Deductibility of Notice Pay & Retrenchment Compensation Disallowed Under Income Tax Act

The High Court held that the payment of notice pay and retrenchment compensation made by the assessee-company after closing down its business was not deductible under the Income Tax Act as business expenditure. The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, disallowing the deduction claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, emphasizing that such payments were not necessary for carrying on the business but were related to the winding up or closure of the business. Judge Suhas Chandra Sen concurred with the outcome.

---

---

Issues involved: Interpretation of provisions of s. 25FFF of the I.D. Act, 1947 regarding notice pay and retrenchment compensation as deductible under s. 37 or s. 28 of the I.T. Act, 1961.

Summary:
The case pertains to the assessment year 1969-70 where the assessee-company decided to close down its printing business and paid notice pay and retrenchment compensation to its employees. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee, stating that the expenditure was not incurred in the course of business but after the closure of the business. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) allowed the deduction, considering the liabilities as ascertained on the date of closure. However, the Tribunal, after considering the Supreme Court ruling in CIT v. Gemini Cashew Sales Corporation [1967] 65 ITR 643, held that the payment made on closure of the business cannot be considered necessary for carrying on the business. The Tribunal reversed the AAC's decision and disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee for retrenchment compensation and notice pay, while allowing the deduction for money value of unavailed leave. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the payment was not for the purpose of carrying on the business but for winding up or closing down the business, hence not constituting business expenditure.

In conclusion, the High Court answered the question in the negative, in favor of the Revenue, and directed parties to bear their own costs. Judge Suhas Chandra Sen concurred with the decision.

---