Sri. Thiyagarajan Kumar, Bangalore V. Asst.CIT, Bangalore

ITA 1061/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5589 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B R RAMESH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1061/BANG/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI. THIYAGARAJAN KUMAR, NO.85, 2 ND CROSS, 35 TH MAIN, BOO HBCS LAYOUT, BTM 2 ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560068. PAN : AFSPK5512N VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-13(1) BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI. B. R. RAMESH, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 09.01.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : .01.2018 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF CIT(A), INTERALIA , ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT-A IS OPPOSED TO THE LAW AND FA CTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10(10C), THE CONDITIONS IN THE RULE 2 BA OF THE IT ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE. 3. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF T HE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND THE APEX COURT DECISION RELIED ON BY THE APPELLANT. 4. THE CIT (A) ERRED IN DISTINGUISHING THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT RELIED BY THE APPELLANT BY CONCLUDING THAT 'THE COURT HAS NOW HERE OBSERVED TH AT RULE 2 BA IS IRRELEVANT FOR CONSIDERING EXEMPTION U/S 10(10C) OF THE ACT' EVEN THOUGH THE H 'BLE APEX COURT HAS HELD THE APPELLANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10(10C) WHICH WAS DENIED BY THE H'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT WHICH ITA NO. 1061/BANG/2016 PAGE 2 OF 3 HEARD THAT THE SCHEME IS NOT A STATUTORY SCHEME OR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF RULE 2BA OF THE IT ACT. 5. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE ADDED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE APPEAL, MAY BE KINDLY BE ALLOWED AND JUSTICE RENDERED. 2. THIS APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 16.01.2018 BU T NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, DESPITE HAVING KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE DATE F IXED. THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER FILED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT DOCUMEN TS ON RECORD, IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS. 3. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR DESPITE HAVING KNOWLEDGE OF DATE FIXED, WE HEARD THE REVENUE. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, IN THE LIGHT OF RIVAL SUBMISSION, WE FIND THAT CIT(A) HAS EXAMINED THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 10(10C) R.W.R.2 BA OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO DISTINGUI SHED THE CASE LAWS REFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN HIS ORDER. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, AS SESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE SAME CASE LAWS AND WE FIND THAT IN THAT CASE THE EMPLOYE R WAS THE BANK AND THE VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER CERTAIN RETIREMENT SCHEMES. BUT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN EARLY RETIREMENT FROM THE SERVICES OF THE COMPANY. NO SCHEME WAS LAUNCHED BY THE COMPANY FOR SUCH RETIREMENTS. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT UNDER A P ARTICULAR SCHEME LAUNCHED BY THE EMPLOYER. 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A) AND WE FIND THAT CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND THE CASE LAWS PLACED BEFORE US, AND SINCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WE CONFIRM HI S ORDER. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STAND DISM ISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST JANUARY, 2018. SD/- SD/- ( INTURI RAMA RAO ) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE : BANGALORE DATED : 31/01/2018 /NS/* ITA NO. 1061/BANG/2016 PAGE 3 OF 3 COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A)-II BANGALORE 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, BANGALORE.