Section 35DDA provides for a deduction, of one-fifth of the amount of an expenditure, on payment of any sum to an employee, in connection with his voluntary retirement in accordance with the scheme for such retirement. The balance expenditure is allowed to be deducted, in equal instalments, for each of the four succeeding previous years. The section also contains a disabling provision, that provides that no deduction shall be allowed for an expenditure on voluntary retirement referred to in section 35DDA. It however does not prescribe any condition that requires to be incorporated in the scheme, nor does it require the scheme to be approved by any authority.
Section10(10C) confers an exemption from income tax for a receipt , in the hands of an employee, on his retirement, up to Rs. 5 lakh under a voluntary retirement scheme that is framed as per the guidelines prescribed in Rule 2BA.
An interesting issue has arisen about the application of section 35DDA to a payment of an expenditure under a scheme of voluntary retirement which is not framed as per the guidelines prescribed under Rule 2BA. In such circumstances, whether the deduction for expenditure would be restricted to one-fifth or not is an issue over which conflicting views are available. The issue that arises, in the alternative, is about the deduction in full of the amount of expenditure u/s. 37 of the Act.
While the Delhi bench of the Income tax Appellate Tribunal has held that for a valid application of section 35DDA, it was necessary that the scheme was framed as per the guidelines prescribed under Rule 2 BA, the Mumbai bench held that the provisions of section 35DDA applied once the payment was made under a scheme, even where the scheme did not meet the requirements of rule 2BA. When asked to address the issue of full deductibility, the Delhi bench held that the deduction was possible provided the expenditure was of revenue nature. The Mumbai bench however held that the expenditure was to be amortised for deduction in five equal annual instalments.
WARNER LAMBERT’S CASE
The issue arose in the case of DCIT vs. Warner Lambert (India) (P) Ltd., 33 taxmann.com 686(Mum.) for A.Y. 2003-04. The assessee company in that case was engaged, inter alia, in the business of trading, importing, marketing, manufacturing and sale of ayurvedic medicines, breath fresheners, chewing gums and drugs. It had claimed 100% deduction for payment made to an employee of an amount of Rs. 17 lakh who had opted to retire on account of restructuring of the business of the company . It explained that the said expenditure was not in accordance with the scheme of voluntary retirement to which provisions of section 35DDA applied and, accordingly, the said amount had been claimed in full. The AO observed that the said expenditure was incurred clearly under the voluntary retirement scheme and was to be allowed, as per section 35DDA, at one-fifth of the claim spread over a period of five years. The assessee pointed out that the claim was allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Act. The AO however, applied the provisions of section 35DDA by holding that the said provisions included payment of an expenditure under schemes of any nature for granting voluntary retirement to employees prior to its actual retirement date. According to the A.O, it was not material that the schem was framed under the prescribed guidelines of rule 2BA.
In appeal, the CIT(A) observed that the AO had not brought any material on record to show that the assessee had paid any compensation under the existing scheme. He further held that since the assessee had himself contended that payment was not under any scheme of voluntary retirement, the applicability of provisions u/s. 35DDA merely on presumption was not justified.
In appeal to the Tribunal by the Income tax Department, it was submitted by the Revenue that a specific bar had been imposed for not allowing deduction under any other provisions of the Act vide section 35DDA sub-section (6), for an expenditure covered by sub-section (1) of section 35DDA and as such the assessee could not have resorted to section 37(1) of the Act for claiming the deduction. It was pointed out that w.r.e.f 1st April, 2004 on substitution of the words ‘in connection with’ for ‘at the time of”, the amount that has been paid ‘in connection with’ voluntary retirement scheme was covered by the provisions of section 35DDA and only one-fifth of the amount paid could be allowed as a deduction. It was further submitted that no approval of any competent authority was required for the voluntary retirement scheme adopted by the assessee.
In reply, the assessee submitted that no formal scheme had been adopted by the company and only an option was given to those employees who were not absorbed, on reorganisation, to opt for VRS which was to be considered in the overall context. It was further explained that the scheme contemplated u/s. 35DDA was the same as in section 10(10C) and, therefore, for invoking section 35DDA, it was necessary that the scheme adopted by the company confirmed with the requirements set out in R. 2BA and as no such scheme was framed, the provisions of section 35 DDA were not applicable.
The honourable Tribunal was not inclined to accept the plea of the Income tax Department to the effect that the provisions of section 35DDA were applicable because the payment had been made in pursuance to a scheme of voluntary retirement and that it was not necessary that the said scheme should have also complied with the guidelines prescribed under Rule 2 BA r.w.s. 10 (10C) of the Act. It stated that on a bare perusal of the section, it was revealed that the provisions of the section were attracted only when the payment had been made to an employee in connection with his voluntary retirement, in accordance with any scheme of voluntary retirement. It observed that the legislature inserted the section in order to allow only one-fifth of the total expenditure since the payment reduced the burden on the assessee relatable to subsequent years.
In order to resolve the dispute, the honourable Tribunal held that the principles of harmonious construction of statute were to be applied which required that a statute be received as a whole and one provision of the Act should be in conformity of the other provisions in the same Act so as to ensure uniformity in interpretation of the whole statute. It further observed that the provisions relating to voluntary retirement scheme were contained in section 10(10C) and all the conditions laid down therein had to be fulfilled before an exemption could be availed by an employee under the said section; that the income and expenditure go together in the scheme of the Act; that it was difficult to appreciate that a claim for an expenditure could be held to be covered by section 35DDA whereas while allowing exemption of the same expenditure in the hands of the payee, only those claims were entertained which confirmed to the guidelines laid down under r. 2BA; that the language in sections 35DDA and 10(10C), clearly referred to a scheme or schemes of voluntary retirement; though it was true that section 35DDA did not specifically refer to section 10(10C) but principles of harmonious construction required that the conditions as laid down under Rule 2BA had to be met before a deduction u/s. 35DDA could be allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the scheme adopted by the assessee did not confirm to the guidelines laid down under Rule 2BA and therefore, it could not be held that the provisions of section 35DDA were applicable in the company’s case. The claim made by the company for deduction u/s. 37 was accordingly upheld by the tribunal.
SONY INDIA’S CASE
The issue arose again in the case of Sony India (P) Ltd., 21 taxmann.com 224 (Delhi) for assessment year 2005-06.
In that case the assessee company, on closure of one of its units, had floated a VRS scheme for employees of said closed unit and one-fifth of the payments made there under was claimed u/s. 35DDA. The A.O however, observed that for claiming deduction under s.35DDA provisions of rule 2BA were to be satisfied; as the assessee’s VRS scheme was not framed in accordance with Rule 2B, VRS expenditure claimed by assessee were liable to be disallowed. The assessee had claimed one-fifth of the amount of expenditure incurred on payment under the voluntary retirement scheme of the company to its employees and claimed that such an expenditure was to be allowed as per section 35DDA of the Act. The expenditure so claimed was disallowed by the A.O in assessment. Amongst the different reasons, one of the reasons of the AO, for disallowance of the claim of one-fifth of the expenditure on payments to employees under the voluntary retirement scheme, was that the scheme was not framed as per the guidelines prescribed under Rule 2BA.
The assessee, in the alternative, pleaded that the expenditure was otherwise deductible u/s. 37(1) but the A.O rejected the said plea by holding that the expenditure was incurred for achieving a benefit of enduring nature and as such it was capital in nature; the expenditure on VRS was to reduce the staff strength with a view to achieve viability and profitability of business, benefit of which was to endure over a number of years. the said expenditure could not be allowed u/s. 37(1) but was allowable only u/s. 35DDA.
On appeal by the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) came to the conclusion that the said expenditure was not in respect of retrenchment of employees of closed unit but the said expenditure was incurred in terms of the VRS. However, the VRS was not in accordance with rule 2BA. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the expenditure had been incurred to sustain the business for a longer period of time resulting in a benefit of enduring nature and thus, was capital in nature. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on that ground.
On further appeal, amongst the other grounds, the assessee placed the following grounds before the Tribunal; Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was unjustified in reading the conditions of Rule 2BA in section 35DDA? Whether VRS expenditure was otherwise allowable as deduction u/s. 37(1)?
The Tribunal noted that in the Bill, leading to enactment of section 35DDA, a provision was made regarding the application of Rule 2BA which portion was deleted when the Bill was passed and, thus, the conditionalities of the rule had not been incorporated intentionally in the section; the deletion of conditionalities originally incorporated in the Bill showed that legislative intendment was not to incorporate all the conditions of section 10(10C) in section 35DDA; the legislature left the scheme of voluntary retirement open-ended and did not place any restriction on the scheme; the plain language of the provision supported the case of the assessee; that it was not simply the case of taking guidance from a definition section but required modification of the provisions of section 35DDA by incorporating a part of section 10(10C) in it which incorporation did not find support from any rule of construction. The Tribunal held that there was no compelling reason to read section 35DDA as suggested by the revenue and therefore, the scheme of the assessee was held to be a VRS, to which the provisions of section 35DDA was applicable.
Dealing with the claim for the deduction u/s. 37(1) of the Act, the Tribunal noted the observations made by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. O E N India Ltd., 8 taxman.com 246 and in particular the following observations while allowing the deduction in full following the various court decisions. “It is mentioned that the test applied to determine whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee is revenue or capital in nature depends upon the finding as to whether the assessee has created any fixed asset or not. If an asset has been created, the expenditure will certainly be capital in nature. Where the expenditure does not lead to creation of a fixed asset, the expenditure is generally revenue in nature. However, creation of an asset is not a mandatory requirement. The expenditure incurred for achieving a benefit of enduring nature is also capital in nature. When this test is applied, it is felt that the purpose of introduction of VRS is to reduce the staff strength with a view to achieve viability and profitability of the business in general and the retrenchment will give long-term benefit to the assessee. The VRS floated with a view to encourage massive retirement is primarily to streamline the business by restructuring the work force with a view to increase profitability and to make the business viable. Therefore, the benefit will endure over a number of years to come. Accordingly, the payment under the VRS for retirement of a number of employees is nothing but a capital expenditure which could be claimed as a deduction in a phased manner over several years. It is for the assessee to provide rational basis to ascertain the number of years over which the benefit endures and accordingly write off the amount of expenditure by amortizing it over those number of years. Section 35DDA is a virtual declaration of the fact that the expenditure should not be allowed in one year and it has to be amortized over a few years. Therefore, even prior to introduction of section 35DDA, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction of expenditure in a phased manner over a number of years which have to be rationally fixed by the assessee.” The Tribunal noted that the having stated so, the court abundantly made it clear that the aforesaid had been stated only with a view to express the opinion of the court and it was not intended to disturb the settled position through various high courts’ decisions, which had not been contested before the Supreme Court. The court held that the entire amount paid under the VRS had to be held to be revenue in nature to bring in line its decision with the decisions of various high courts.
The Tribunal however held that the assessee was entitled to deduction of one-fifth of the expenditure u/s. 35DDA as claimed for the reason that it had failed to establish that the expenditure was not capital in nature. According to the Tribunal, the facts suggested that the payment was made on closure of an unit and such payment was to be held to be on capital account unless it was established by the assessee that the business of the unit closed was closely interlaced and interlinked with the business continued by the assessee.
OBSERVATIONS
Section 35DDA (1) of the Act reads as under; “Where an assessee incurs any expenditure in any previous year by way of payment of any sum to an employee at the time of( in connection with) his voluntary retirement, in accordance with any scheme or schemes of voluntary retirement, 1/5th of the amount so paid shall be deducted in computing the profits and gains of the business for that previous year, and the balance shall be deducted in equal instalments for each of the four immediately succeeding previous years.”
The relevant part of section 10(10C) reads as under :” any amount received or receivable by an employee of- (i)………. (ii) any other company; or ….. on his voluntary retirement or termination of his service, in accordance with any scheme or schemes of voluntary retirement or ……, to the extent such amount does not exceed five lakh rupees. Provided that the schemes of the said companies or ……….., governing the payment of such amount are framed in accordance with such guidelines including inter alia criteria of economic viability as may be prescribed (rule 2BA) .”
On an apparent reading of section 35DDA, what one gathers is that for a valid application of section 35DDA, the payment of expenditure to an employee should have been made in connection with his voluntary retirement under a scheme of such retirement. On fulfilment of these conditions, one-fifth of the expenditure would fall for allowance in the year of payment and the balance will be allowed in four equal annual instalments.
The section by itself does not prescribe that the scheme should have been framed as per guidelines prescribed rule 2BA. As long as the payment (not revenue in nature) is made under a scheme for voluntary retirement, the case for deduction should be governed by the provisions of section 35DDA and if so no deduction shall be allowed under any other provisions of the Income Tax Act. For the purposes of claiming an exemption u/s. 10(10C), in the hands of an employee, it is however essential that the receipt is under a scheme i.e. framed as per the guidelines prescribed under Rule 2BA.
It is the above noted distinction between the two provisions of the Act, one dealing with the payment and the other dealing with the receipt that prompted the tribunal in the Warner Lambert’s case to recommend a harmonious reading of section 35DDA & 10(10C) so as to include only such payments within the ambit of section 35DDA which are made under a scheme that meets the guidelines of Rule 2BA , and that the deduction is not to be restricted to one-fifth of the amount of expenditure but may qualify for a full deduction provided of course it is otherwise allowable. With utmost respect there is nothing in section 35DDA that stipulates reading in the manner that requires that the scheme referred to in section 35DDA should be so framed so as to meet the conditions of rule 2BA. Likewise there is nothing in section 10(10 C) that provides that the receipt by an employee should be from an employer whose case is covered by section 35 DDA . In our respectful opinion, the provision of these sections are independent of each other and operate in different fields even through both of them deal with the common subject of voluntary retirement. Accordingly the Tribunal in Sony India’s case was right in holding that scheme referred to in section 35DDA need not have been framed as per the guidelines prescribed under Rule 2BA.
The Finance Bill, leading to enactment of section 35DDA, contained a provision that required that the scheme referred to in section 35DDA is framed as per Rule 2BA however, the said requirement was omitted when the Bill was enacted and with this the condition for application of the rule was not retained intentionally in the section. The deletion of the condition originally incorporated in the Bill showed that legislative intent was not to incorporate all the conditions of section 10(10C) in section 35DDA. The legislature has consciously left the scheme of voluntary retirement, referred to in section 35DDA, open-ended and has not place any restriction on the scheme. The plain language of the provision supports the case of literal interpretation and that it is not simply the case of taking guidance from another provision of the Act for its understanding but requires a modification of the provisions of section 35DDA by incorporating a part of section 10(10C) in it which incorporation amount to doing violence to the language of section 35DDA and does not find support in any rule of construction. There is no compelling reason to read section 35DDA as being suggested by a few.
The disabling provisions of section 35DDA(6) can not help the case of mandatory application of section 35DDA in all cases of payment on voluntary retirement so as to restrict the deduction to one-fifth of the expenditure even where the expenditure is otherwise allowable in full. In our opinion, the provision of s/s. (6) has a limited application to only such cases which are otherwise covered by the provisions of s/s.(1). In other words, the expenditure of revenue nature should be deductible in full u/s. 37 of the Act and only those which do not so qualify for full deduction will be governed by section 35DDA. It is this larger issue, about the eligibility of an expenditure on payment of compensation towards voluntary retirement for deduction in full, u/s. 37, on being established that it is an expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred for the purposes of business, has remained to be directly addressed. It is possible that a payment of the nature being discussed would qualify for a full deduction once it is established to be of a revenue nature. The scope of section 35DDA should be restricted only to such expenditure that are otherwise not allowable under the provisions of section 37 of the Income-tax Act.
The test applied to determine whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee is revenue or capital in nature. Applying the test depends upon the finding as to whether the expenditure incurred has the effect of achieving a benefit of enduring nature and if yes, it is capital in nature.
When that test was applied, it was felt that the purpose of introduction of VRS was to reduce the staff strength with a view to achieve viability and profitability of the business in general and the retrenchment would give long-term benefit to the assessee. It is for the assessee to provide a rational basis to ascertain whether the benefit is of enduring nature and even if not so, it is otherwise allowable in the year in which it is incurred. Section 35DDA is not a virtual declaration of the fact that the expenditure should not be allowed in one year and it has to be amortised over a few years.
