RM.Chellappan, Trichy V. ITO, Trichy

ITA 1505/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 64384 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 30-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S KEERTHIRAJAN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT A ND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1505/MDS/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) MR. R.M.CHELLAPPAN, F-3, ROHINI MAYFLOWER APARTMENT, 37, OFFICERS COLONY, PUTHUR, TRICHY-17. PAN:AAEPC6625 VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-II(2), TRICHY. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MR. S.KEERTHIRAJAN, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : MR. SHAJI P.JACOB, ADDL.CIT DATE OF HEARING : 8 TH OCTOBER, 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 8 TH OCTOBER, 2012 O R D E R PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: THE APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IMPUGNING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), TIRUCHIRAPPALLI DATED 19.10.2005 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE DELAY OF 206 7 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT STATING REASONS FOR THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE PRESENT APPEAL. AS PER AFFID AVIT, THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER MEDICAL TREATMENT, THEREFORE, CO ULD NOT ITA NO.1505/MDS/2012 2 FILE THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITHIN THE PERI OD OF LIMITATION. 3. THE D.R. HAS NOT SERIOUSLY OBJECTED TO THE APPLI CATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. 4. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE O F RAMNATH SAO VS. GOBARDHAN SAO REPORTED AS 2002 (3) SCC 195 WHILE DEALING WITH A CASE RELATING TO CONDONATI ON OF DELAY HAS HELD THAT ACCEPTANCE OF EXPLANATION FURNISHED SHOULD BE THE RULE AND REFUSAL AN EXCEPTION MORE SO WHEN NO NEGLIGENCE OR INACTION OR WANT OF BONAFIDE CAN BE I MPUTED TO THE DEFAULTING PARTY. HOWEVER, BY TAKING A PEDANTI C AND HYPER-TECHNICAL VIEW OF THE MATTER THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED SHOULD NOT BE REJECTED WHEN STAKES ARE HIGH AND /O R ARGUABLE POINTS OF FACTS AND LAW ARE INVOLVED IN THE CASE , CAUSING ENORMOUS LOSS AND IRREPARABLE INJURY TO THE PARTY A GAINST WHOM THE LIS TERMINATES EITHER BY DEFAULT OR INACTI ON AND DEFEATING VALUABLE RIGHT OF SUCH A PARTY TO HAVE T HE DECISION ON MERIT. WHILE CONSIDERING THE MATTER COURTS HAVE TO STRIKE A BALANCE BETWEEN RESULTANT EFFECT OF THE ORDER IT IS GOING TO PASS UPON THE PARTIES EITHER WAY. ITA NO.1505/MDS/2012 3 5. IN VIEW OF THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSE SSEE AND THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, THE DELAY OF 2067 DAYS IN FILING OF THE APPEAL IS C ONDONED. THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IS ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL IS ADMITTED TO BE HEARD ON MERITS. 6. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WA S AN EMPLOYEE OF ICICI BANK AND SOUGHT EARLY RETIREMENT UNDER THE SCHEME FRAMED BY THE ICICI BANK UNDER THE CAPTI ON EARLY RETIREMENT OPTION 2003. PURSUANT TO EXERCISING OF THIS OPTION, THE EMPLOYEE RECEIVED A PACKAGE FROM THE IC ICI BANK UNDER VARIOUS HEADS AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SEC TION 10(10C) TO THE EXTENT OF ` 5.00 LAKHS AND RELIEF UNDER SECTION 89(1) ON THE AMOUNT EXCEEDING ` 5.00 LAKHS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.7.2005 GRANT ED RELIEF UNDER SECTION 89(1) BUT REJECTED THE EXEMPTION UNDE R SECTION 10(10C) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESS EE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) V IDE ORDER DATED 19.10.2005 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE BY UPHOLDING THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THA T EARLY ITA NO.1505/MDS/2012 4 RETIREMENT OPTION SCHEME OF ICICI WAS NOT IN ACCORD ANCE WITH THE GUIDELINES OF RULE 2BA READ WITH SECTION 10(10C). THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTI ON UNDER SECTION 10(10C) OF THE ACT. NOW, THE ASSESSEE HAS C OME IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. SHRI S.KEERTHIRAJAN APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN OF IN COME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 6,38,116/- AND CLAIMED REFUND OF ` 2,16,885/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PROCESSED THE RETURN WITHOUT CONSIDERING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(10C) OF THE ACT. THE A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESS EE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SU PREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF CHANDRA RANGANATHAN VS. CIT REPORTED AS 326 ITR 49(SC). HE FURTHER CONTENDED TH AT THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN AN IDENTICAL MATTER IN THE CASE OF K.R.ALAGAPPAN REPORTED AS 332 ITR 517(MAD) HAS G RANTED RELIEF UNDER SECTION 10(10C) OF THE ACT TO THE SIMI LARLY SITUATED PERSONS. THE A.R. FURTHER REFERRED TO PARA 5 OF TH E GROUND OF APPEAL, WHEREIN LIST OF CASES DECIDED BY THE TRIBUN AL ON IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN GIVEN. ITA NO.1505/MDS/2012 5 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CIT(A). 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIE S AND PERUSED THE JUDGEMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF CHANDRA RANGANATHAN & ORS (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY RETIRING EMPLOYEES OPTING FOR TH E OPTIONAL EARLY RETIREMENT SCHEME ARE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION FROM INCOME-TAX UNDER SECTION 10(10C) OF THE ACT. THE D. R. COULD NOT SHOW ANY LAW CONTRARY TO THE LAW LAID DOWN BY T HE HONBLE APEX COURT. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED O RDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10(10C) OF THE ACT AS C LAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON MONDAY, THE 8 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN ) (V IKAS AWASTHY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 8 TH OCTOBER, 2012. SOMU ITA NO.1505/MDS/2012 6 COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (4) CIT(A) (2) RESPONDENT (5) D.R. (3) CIT (6) G.F.