Smt. Uttara Ghosh, Kolkata V. DCIT, Circle - 22, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1407/KOL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 140723514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 18-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A P ROY
• Assessee Lawyers: B K GHOSH; P DEY
• Section: 154; 143(3)

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NOS.:1407,1346-1383 & 1559 / KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 PAGE 1 OF 17 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA B BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER), AND SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A. NO.: 1407/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SMT. UTTARA GHOSH, C/O. MR. MONI GUPTA, 22B, MANDAVILLE GARDENS, FLAT-8A, KOLKATA-700 019..APPELLANT [PAN : ADVPG 3191 N] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA....RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NO.: 1346/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SUNIT KUMAR DEY, 33, NILMONI SHONE STREET, BHADRAKALI, BHATPARA, HOOGHLY-712 232..AP PELLANT [PAN : ADNPD 9340 C] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA ....RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NO.: 1347/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 VARSHA CHOWDHURY,, 164/C/50, PRRINCE ANWAR SHAH ROAD, 2 ND FLOOR,, LAKE GARDENS, KOLKATA-700 045..APPELL ANT [PAN : ABWPC 0215 C] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA....RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NO.: 1348/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 I.T.A. NOS.:1407,1346-1383 & 1559 / KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 PAGE 2 OF 17 SRI RABINDR NATH MISHRA,, 67A, G.T. ROAD (N), SALKIA, HOWRAH-711 106.. APPELLANT [PAN : AWEPM 9656 G] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA....RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NO.: 1349/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SMT. GEETA JONES, 20C, PARAMHANSA DEB ROAD, KOLKATA-700 027..A PPELLANT [PAN : ACEPJ 2943 F] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA....RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NO.: 1350/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SHREE KANT RAI,, C/O. ARVIND KUMAR SINGH, 67/26, STRAND ROAD, KOLKATA-700 0062..APP ELLANT [PAN : ACIPR 0769 F] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA ....RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NO.: 1351/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SMT. PARVATHY CHANDRAN, FLAT 3C, PREMAYAN BUILDING, 63A, CHARU CHANDRA PLACE (WEST), KOLKATA-700 033 ..APPELLANT [PAN : ACTPC 3727 H] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA....RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NO.: 1352/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SHRI JAGDISH RAM, FLAT NO. 300E, 3 RD FLOOR, I.T.A. NOS.:1407,1346-1383 & 1559 / KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 PAGE 3 OF 17 26, MAKARSAHA ROAD, KADAMTALA, HOWRAH-711 104 ..APPELLANT [PAN : AFQPR 9496 C] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA....RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NO.: 1353/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SMT. SOMA PAL, 9A/3, RISHI BANKIM CH. ROAD, DUM DUM, KOLKATA-700 028....APPELLANT [PAN : AEJPP 9080 N] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA....RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NO.: 1354/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SHRI SHANKAR NATH BATTACHARYA, 466(223) SASANKA SEKHAR BOSE SARANI, BAIDYABATI, HOOGHLY-712 222...APPELLA NT [PAN : AELPB 3639 M] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA....RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NO.: 1355/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SHRI ASHOK KUMAR GHOSAL, 72, NIMTA NIDHKUL ROAD, KOLKATA-700 049...APPELLANT [PAN : ADXPG 0209 K] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA....RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NO.: 1356/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SHRI ASHOK KUMAR RAY, 55/A/14, M.J. ROAD, SHRIRAMPUR-712 249..A PPELLANT I.T.A. NOS.:1407,1346-1383 & 1559 / KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 PAGE 4 OF 17 [PAN : ACIPR 0848 M] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA....RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NO.: 1357/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SMT. ARPITA GHOSH, PUKURTALA SARVODAY PARK, DUILLA, MOURIGRAM, HOWRAH-711 302...APPELLAN T [PAN : AEBPG 3555 K] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA....RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NO.: 1358/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SHRI ACHINTA KUMAR GHOSH, PAKURTALA SARVODAY PARK, DULLY BAGANI PARA, HOWRAH-711 302..APPELL ANT [PAN : ACWPG 2827 M] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA. ...RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NO.: 1359/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SRI BISWANATH SUR, BARASAT DASABHUJATALA, P.O. CHANDANNAGAR, HOOGHLY-712 136..APPEL LANT [PAN : AISPSS 5703 J] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA....RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NO.: 1360/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SRI MAHESHWAR RAUL,, CHINGUDEPUR, P.O. NALANGA, V-A-BARIKPUR BAZAR, DIST.BHADRAK, ORISSA-756 112...APP ELLANT I.T.A. NOS.:1407,1346-1383 & 1559 / KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 PAGE 5 OF 17 [PAN : ADCPR 3532 K] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA....RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NO.: 1361/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SRI SUJIT KUMAR BHATTACHARYYA, 9/1/1, KALI BANERJEE LANE, HOWRAH-711 110. .APPELLANT [PAN : ACXPB 7299 P] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA....RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NO.: 1362/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SRI SHYAM NARAYAN UPADHYAY, 20, SHIV KRISHNA DAW LANE, KOLKATA-700 054...APPELLANT [PAN : AAFPU 4668 K] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA....RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NO.: 1363/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SRI MALAY RAY, 106/3, BHAHMO SAMAJ ROAD, KOLKATA-700 034..A PPELLANT [PAN : ACIPR 0853 J] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA....RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NO.: 1364/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SMT. RITA MAJUMDER, FLAT NO. A-2, 2 ND FLOOR, P-1/17, BANERJEE PARA ROAD, KOLKATA-41..A PPELLANT [PAN : ADMPM 8648 M] -VS.- I.T.A. NOS.:1407,1346-1383 & 1559 / KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 PAGE 6 OF 17 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA....RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NO.: 1365/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SRI ASHOK KUMAR DAS, BAIDYA PARA (W), BAIDYABATI, HOOGHLY-712 222 .APPELLANT [PAN : ACMPD 9980 A] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA....RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NO.: 1366/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SHYAM NARAYAN SINGH YADAV, 66/D/5, PRBHAS NAGAR, SERAMPORE-712 249....APPELLANT [PAN : AAIPY 6866 E] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA....RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NO.: 1367/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 RANAJIT CHATTERJEE, RD-6/2, RAGHUNATHPUR, KOLKATA-700 059 ..APPELLANT [PAN : ABWPC 0227 G] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA....RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NO.: 1368/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SMT. SHILA DUTTA (L/H. SUNIL DUTTA), LALBAGAN, BELTALA, P.O. CHANDANNAGAR, HOOGHLY-712 136 ..APPELLANT [PAN : KGUPD 9439 N] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA....RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NOS.:1407,1346-1383 & 1559 / KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 PAGE 7 OF 17 I.T.A. NO.: 1369/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SRI PARAS NATH PANDEY, 18 BHAIRAB DUTTA LANE, 2 ND FLOOR, NANDIBAGAN, SALKIA, HOWRAH ..APPELLANT [PAN : AEJPP 9085 K] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA....RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NO.: 1370/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 TARAKESHWAR RAI, 44, P.K. BANERJEE ROAD, HOWRAH(SOUTH)-711 101 ..APPELLANT [PAN : ADHPR 9482 R] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA ....RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NO.: 1371/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SMT. KEYA MUKHERJEE, 77, LIBRARY ROAD, BHADRESWAR, HOOGHLY-712 124 ..APPELLANT [PAN : AEZPM 3905 K] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA....RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NO.: 1372/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SRI DEBABRATA CHATTERJEE, WEST PANSIL, SADHUR MORE, P.O. PANSILA, SODEPUR, 24-PARGANAS(N)-700 112...APPEL LANT [PAN : ABWPC 0221A] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA....RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NO.: 1373/ KOL. / 2011 I.T.A. NOS.:1407,1346-1383 & 1559 / KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 PAGE 8 OF 17 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 BABLU ROY, 17, GHOSHPARA LANE, P.O. BHADRAKALI, HOOGHLY-712 232 ..APPELLANT [PAN : ACIPR 0764 J] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA....RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NO.: 1374/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SHRI TARAKESHWAR PANDEY, 11, SANTANU MISTRY LANE, 3 RD FLOOR, SALKIA, HOWRAH-711 106 ...APPELLANT [PAN : AFMPP 1960 M] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA....RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NO.: 1375/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SRI SUBRATA BANERJEE, RADHA APARTMENT, 1 ST FLOOR, FLAT-A-2, 14/2, MIDDLE ROAD, KOLKATA-700 075..APPEL LANT [PAN : AEFPB 0744 R] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA....RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NO.: 1376/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SRI PRADEEP KUMAR CHOWDHURY, AG-12, SECTOR-2, SALT LAKE CITY, KOLKATA-700 091 ..APPELLANT [PAN : ACNPC 4573 H] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA....RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NOS.:1407,1346-1383 & 1559 / KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 PAGE 9 OF 17 I.T.A. NO.: 1377/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 HARI SHANKAR PANDEY, 306, SUBHAS NAGAR HOUSING COMPLEX, PRAVASH NAGAR, RISHRA-712 249..APPELL ANT [PAN : AFSPP 9949 Q] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA....RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NO.: 1378/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SMT. RUMA RAY, 60A, ASHOK AVENUE, KOLKATA-700 040..APPEL LANT [PAN : ADKPR 5602 G] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA....RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NO.: 1379/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 PANCHANAN MUKHERJEE, 66, RAM SITA GHAT STREET, PO BHADRAKALI, HOOGHLY-712 232..APPELLANT [PAN : AEWPM 9782 P] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA. ...RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NO.: 1380/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SHILPI BHATTACHARJEE, 69, CHANDI GHOSH ROAD, KOLKATA-700 040...APPELLANT [PAN : ACXPB 7274 N] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA....RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NO.: 1381/ KOL. / 2011 I.T.A. NOS.:1407,1346-1383 & 1559 / KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 PAGE 10 OF 17 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SHRI GANESH CHANDRA TOSH, LALBAGAN, BARA PUKUR DHAR, CHANDANNAGAR, HOOGHLY-712 136..APPELLA NT [PAN : ABRPT 4981 D] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA....RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NO.: 1382/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SRI PARITOSH NAN, 3, BARABAZAR OLD POST OFFICE STREET, CHANDANNAGAR, HOOGHLY-712 136...APPELLAN T [PAN : ABFPN 2523 D] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA....RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NO.: 1383/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SURENDRA NATH PANDEY, 18, BHAIRAB DUTTA LANE, NANDIBAGAN, SALKIA, HOWRAH... .APPELLANT [PAN : AEJPP 9077 K] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA....RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NO.: 1559/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SMT. PUSHPITA BISWAS, 301, PRINCE ANWAR SHAH ROAD, KOLKATA-700 045...APPELLANT [PAN : ACXPB 7283 K] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA....RESPONDENT I.T.A. NOS.:1407,1346-1383 & 1559 / KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 PAGE 11 OF 17 APPEARANCES BY: B.K. GHOSH AND P. DEY, FOR THE APPELLANT A.P. ROY, FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : MARCH 28, 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : MARCH , 2012 O R D E R PER BENCH: 1. THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE COM MON AND, AS LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES AGREE, WHATEVER WE DECIDE I N ONE APPEAL WILL BE EQUALLY APPLICABLE IN ALL OTHER CASES. THE MATER IAL FACTS OF ALL THE CASES, BARRING DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNTS ETC. ARE ALSO SIMILAR. WE, THEREFORE, TAKE UP ALL THESE APPEALS TOGETHER. WE WILL TAKE UP ITA NO. 1407/KOL./2011 FOR A.Y. 2004-05 AS THE LEAD CASE AN D THE DECISION IN THE SAME WILL BE APPLICABLE FOR ALL OTHER APPEALS AS WE LL. 2. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANT HA S CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEAL)S ORDER DATED 12 TH AUGUST, 2011 IN THE MATTER OF ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 W.R.S. 143(3) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ON THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS :- (1) THAT ON FACTS AS WELL AS ON LAW, THE ORDER PASS ED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS PERVERSE, BIASED, ARBITRARY AND LIABL E TO THE QUASHED. (2) THAT, ON FACTS AS WELL AS ON LAW, THE LD. CIT(A ) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT NON-CONSIDERATION OF THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ON IDENTICAL ISSUE GI VES RISE TO A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD WITHIN THE MEANI NG OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154. I.T.A. NOS.:1407,1346-1383 & 1559 / KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 PAGE 12 OF 17 (3) THAT, ON FACTS AS WELL AS ON LAW, THE LD. CIT(A ) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE APPELLANT I S DEBATABLE AND OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154. (4) THAT ON FACTS AS WELL AS ON LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICE R IN DENYING EXEMPTION OF RS.5,00,000/- UNDER SECTION 10 (10C) IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER THE VRS SCHEME OF HSBC BANK, THE EMPLOYER, ALLEGING THA T THE SAID SCHEME IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREME NT AS PRESCRIBED IN RULE 2BA OF THE INCOME TAX RULES AND IN TOTAL DISREGARD OF THE DECISIONS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HI GH COURT AND THE JURISDICTIONAL APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ON THE ID ENTICAL ISSUE. 3. THE ISSUE IN APPEAL LIES IN A VERY NARROW COMPAS S OF MATERIAL FACTS. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS A FORMER EMPLOYEE OF HONGKONG AND SANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED, KOLKATA (IN SH ORT HSBC). IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, SHE RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF R S.25,42,729/- FROM HSBC UNDER THE VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME. SHE ACC ORDINGLY CLAIMED A DEDUCTION OF RS.5,00,000/- UNDER SECTION 10(10C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DECLINE D THE SAID CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED VRS BENEFIT EXCEEDING TH IS AMOUNT (MAXIMUM AMOUNT PERMISSIBLE UNDER RULE 2BA), SHE IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10(10C). SUBSEQUENTLY, ON 09.03.2010, THE ASSESSEE MOVED A RECTIFICATION PETITION UNDER SECTI ON 154 OF THE ACT AND REQUESTED THE ASSESSEE TO GRANT DEDUCTION UNDER SEC TION 10(10C) FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.5,00,000/-. THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SAID TO BE SUPPORTED BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS JU DGMENT IN THE CASE OF SAIL DSP V.R. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, 1998 VS.- UNION OF INDIA (262 ITR 638). EVEN THOUGH THE SAID JUDGMENT WAS PA SSED ON 12.02.2003, IT APPEARS SOMEHOW THE JUDGMENT ESCAPED THE ATTENTION OF I.T.A. NOS.:1407,1346-1383 & 1559 / KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 PAGE 13 OF 17 THE ASSESSEE AS ALSO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN SUBS TANCE, THE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT, IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CORRE CT LEGAL POSITION AND AS HELD BY THE HONBLE KOLKATA HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF SAIL DSP V.R. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, 1998 (SUPRA), THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10(10C) FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.5,00,000/- BE ALLOWED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DECLINED THE AFORESAID REQUEST FOR RECTIFIC ATION ON THE SHORT GROUND THAT THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 154 IS RESTRICTED TO THE IS SUES, WHICH ARE NOT CONSIDERED AND DECIDED IN THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AND THUS THE RECTIFICATION PETITION FILED BY THE A SSESSEE ON THE ISSUES ALREADY DECIDED BY THE A.O. IN HIS ORDER U/S. 143(3) IS OUT SIDE THE SCOPE OF SECTION 154 OF THE I.T. ACT. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEA L BEFORE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCES S. 4. LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON HER VOLUNTARY RETIREMEN T FROM HSBC WAS IN EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT PERMISSIBLE UNDER RULE 2BA, SHE IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10(10C). HE ACC ORDINGLY REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. WHILE DOING SO, IRONICA LLY HE RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAIL DSP VR. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (SUPRA) ITSELF, BY OBSERV ING AS FOLLOWS :- 9. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 3 THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE GROUND IS NOT TENABLE AS THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE ASSESEE ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAIL DSP VR. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, 1998 VS.- UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 262 ITR 638 IS MISPLACED AS THE FACTS IN THAT CASE ARE DIFFERENT FROM FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE CASE RELIED UPO N BY THE ASSESSEE PERTAINED TO EMPLOYEES OF SAIL WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS GIVEN THE FINDING THAT THE SCHEME FOR VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT FLOATED BY SAIL CONFIRMED TO I.T.A. NOS.:1407,1346-1383 & 1559 / KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 PAGE 14 OF 17 RULE 2BA. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ALSO GAVE THE FIND ING THAT NOWHERE THERE WAS ANY PROVISION IN THE SCHEME WHICH COULD BE SAID TO BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE RETIREMENT S OF RULE 2BA. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ISSUE RELATE S TO THE VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME FLOATED BY THE HONGKONG AND SANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED, AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER GAVE THE FINDING IN THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER THAT THE SCHEME WAS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH RULE 2BA OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. HENCE, THERE IS NO ERROR AP PARENT FROM THE RECORDS IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. HENCE THIS GROUND IS ALSO DISMISSED. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE U S. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CA SE AS ALSO THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 6. WE FIND THAT AS HELD BY HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF SAIL DSP VR EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (SUPRA), UNDO UBTEDLY THEIR LORDSHIPS HELD THAT THERE IS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN TH E VRS SCHEME OF THE SAIL EMPLOYEE AND RULE 2BA, BUT THEIR LORDSHIPS ALS O OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS :- AN EXPRESSION USED IN THE STATUTE IS NOT ALWAYS TO BE INTERPR4ETED LITERALLY OR GRAMMATICALLY. SOMETIMES, IT HAS TO BE INTERPRETED HAVING REGARD TO THE CONTEXT IN WHIC H THE EXPRESSION IS USED AND HAVING REGARD TO THE OBJECT AND PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE SAME IS ENACTED. SECTION 10(1 0C) WAS INSERTED IN ORDER TO MAKE VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT ATTR ACTIVE SO AS TO REDUCE HUMAN COMPLEMENTS FOR SECURING ECONOMI C VIABILITY OF CERTAIN COMPANIES. THIS OBJECT WAS ELA BORATED BY VARIOUS DEPARTMENTAL CIRCULARS AND EXPLANATORY STAT EMENTS ISSUED FROM TIME TO TIME. SIMILARLY, R. 2BA WHICH W AS INSERTED BY THE IT (SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 199 2, WERE AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME. ALL THESE GO TO SHO W THAT I.T.A. NOS.:1407,1346-1383 & 1559 / KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 PAGE 15 OF 17 THIS WAS INTENDED TO MAKE A VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT MO RE ATTRACTIVE AND BENEFICIAL TO THE EMPLOYEE OPTING FO R VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT. THEREFORE, THIS HAS TO BE INT ERPRETED IN A MANNER BENEFICIAL TO THE OPTEE FOR VOLUNTARY R ETIREMENT, IF THERE IS ANY AMBITUITY. 7. IT IS THUS FREE FROM ANY DOUBT THAT, AS HELD BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, THAT THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 10(10C) ARE TO BE INTERPRETED IN A MANNER BENEFICIAL TO THE OPTEE FOR RETIREMENT, IF THERE IS ANY AMBIGUITY. IN VIEW OF THIS BINDING LEGAL POSITION, IT IS CLEA R THAT ON THE POINT OF AMBIGUITY, IF ANY, AN INTERPRETATION I N FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE ADOPTED. THAT IS HOW, ACCORDING T O HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, SECTION 10(10C) IS TO BE INTERPRETED. 8. LET US NOW TAKE NOTE OF A THIRD MEMBER DECISION OF THIS VERY TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS.- KRISHNA GOPAL SA HA (121 ITD TM 368) WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS A FORMER EMPLOYEE OF STANDARD CHARTERED BANK AND ADMITTEDLY THE VOLUNTARY RETIREM ENT SCHEME OFFERED BY THE SCB WAS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH RULE 2BA OF THE INCOME TAX RULES (AS NOTED IN PARAGRAPH 3.1 OF THE LEAD OR DER). YET, THE THIRD MEMBER DECISION WAS THAT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5,00,0 00/- THE ASESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 10(10C). IN COMING TO T HIS CONCLUSION, THE TRIBUNAL, INTER ALIA, TOOK NOTE OF HONBLE JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURTS GUIDANCE IN THE MATTER. W HAT IS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS THIRD MEMBER DECISION IS AT THE MINIMUM A POSSIBLE VIEW O F THE MATTER, AND SO FAR AS THIS DIVISION BENCH IS CONCERNED A BINDIN G JUDICIAL PRECEDENT. 9. NO DOUBT IN A NORMAL SITUATION, SO FAR AS MATTER S CAPABLE OF TWO VIEWS BEING TAKEN WILL BE OUTSIDE THE AMBIT OF SECT ION 154. HOWEVER, I.T.A. NOS.:1407,1346-1383 & 1559 / KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 PAGE 16 OF 17 RIGHT NOW, WE ARE DEALING WITH INTERPRETATION OF SE CTION 10(10C) AND SO FAR AS THIS INTERPRETATION IS CONCERNED, LAW LAID D OWN BY HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IS THAT AN INTERPRETATION IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESEE IS TO BE ADOPTED. THE REAL QUESTION, THEREFORE, IS WHE THER OR NOT THESE DECISIONS OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT CAN BE SUBJECT MATTER OF RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 154. ON THIS QUESTION, WE FIND GUIDANCE FROM HONBLE SUPREME COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE O F ACIT VS.- SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE LTD. (305 ITR 227) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT NON-CONSIDERATION OF A JUD GMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IS ALSO A MISTAKE APPAREN T ON RECORD, WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 154. W HAT FOLLOWS, INTER ALIA, IS THAT IN A SITUATION IN WHICH HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COUR T IS NOT FOLLOWED, SUCH A NON-CONSIDERATION IS CLEARLY A MISTAKE APPAR ENT ON RECORD. THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THIS CASE. THE AS SESSING OFFICER DISREGARDED HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF SAIL DSP VR EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (SUPRA), ON THE GROUND TH AT THIS ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER AND, THERE FORE, IT CANNOT BE RECONSIDERED, EVEN IN THE LIGHT OF HONBLE JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURTS DECISION. LEARNED CIT(A), ON THE OTHER HAND, REFERR ED TO AN ASPECT OF THE SAID DECISION. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, WHAT OUG HT TO HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS WHETHER, IN T HE LIGHT OF THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, THE INTERPRETATION CANVASSED BY THE ASSESSEE COULD BE A CCEPTED AS ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEWS OF THE MATTER. THAT EXERCISE HAS NOT BEEN DONE. 10. FOR THE REASONS SET OUT ABOVE, WE VACATE THE OR DERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT T HE ISSUE WAS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY A THIRD MEMBER DECISIO N OF THIS TRIBUNAL I.T.A. NOS.:1407,1346-1383 & 1559 / KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 PAGE 17 OF 17 IN THE CASE OF KRISHNA GOPAL SAHA (SUPRA), WHICH CO NSTITUTED A POSSIBLE INTERPRETATION, AND WHICH, IN THE LIGHT OF SAIL DSP VR EMPLOYEES CASE (SUPRA) OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WE UPHOLD THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED TO GIVE RELIEF. 11. IN THE RESULT, I.T.A. NO. 1407/KOL./2011 IS ALL OWED. ALL OTHER APPEALS ARE ALSO ALLOWED IN THE SAME MANNER AND TO THE EXTENT INDICATED ABOVE. THESE OBSERVATIONS WILL APPLY MUTA TIS MUTANDIS TO THOSE CASES AS WELL. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 30 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2012. SD/- SD/- MAHAVIR SINGH PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACC OUNTANT MEMBER) KOLKATA, THE 30 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2012 COPIES TO : (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ETC ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.