Tribunal rules lump sum payment as advance salary, not termination compensation, favoring taxpayer's relief claim.

The tribunal determined that the lump sum payment received should be treated as "salary received in advance" rather than "compensation on termination of employment." Consequently, the relief under Section 89(1) was to be computed as per Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21A, favoring the assessee's claim. The appeal was allowed, and the order was pronounced on 22.04.2022.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the nature of the payment received by the assessee - whether it is "advance salary" or "compensation on termination of employment."
2. Computation of relief under Section 89(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of the Nature of Payment:
The primary issue revolves around whether the lump sum ex-gratia payment received by the assessee should be treated as "advance salary" or "compensation on termination of employment." The assessee, an ex-employee of a company, received a one-time lump sum payment as per a supplementary agreement dated 25/11/2016. The company had earlier shut down its Worli Textile Mill Unit in 2008, and the assessee, along with 275 other employees, did not opt for the voluntary retirement scheme. Instead, these employees entered into individual agreements with the company, which included a clause that they would receive monthly payments until they reached 63 years of age. The company later offered a lump sum payment in lieu of these monthly payments, which was accepted by the assessee.

The assessee argued that this lump sum payment constituted "advance salary" for the period from 2017-18 to 2036-37, while the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] treated it as "compensation on termination of employment." The AO referred to the company's letter and the supplementary agreement, which described the payment as a one-time lump sum ex-gratia amount deemed as "salary" paid in advance. However, the AO concluded that the payment was compensation in connection with the termination of employment, falling under Section 17(3)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which defines "profits in lieu of salary."

2. Computation of Relief under Section 89(1):
The second issue pertains to the computation of relief under Section 89(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee claimed relief under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which pertains to arrears or advance of salary. The assessee spread the lump sum amount over the years from 2017-18 to 2036-37 and computed the relief accordingly. However, the AO and CIT(A) computed the relief under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 21A, which pertains to compensation on termination of employment. This resulted in a significantly lower relief amount for the assessee.

The appellate tribunal considered the facts and submissions, including the company's treatment of the payment as "salary" and the issuance of Form 16 certifying the deduction of tax at source. The tribunal also reviewed the relevant case law, including the Supreme Court decision in V.D. Talwar v. CIT, which supported the assessee's position that the payment should be treated as "salary" rather than compensation for loss of employment.

Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that the lump sum payment received by the assessee should be treated as "salary received in advance" and not as "compensation on termination of employment." Consequently, the tribunal directed the AO to recompute the relief under Section 89(1) as per Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21A, allowing the assessee's claim. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 22.04.2022.

---