Ita/201/2002 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. B.l.ramsisaria,259/7,Panchkula

ITA No. 201 of 2002 (O&M) -|- IN THE HIGH COURT OR 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 ( )#*# Sh. B_L,. Ramsisari ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICK RAJESH BINDAL,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present:Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocatefor the appellant. RAJESH BINDAL,J. This appeal has been filed under Section 260 A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act’), against the order dated7.9.2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ChandigarhBench (A), in ITA No.92/Chandi/97, for the assessment year 1993-94, raising the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether on the tacts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was right in law in holding thatamount of compensation was paid for loss ofservices, when the assessee has himself resignedvoluntarily? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Hon'ble ITAT have erred in law in treatingthe compensation as capital receipt; whereas theSame was a revenue receipt and was taxable as“profit in lieu of salary” u/s 17(3) of the Income TaxAct, 19612 (i11) Whether on the facts and in circumstances ofthe case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in holding that the issue being debatable one falls outside the scopeof section 143(1)(a); when the assessee's employerat the time of issuing Form No.16 has deducted taxat source and thus, it being in lieu of salary, is aprima-facie disallowable item and was rightly addedto the taxable income u/s 143(1)(a)? Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted thatin view of circular No21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 read with circularNo.279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, issued by CentralBoard of Direct Taxes, he does not wish to press the present appeal, asthe tax effect involved is less than ©|20 lacs. However, he prays thatliberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of theappeal in case something survives therein, Dismissed as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. It ishowever, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shallnot be taken as affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. Thelegal issue as claimed by the revenue is left open to be adjudicated inan appropriate case, (RAJESH BINDAL)JUDGE 31.03.2016TEe M (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU)JUDGE