax which he ought to be charged for the relevant year, notwithstanding the extravagant consequences which flowed from giving the words their natural meaning. The Supreme Court of India has held that equity is out of place in tax laws (CIT v. V. MR. P. Firm, Muar [1965] 56 ITR 67 (SC); AIR 1965 SC 1216. See also Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 345 (SC)). In CIT v. Madho Pd. Jatia [1976] 105 ITR 179 (SC); [1976] SCC 92 it held that there could be no consideration of equity if the language of the provision was plain and clear, but where it was not, and two interpretations were possible, the one in consonance with equity and fairness should be preferred. Where the language of a provision is plain, courts cannot ordinarily concern themselves with the policy behind the provision, (Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan P. Ltd. v. Excise Commissioner, AIR 1971 SC 378) or the intention of the Legislature (ITO v. T.S. Devinatha Nadar [1968] 68 ITR 252 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tes. Hence, if the assessee is entitled to two benefits on the plain language of the statute, he has to be granted both those benefits. The Assessing Officer in his assessment order observed that once exemption is allowed under section 10(10C) no further exemption can be allowed in relation to any other assessment year in view of the proviso section 10(10C). We are of the opinion that the view taken by the Assessing Officer is clearly incorrect. The second proviso to section 10(10C) or refers to exemption claimed in any other assessment year. It is well settled that every assessment year is a self contained unit. The assessment year in question in the present case is 2001-02 and the exemption claimed is in respect of this assessment year, although the exemption granted under section 89(1) has been spread over several assessment years. The mere fact that the relief has been spread over several years, does not mean that the relief is not in respect of a particular assessment year. The Tribunal has rightly pointed out that in the Income-tax Act, there are several provisions granting twin or double benefits, while in other provisions, twin or double benefit has been specifically proh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
