Vijay Siddheshwar Jog, Pune V. Income-tax Officer, Pune

ITA 1461/PUN/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9833 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VINITA MENON

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1461/PN/2011 (ASSTT. YEAR : 2 008-09) MR. VIJAY SIDDHESHWAR JOG, APPELLANT SHRINIVAS, NEAR 11 TH LANE, SHAHU COLONY CORNER, KARVE NAGAR, PUNE -411 052 PAN AAXPJ1705C V. INCOME TAX OFFICER RESPONDENT WARD 7 (2),PUNE APPELLANT BY : SHRI. M.K. KULKARNI RESPONDENT BY : SMT. VI NITA MENON DATE OF HEARING : 14/11/1 2 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 -11-12 O R D E R PER R.S. PADVEKAR, JM IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE I MPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) III, PUNE DATED 15 TH JULY 2011 FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09. THE SOLITARY ISSUE ARISING FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS DEN IAL OF THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S. 10(10C) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF EX-GRATIA AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS EMPLOYER U NDER THE EXIT OPTION SCHEME. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE WAS THE EMPLOYEE OF THE STATE BANK OF INDIA. THE ASSESSEE OPTED FOR THE VO LUNTARY RETIREMENT UNDER THE EXIT OPTION SCHEME DECLARED BY THE STATE BANK OF INDIA TO ITS EMPLOYEES. UNDER THE SCHEME, THE EMPLOYEES WERE OFF ERED MONETARY BENEFITS INCLUDING COMPENSATION IF THEY OPTED FOR V OLUNTARY RETIREMENT. AS THE ASSESSEE OPTED FOR VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT UNDE R EXIT OPTION SCHEME, THE ASSESSEE WAS PAID COMPENSATION BY HER EMPLOYER BANK. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE EXEMPTION U/S. 10(10C) OF THE ACT WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE A.O AS WELL AS THE LD CIT(A). NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 2 ITA NO. 1461/PN/2011 MR. VIJAY SIDDHESHWAR JOG A.Y.2008-09 3. THE LD COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUAR ELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. KOODATHIL KALLYATAN AMBUJAKSHAN, 219 CTR 80 (BOM) . HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KOODATHIL KALLYATAN AMBUJAKSHAN(SUPRA) HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE CBDT AND TO THAT EXTENT, CIRCULAR IS ALSO ISSUED BY THE CBDT. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUES STAND SQUARELY C OVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KOODATHIL KALLYATAN AMBUJAKSHAN (SUPRA). MOREOV ER, ON THE IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS IN THE CASE OF OTHER ASSESSEES, THE IT AT PUNE BENCH HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN T HE CASE OF ITO WARD 2(2) V/S. SHRI VIJAY GANPATRAO PATIL, ORDER DATED 2 9 TH AUGUST 2012, THE ITAT A BENCH HAD ALLOWED THE CLAIM TO THE SAID AS SESSEE WHO WAS THE EMPLOYEE OF THE STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OPTED FOR THE VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME UNDER THE EXIT OPTION SCHEME DECL ARED BY THE EMPLOYER BANK. THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE SAID DECIS ION 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 HIS 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 ASS ESSMENT ORDER BEFORE THE LD CIT(A). THE LD CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE DECISIO N IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KOODATHIL KALLYATAN AMBUJAKSHAN, 219 CTR 80 (BOM) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE S CASE IS ALSO SQUARELY 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). ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 4. MOREOVER, AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD COUNSEL , THE BOARD HAS ACCEPTED THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF KOODATHIL KALLYATAN AMBUJAKSHAN (SUPRA) AND HAS ISS UED THE CIRCULAR TO THAT EFFECT. WE, THEREFORE, ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE A.O TO ALLOW EXEMPTION AS PROVIDED U/S. 10(10C) OF THE ACT. 3 ITA NO. 1461/PN/2011 MR. VIJAY SIDDHESHWAR JOG A.Y.2008-09 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21ST NOVEMBER 2012. SD/- SD/- (G.S. PANNU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (R.S.PADVEKAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED THE 21ST NOVEMBER, 2012 US COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-III, PUNE 4. THE CIT(A)-, III, PUNE 5. THE D.R. B BENCH, PUNE 6. GUARD FILE /- TRUE COPY-/ BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE