THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. B.L.RAMSISARIA,259/7,PANCHKULA

ITA No. 201 of 2002 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 201 of 2002 (O&M) Date of Decision: 31.03.2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula .......Appellant Versus Sh. B.L. Ramsisaria ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant. RAJESH BINDAL,J. This appeal has been filed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), against the order dated 7.5.2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (A), in ITA No.92/Chandi/97, for the assessment year 1993- 94, raising the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that amount of compensation was paid for loss of services, when the assessee has himself resigned voluntarily? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT have erred in law in treating the compensation as capital receipt; whereas the same was a revenue receipt and was taxable as “profit in lieu of salary” u/s 17(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (iii) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in holding that REEMA SAINI 2016.04.04 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

ITA No. 201 of 2002 (O&M) -2- the issue being debatable one falls outside the scope of section 143(1)(a); when the assessee's employer at the time of issuing Form No.16 has deducted tax at source and thus, it being in lieu of salary, is a prima-facie disallowable item and was rightly added to the taxable income u/s 143(1)(a)? Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that in view of circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 read with circular No.279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, he does not wish to press the present appeal, as the tax effect involved is less than ` 20 lacs. However, he prays that liberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survives therein. Dismissed as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. It is however, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not be taken as affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. The legal issue as claimed by the revenue is left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. (RAJESH BINDAL)

JUDGE (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU) 31.03.2016 JUDGE reema REEMA SAINI 2016.04.04 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh