- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. J. Visalakshi.
Factual and Procedural Background
This is an application made under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking a direction to the Tribunal to state a case and refer the following question of law to this Court:
“Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right and had valid materials to hold that the ex gratia compensation of Rs. 63,230 received by the assessee consequent on his resignation from the employment is entitled to the relief under section 89(1) of the Income-tax Act?”
The Tribunal declined to make a reference on the ground that resignation also results in termination of service. The present opinion addresses whether the ex gratia compensation of Rs. 63,230, received consequent on resignation, is entitled to relief under section 89(1) read with section 17(3) of the Act. The text of sections 89(1) and 17(3) (as reproduced in the opinion) is considered in the decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the ex gratia compensation of Rs. 63,230 received by the assessee consequent on his resignation from employment is entitled to relief under section 89(1) of the Income-tax Act, having regard to the expression “termination of his employment” in section 17(3)(i).
Arguments of the Parties
Department's Arguments
- The Department took the stand that the meaning of “termination” should be confined to cases of voluntary retirement or superannuation (i.e., it should not include resignation).
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of other parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court's analysis centers on the interpretation of the words “termination of his employment” in section 17(3)(i) read with the relief provision in section 89(1). The opinion highlights the following reasoning points, stated in the text:
- “Termination of service” can occur in multiple ways: resignation, dismissal, compulsory retirement, or on attaining superannuation. The Court therefore rejects confining the meaning of “termination” only to voluntary retirement or superannuation.
- Sections 89(1) and 17(3) are characterized in the opinion as beneficial provisions intended to grant certain benefits to employees or persons in service. Consequently, their language should be construed so as to effectuate that object rather than restrict it.
- If the word “termination” were limited to voluntary retirement or superannuation, that restrictive meaning would frustrate the object of the beneficial clause and narrow its scope unjustifiably.
- The Tribunal's view—that resignation also results in termination of service and therefore falls within section 17(3)—is consistent with the beneficial purpose of the provisions and is thus justified.
- The Court also observes that if the ex gratia amount received on resignation were held not to fall under section 17(3), it could not properly be treated as taxable income arising from services (since it is not paid for services rendered) and would instead be a capital receipt; this point is used to underscore the inconsistency in the Department's stance with section 17(3).
Holding and Implications
Holding: The petition is rejected. The Court held that the Tribunal was justified in treating the ex gratia compensation of Rs. 63,230 received consequent on the assessee's resignation as falling within section 17(3) and therefore entitled to relief under section 89(1) of the Income-tax Act.
Implications:
- Direct effect: The assessee's ex gratia compensation of Rs. 63,230, paid consequent on resignation, is to be regarded as “profits in lieu of salary” under section 17(3) and is eligible for relief under section 89(1) as found by the Tribunal and affirmed by the Court.
- The opinion notes that the Department's attempt to confine “termination” to only certain modes (voluntary retirement or superannuation) is inconsistent with the statutory provisions; alternatively, if the payment were excluded from section 17(3), it would be a capital receipt and not taxable as income from services.
- No broader implications or declaration of new law beyond this interpretation are discussed in the text; the decision addresses the specific question raised and resolves the petition accordingly.
K.A Swami, C.J:— This is an application made under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), seeking a direction to the Tribunal to state a case and refer the following question of law to this court for opinion:
“Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right and had valid materials to hold that the ex gratia compensation of Rs. 63,230 received by the assessee consequent on his resignation from the employment is entitled to the relief under section 89(1) of the Income-tax Act?”
2. The Tribunal has declined to make a reference on the ground that even resignation also results in termination of service.
3. Therefore, it falls under section 89(1) read with section 17(3) of the Act. In view of this, the point for consideration is whether the ex gratia compensation of Rs. 63,230, received by the assessee, consequent on his resignation from employment, is entitled to the relief under section 89(1) of the Act. Section 89(1) and section 17(3) of the Act are as follows:
“89. (1) Where, by reason of any portion of an assessee's salary being paid in arrears or in advance or by reason of his having received in any one financial year salary for more than twelve months or a payment which under the provisions of clause (3) of section 17 is a profit, in lieu of salary, his income is assessed at a rate higher than that at which it would otherwise have been assessed, the Assessing Officer shall, on an application made to him in this behalf, grant such relief as may be prescribed.”
“17. (3) ‘Profits in lieu of salary’, includes—
(i) the amount of any compensation due to or received by an assessee from his employer or former employer at or in connection with the termination of his employment or the modification of the terms and conditions relating thereto;
(ii) any payment [other than any payment referred to in clause (10), clause (10A), clause (10B), clause (11), clause (12) or clause (13A) of section 10], due to or received by an assessee from an employer or a former employer or from a provident or other fund (not being an approved superannuation fund), to the extent to which it does not consist of contributions by the assessee or interest on such contributions.”
4. The other portions of section 89 are not relevant for our purpose. The question as to whether the assessee is entitled to the relief under section 89(1) would depend upon the interpretation to be placed on the words “termination of his employment” occurring in subsection 3(i) of section 17 of the Act. It is necessary to bear in mind that termination of service can take place either by resignation or by dismissal or by compulsory retirement or on attaining superannuation. That being so, we are of the view that there is no justification to confine the meaning of the word “termination” only to the case of either voluntary retirement or superannuation, as per the stand taken by the Department. It must be borne in mind that section 89(1) read with section 17(3) of the Act are beneficial clauses intended to grant certain benefits to employees or persons in service. Therefore, while placing interpretation on such clauses, the object with which such clauses are provided in the Act must be borne in mind, the object being to grant certain benefit to the person whose service is terminated. Therefore, if the meaning of the word “termination” is confined to cases of voluntary retirement or superannuation only, the object of the clause will not be fully achieved and it would amount to restricting the scope of the beneficial clause. Hence, we are of the view that the Tribunal is justified in holding that the ex gratia compensation of Us. 63,230, received by the assessee consequent on his resignation, is entitled to the relief under section 89(1) of the Act.
5. It may also be pointed out that if the ex gratia amount received by the assessee by reason of his resignation from employment is not held as falling under clause (3) of section 17 of the Act, it cannot also be construed as an income amenable to assessment to income-tax, because it is not the amount earned or paid for the service rendered, and as such it will be only a capital receipt. From this angle also, the stand of the Department cannot be considered to be consistent or in conformity with the provisions of section 17(3) of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be held that the stand taken by the Income-tax Department is in conformity with the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the petition is rejected.
Alert