Mrs. Ujwala D. Kulkarni, Pune V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 149/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1276 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ABHAY A AVCHAT
• Keywords: Salary income
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC, PUNE , , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, J UDICIAL M EMBER . / ITA NO. 1 4 9 /PN/201 5 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 8 - 0 9 MRS. UJWALA D. KULKARNI, ANAND BAUG, MAKARAND BUNGLOW, NAVI PETH, P UNE 4110 3 0 . / APPELLANT PAN: A BTPK8925C VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7 ( 2 ), PUNE . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : S HRI ABHAY A. AVCHAT / RESPOND ENT BY : SHRI RAJESH DAMOR / DATE OF HEARING : 17 .07.2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12 .0 8 .2015 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : TH I S AP PEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - II I , PUNE , DATED 3 0 . 0 6 .20 1 1 REL ATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 0 9 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1 . THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) III, PUNE HAVE ERRED IN MAKING AND RETAINING ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/ - UNDER SECTION 10(10C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN RESPECT OF AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON V OLUNTARY RETIREMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. 2 . WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FOREGOING, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ALLOWED AN RELIEF UNDER SECTION 89 OF THE ACT BY THE LEARNED LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - III. ITA NO . 1 4 9 /PN/20 1 5 MRS. UJWALA D. KULKARNI 2 3 . THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO LEAVE, ADD/AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUND OF APPEAL. 4 . THE LEARNED LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) III, PUNE HAVE ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING JUDGMENT OF JURISD ICTION OF HIGH COURT, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. KOODATHIL KALLYATAN AMBUJAKSHAN [HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY, F.I. REBELIO & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ., IT APPEAL NO.53 OF 2008 , 4 TH JULY, 2008 (2008) 219 CTR (BOM) 80 : (2009) 309 ITR 113 : (2008) 12 DTR 138] 3 . IN BRIEF, THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF STATE BANK OF INDIA AND DERIVES INCOME FROM SALARY. SH E FILED H ER ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ON 25 - 07 - 200 8 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 5 , 76 ,0 5 0/ - AND HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF RS. 5 , 00 , 0 00/ - UNDER S ECTION 10(10C) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE CDBT CIRCULAR F.NO.200/34/2009 - ITA - 1, DATED 06 - 10 - 2009 AND ALSO THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. KOODA YATAN AMBUJAKSHAN (2008) 175 TAXMAN 113 . REJECTING THE EXPLAN ATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN A WRIT PETITION NO.2129 OF 2007 IN SBI STAFF OPTEES VS UNION OF INDIA , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT SBI DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS PRE SCRIBED IN RULE 2BA , OFFICER HELD THAT SBI DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS PRE SCRIBED IN RULE 2BA , REFERRED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(10C) AND RULE 2BA OF THE EXIT OPTION SCHEME OF STATE BANK OF INDIA AND DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.CIT(A) UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4 . AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATERI AL ON RECORD, I FIND THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MRS. KALIKA RAVINDRA MOGARE VS. ITO IN ITA NO.2106/PN/2013 ORDER 30 - 10 - 2014. THE RELEVANT DISCUSSION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS AS UNDER: - 3 . WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT ISSUE STANDS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF OTHER EMPLOYEES OF SBI AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KOODATHIL KALLYATAN AMBUJAKSHAN (SUPRA). 4. PER CONTRA THE LD. DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITS THAT IT IS SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LD.CIT(A) THAT THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN RULE 2BA ARE NOT FULFILLED. HE PLEADED FOR CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER. 5. WE FIND THAT T HIS ISSUE STANDS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE ANOTHER EMPLOYEES OF THE STATE BANK OF INDIA WHO HAD OPTED FOR THE VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT UNDER THE EXIT OPTION SCHEME FLOATED BY THE SBI IN ITA NO . 1 4 9 /PN/20 1 5 MRS. UJWALA D. KULKARNI 3 THE CASE OF ITO, WARD - 2(2), KOLHAPUR VS. SHRI VIJAY GANPATRAO PATIL VIDE ITA NO.1045/PN/2011 ORDER DATED 29 - 08 - 2012. IN THE CASE CITED (SUPRA), HE WAS ALSO AN EMPLOYEE OF THE SBI OPTED FOR THE VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT AS PER THE EXIT OPTION SCHEME (EOS) DECLARED BY THE BANK - EMPLOYER. IN THE SAI D CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF KOODATHIL KALLYATAN AMBUJAKSHAN (SUPRA). SO FAR AS PRESENT ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) KOLHAPUR HAS ADOPTED DIFFERENT APPROACH EVENTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE IS THE EMPLOYEE OF THE SBI AND OPTED FOR THE VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT UNDER THE EOS. IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSEES CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KOODATHIL KALLYATAN AMBUJAKSHAN (SUPRA) WHICH HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CHANDRA RANGANATHA (SUPRA) . IN THE CASE OF KOODATHIL KALLYATAN AMBUJAKSHAN (SUPRA), THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE WAS THE EMPL OYEE OF THE RBI. SO FAR AS THE SBI IS CONCERNED, TO OUR UNDERSTANDING, THE EXIT OPTION SCHEME IS ANALOGOUS TO THAT OF THE RBI. MOREOVER, IN OUR OPINION, THE EXIT OPTION SCHEME OF THE SBI COMPLY WITH ALL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN RULE 2BA OF THE I.T. RULES. WE, THEREFORE ALLOW THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE BASIC EXEMPTION U/S.10(10C) OF THE ACT. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 5 . FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID PRECEDENT, THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IS SET - ASIDE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 5 , 00 , 0 00/ - 6 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER P RONOUNCED ON THIS 12 TH DAY OF AUGUST , 201 5 . ORDER P RONOUNCED ON THIS 12 TH DAY OF AUGUST , 201 5 . SD/ - ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 12 TH AUGUST , 2015 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - II I , PUNE ; 4. / THE CIT - I V , PUNE ; 5. , , - / DR SMC , ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , / TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE