COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. RANI SHANKAR MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revenue is in appeal being aggrieved by the common order dated 09.05.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in relation to the assessment years 2003 -04 and 2004 -05. The Assessing Officer had made an addition in respect of the amount of compensation and interest received by the assessee from the Government of the United States of America.

(2.) IN January, 1982, the assessee had applied for a job in the Voice of America which was a state owned broadcasting agency. In 1984, the assessee was informed that she had cleared the competitive test. But, she was never offered the job. It is relevant to note that in 1977, a class action suit had been filed before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States entitled Carolee Brady Heartman, et al. v. Madeleine K. Albright, Secretary of State and Marc B. Nathanson, Chairman, Broadcasting Board of Governors: Civil Action No. 77 -2019 JR. The said class action had been brought on behalf of the women who had been denied employment in certain professions and technical positions in the former United States Information Agency (USIA). The allegation was that the women had been denied entry into certain positions because of their sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 of USA.

(3.) THE question that has arisen in the present case is whether the said amount received by the assessee in the two assessment years in question would be covered within the expression "profits in lieu of salary" as appearing in Section 17(3)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income Tax had categorically found as a fact that there was no employer -employee relationship between the assessee and the Voice of America or the United States Government. Consequently, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concluded that the said amount received by the assessee cannot fall within the concept of "salary". The tribunal also noted the factual position that the assessee was, in fact, never offered the job. Consequently, the only conclusion that could be arrived at with regard to the nature of the amount received by the assessee was that it was not offered as a part of or arising out of the employment of the assessee. The amount was received by the assessee by way of compensation for not having been offered the job with the Voice of America. The allegation was, as noted above, that she alongwith about 1100 other women had been discriminated against on the ground of sex and had not been offered jobs by the Government agency.