Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench of Alok Aradhe and H. T. Narendra Prasad JJ., allowed the appeal and quashed the impugned order due to point of law favouring the assessee and not the revenue.
The facts of the case are such that the assessee is a software engineer who was employed with Aerospace Systems Pvt. Ltd., a company registered in India between the period from 1995-1998 and was deputed to SiRF Technology Inc., U.S. in the year 1995 by Aerospace Systems Pvt. Ltd., India as an independent consultant and worked in that capacity 1995-1998 and later as an employee of SiRF USA from 2001-2004. While on deputation to SiRF USA, the assessee was granted stock option by SiRF USA whereunder the assessee was given right to purchase 30,000 shares of SiRF USA at an exercise price of US $0.08 per share and he also had an option of cashless exercise of stock options. The assessee in assessment year 2006- 07 exercised his right under stock option plan by way of cashless exercise and received net consideration of US $ 283,606 and offered the gain as a long term capital gain as the stock options were held nearly for ten years. The assessee also claimed deduction under Section 54 F of the Act. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 26-12-2018 and as per Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 i.e IT Act artificially split the transaction into two and brought to tax the difference between the market value of shares on the date of exercise and the exercise price as ‘income from salary’ and the difference between the sale price of shares and market value of shares on the date of exercise of ‘income from short term capital gains’. The claim for deduction under Section 54 F of IT Act was disallowed. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was approached who dismissed the appeal on merits which further went in appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which was thereby dismissed. Aggrieved by the said orders, instant appeal was filed before present High Court.
Counsel for the appellants submitted that the finding recorded by the tribunal that assesee was an employee of SiRF USA is perverse and therefore, the finding of the tribunal that consideration received on transfer of stock options is in the nature of income from salaries cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It was further submitted that stock option was granted to asssessee when he was an independent consultant with SiRF USA and therefore, cannot be treated to be an employee for the purposes of Sections 15 to 17 of the IT Act.
Counsel for the respondents submitted that as per clause 2(f) of the stock plan even a consultant who performs services for the company or a subsidiary shall be treated as an employee. Therefore, the assessee shall be treated as an employee of SiRF USA and amount received as income from salary.
The Court relied on judgment Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v. CIT, (1967) 63 ITR 651 (SC) and on perusing clause 2 (f) and 11 of the stock plan as well as the communication dated 03-08-2006 sent by the SiRF USA to the assessee, the Court observed that the assessee was an independent consultant to SiRF USA and was not an employee of SiRF USA at the relevant time.
The Court thus held that, there was no relationship of employer and employee between the SiRF USA and the assessee and therefore, the finding recorded between the SiRF USA and the assessee and therefore, the finding recorded by the tribunal that the income from the exercise of stock option has to be treated as income from salaries is perverse as it is trite law that unless the relationship of employer and employee exists, the income cannot be treated as salary.
In view of the above, impugned order was quashed and appeal was allowed.[Chittharanjan A. Dasannacharya v. Commissioner of Income Tax, I.T.A. No. 153 of 2014, decided on 23-10-2020]
Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has put this story together