DCIT, Ratnagiri Cir., Ratnagiri V. Shri Rajendra Sahadev Dhurat, Ratnagiri

ITA 1357/PUN/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9923 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 03-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANN KAPTHUAMA

Judgement Text

N THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A , PUNE BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1357/PN/2011 (ASSTT. YEAR : 2 007-08) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, APPELLANT RATNAGIRI CIRCLE, RATNAGIRI V. SHRI RAJENDRA SAHADEV DHURAT RESPONDENT NACHANE, RATNAGIRI PAN :AAZPD 1202 C APPELLANT BY : MS. AN N KAPTHUAMA RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 05/10/1 2 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15-10-12 O R D E R PER R.S. PADVEKAR, JM THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A), KOLHAPUR DATED 16.08.2011 FOR TH E A.Y. 2007-08. THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS : (1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE CIT(A), KOLHAPUR FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE EMP LOYEE OPTED FOR EXIT OPTION SCHEME DECLARED BY SBI AND SBI, PATIALA AND OTHER ASSOCIATE BANKS ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(10C) AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE BOARD UNDER LETTER F.NO.200/34/2009/ITA.I DATED 06-10-2009. (2) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE CIT(A), KOLHAPUR ERRED TO IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(10C) AND FU RTHER ALLOWING ASSESSEES APPEAL ON THIS GROUND IGNORING THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO FULFILLMENT OF LEGAL REQUIREMENTS LAID DOWN UNDER R ULE 2BA OF THE IT RULES, 1962 FOR ITS ADMISSIBILITY. (3) THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT MONETARY LIMITS SPECIF IED UNDER INSTRUCTIONS NO. 3 OF 2011 DATED 09.02.2011 MAY NOT BE APPLIED TO THE PRESENT CASE AS IT IS COVERED UNDER EXCLUSIONS AS MENTIONED IN PARA 8(B) OF THE SAID INSTRUCTION. 2 ITA NO. 1357/PN/2011 SHRI RAJENDRA SAHADEV DHURAT A.Y.2007-08 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED D.R.. NONE WAS PRESENT F OR THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE BRIEFLY STATED FACTS REVEAL FROM THE RECORD ARE AS UNDER. THE ASSESSEE WAS THE EMPLOYEE OF STATE BANK OF INDIA AN D OPTED VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT (VRS)AS PER THE EXIT OPTION SCHEME ANNOU NCED BY THE BANK. THE ISSUE IN CONTROVERSY IS WHETHER THE LD CIT(A) I S JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 10(10C) OF THE ACT, TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 5,00,000/- OUT OF THE EX-GRATIA AMOUNT RECEIVED FRO M THE BANK ON HIS VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT AS EXEMPTION. THE A.O. WAS O F THE VIEW THAT THE CONDITIONS OF RULE 2 BA OF THE INCOME TAX RULES , 1 962 WERE NOT FULFILLED. THE LD CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. N OW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE FIND THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD BEEN CONSI DERED BY THE ITAT A BENCH, PUNE, IN THE CASE OF THE ITO, KOLHAPUR V S. SMT. JAYSHREE ARUN WALWADKAR, ITA NO. 1047/PN/2011, ORDER DATED 29.8.2 012. THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE SAID ORDER IS AS UNDER : 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE AS UNDER. THE ASSESSE E WAS EMPLOYEE OF THE STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OPTED FOR VOLUNTARY RET IREMENT AS PER EXIST OPTION SCHEME (EOS) DECLARED BY THE BANK. IN THE R ETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S. 10(10C) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE EX-GRATIA AMOUNT RECEIVED FRO M THE BANK ON HER VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT. THE SAID CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S. 10(10C) WAS REJECTED BY THE A.O. FOLLOWING THE CBDT CIRCULAR F. NO.200/34/2009-ITA.I, DATED 8.10.2009. THE A.O. DENIED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/SEC.10(10C) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEFORE THE LD CIT(A). THE LD CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KOODATHIL KALLYATAN AMBUJAKSHAN, 219 CTR 80 (BOM) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE AS SESSEES CASE IS COVERED BY THE DECISIONS OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCHES OF THE ITAT IN THE FOLLOWING CASES : 1) ITO VS. SHRI JAVERILAL DALICHAND CHHAJED, ITA N O. 326/PN/2010 DATED 8/11/2011 2) SHRI VENUGOPAL VS. KATTI, ITA NO. 4090/BANGALO RE/2001 DATED 15.2.2012 3) ITO VS. ROHIT KUMAR, ITA NO. 969/AHD/2010 DT.5/ 5/2011, ITAT, A BENCH, AHMEDABAD, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(A) AND ACCORD I NGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 5. IT IS TO BE NOTED HERE THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICITIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KOODATHIL KALLYATAN AMBUJ AKSHAN (SUPRA) HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE CBDT AND NO FURTHER APPEAL IS FILED, AND TO THAT EFFECT THE BOARD HAS ISSUED THE CIRCULAR. WE FIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD 3 ITA NO. 1357/PN/2011 SHRI RAJENDRA SAHADEV DHURAT A.Y.2007-08 CIT(A) IS IN CONFORMITY WITH LAW AND NO INTERFERENC E IS CALLED FOR. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 6. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15TH OCTOBER 2012. SD/- SD/- (G.S. PANNU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (R.S.PADVEKAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED THE 15TH OCTOBER, 2012 US COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-I/II, KOLHAPUR/CIT (CENTRAL), PUNE 4. THE CIT(A)-, KOLHAPUR 5. THE D.R. A BENCH, PUNE 6. GUARD FILE /- TRUE COPY-/ BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE