2022 (5) TMI 1176 - AT - Income Tax

Tax Tribunal: Lump sum payment = advance salary, not termination compensation. Relief under Income Tax Act

Suryaji Shriram Patekar Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 34 (3), Mumbai

The Tribunal concluded that the lump sum payment received by the assessee should be treated as advance salary, not compensation on termination. Therefore, ... Eligibility of relief u/s 89 r.w. Rule 21A of I.T. Rules - compensation received by the assessee as only salary received in advance OR or as 'compensation on termination of employment' - case selected for limited scrutiny - assessee has submitted Form 10E in support of his claim of relief u/s 89(1), along with copy of Form 16 issued by the employer, Century Textiles and Industries Ltd.- 'Company', after incurring heavy losses shut down its Worli Textile Mill unit in 2008. Around 6,300 of its 6600 of the mill workers opted for the voluntary retirement scheme, assessee is one of the 275 who opposed the closure of the mill and did not opt for the VRS scheme declared by the Company - admissibility of assessee's claim of treating the amount paid by the Company as 'salary in advance' or as 'compensation on termination of employment' would determine whether the mode of computation of relief u/s,89(1) falls under sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (4) of Rule 21A. HELD THAT:- We find that this issue is no longer res integra in view of the Co-ordinate Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of Rajesh Shantaram Chavan [2022 (4) TMI 1179 - ITAT MUMBAI] as decided to treat the compensation received by the assessee as only salary received in advance. Therefore, we direct the AO to allow the claim of the assessee u/s. 89 r.w. Rule 21A of I.T. Rules. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Issues Involved:1. Whether the payment received by the assessee should be treated as 'advance salary' or 'compensation on termination of employment' for the purpose of relief under Section 89(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Detailed Analysis:Background and Facts:The assessee filed a return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 and subsequently revised it. The case was selected for scrutiny to examine the issue of relief under Section 89(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, related to compensation received from his former employer, Century Textiles and Industries Ltd. The company had shut down its Worli Textile Mill unit in 2008, and the assessee, one of the 275 employees who did not opt for the VRS scheme, was offered a lump sum ex-gratia payment in lieu of future payments up to the age of 63.Issue 1: Nature of Payment - Advance Salary vs. Compensation on TerminationThe primary issue was whether the lump sum payment received by the assessee should be considered as 'advance salary' or 'compensation on termination of employment.' The assessee claimed the payment as advance salary and sought relief under Section 89(1) read with Rule 21A(1)(a), which pertains to arrears or advance of salary. The Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] treated it as compensation on termination of employment and granted relief under Rule 21A(1)(c), limiting the relief to Rs. 2,97,711/-.The AO issued a notice under Section 133(6) to the company for clarification. The company confirmed that the payment was a one-time lump sum ex-gratia amount, deemed as salary paid in advance, and deducted TDS accordingly. Despite this, the AO and CIT(A) treated the payment as compensation on termination, not as advance salary.Tribunal's Findings:The Tribunal referred to a similar case involving another employee of Century Textiles and Industries Ltd., where the payment was treated as advance salary. The Tribunal noted that the company had treated the payment as salary paid in advance, issued Form 16, and deducted TDS under Section 192. The Tribunal emphasized that the compensation was calculated based on the remaining period of service until the age of 63, indicating it was salary in advance.The Tribunal also cited the Supreme Court's decision in V.D. Talwar v. CIT, where it was held that payments made under the terms of a contract, even if labeled as compensation, should be treated as salary if they represent remuneration for services.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the lump sum payment received by the assessee should be treated as advance salary, not as compensation on termination. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to relief under Section 89(1) read with Rule 21A(1)(a). The appeal was allowed, and the AO was directed to grant the relief accordingly.Summary:The Tribunal determined that the lump sum payment received by the assessee from his former employer should be treated as advance salary rather than compensation on termination of employment. Consequently, the assessee was entitled to relief under Section 89(1) read with Rule 21A(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was allowed, and the AO was directed to grant the relief as claimed by the assessee.