Late Anil Rangale Through Legal Heir Anita Anil Rangale, Aurangabad V. ACIT CIRCEL 1, AURNAGABAD, AURANGABAD

ITA 133/PUN/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Anita Anil Rangale, who was a salaried employee of Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd., Aurangabad Unit, and opted for an Early Retirement Scheme (ERS) offered by her employer. She claimed relief under section 89 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs.6,06,258, without claiming exemption under section 10(10C). The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the amount received as profits in lieu of salary under section 17(3) and re-calculated the relief under section 89. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, leading the assessee to appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The Tribunal found the need to consider additional evidence regarding the ERS and remitted the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137673 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 09-10-2023
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 02-02-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MISS ARRCHENA SHETTY
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Capital receipt

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT ITA No.133/PUN/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Anita Anil Rangale L/H of Late Anil Rangale RH-39 RH-39, New Swagat Hos. Society, Bajaj Nager, Waluj MIDC, Aurangabad PAN: AGTPR1107L Vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Aurangabad Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 08.12.2022 passed by the CIT(A) in National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in relation to assessment year 2016-17. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee has been a salaried employee of Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd., Aurangabad Unit. An Early Retirement Scheme (ERS) was formulated by the employer. The assessee was one of the Assessee by Shri Nikhil Pathak & Miss Arrchena Shetty Revenue by Smt Neha Deshpande Date of hearing 10-10-2023 Date of pronouncement 10-10-2023 ITA No.133/PUN/2023 Anita Anil Rangale L/H of Late Anil Rangale 2 employees opting for the ERS. He claimed relief u/s 89 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called „the Act‟) to the extent of Rs.6,06,258/- in the return of income, without claiming exemption u/s 10(10C). The Assessing Officer (AO) held that there was no termination of employment and the amount received by the assessee was compensation which was not a capital receipt. He, therefore, held it to be profits in lieu of salary as per section 17(3) and re-worked the amount of relief u/s 89. No succor was provided by the CIT(A). Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. I have heard both the sides and perused the record. At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the proceedings before the AO have gone on the premise that the assessee opted for voluntary retirement, which was not thrust upon him. He placed on record a letter dated 06.10.2023 issued by the Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. stating that the assessee and other employees were not entitled for the scheme nor was the company under any obligation under the same to ITA No.133/PUN/2023 Anita Anil Rangale L/H of Late Anil Rangale 3 the employees. It was submitted that this is an important additional evidence which has bearing on the issue. In view of the fact that an additional evidence has been placed before the Bench, which appears to have significance in deciding the matter, I am of the considered opinion that it would be just and fair if the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is remitted to the file of the AO with a direction to decide the issue afresh in the hue of the above additional evidence as per law after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. I order accordingly. Needless to say, the assessee will be at liberty to file any further evidence in support of his contention. 4. In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 10 th October, 2023. Sd/- (R.S.SYAL) उपाध्यक्ष/ VICE PRESIDENT प ु णे Pune; ददिधांक Dated : 10 th October, 2023 GCVSR ITA No.133/PUN/2023 Anita Anil Rangale L/H of Late Anil Rangale 4 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. 4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune DR, ITAT, „SMC‟ Bench, Pune 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Date 1. Draft dictated on 10-10-2023 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 10-10-2023 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member - JM 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. - JM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *