Ita/79/2002 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. B.l.ramsisaria

ITA No. 79 of 2002 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OR PUNJAB AND HARYANA|AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 79 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 dated3.10.2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ChandigarhBench (B), in ITA No.159, 160 and 161/Chandi/94, for theassessment year 1992-93, raising the following substantial questions oflaw: (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, the services of the assessee were notterminated by the employer. Since, it was a case ofvoluntary resignation, the receipts cannot be said tobe on account of any compensation, but on accountof a contract again entered into by the assessee ofhis own volition. In the case of voluntaryresignation, no restrictive covenant could have beenimposed on the assessee by the employer? -)| (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 Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted thatin view of circular No.21/2015 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 |=a20 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)JUDGEH