Income-tax Officer, Ward-2, Ichalkaranji V. Shri Prabhakar Kallappa Kambale, Kolhapur

ITA 1542/PUN/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9809 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANN KAPTHUAMA
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER , AND SHRI R.K.PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA.NO.1542/PN/2011 (ASSTT. YEAR : 2007-08) ITO, WARD-2, ICHALKARANJI 416115. .. APPELLANT VS. SHRI PRABHAKAR KALLAPPA KAMBALE, 8/1449, MADHUBAN HSG. SOCIETY, SANGLI NAKA, ICHALKARANJI, KOLHAPUR. .. RESPONDENT PAN: ACCPK9263D ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : MS.ANN KAPTHUAMA DATE OF HEARING : 23.11.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.11.2012 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 03-10-2011 OF THE CIT(A), KOLHAPUR RELATING T O ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. SINCE NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THE APPEAL IS BEING DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIA L AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN EMPLOYEE OF STATE BANK OF INDIA, RETIRED VOLUNTARILY AS PER THE EXIT OPTION SCHEME ANNOUNCED BY THE BANK. IN HIS REVISED RETUR N OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE CLAI MED EXEMPTION U/S.10(10C) ON THE EX-GRATIA AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM T HE BANK ON HIS VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S .143(1) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS LATER REOPEN ED IN VIEW OF 2 CBDTS CIRCULAR IN F.NO.200/34/2009/ITA-I DATED 06. 10.2009 AND AN ORDER U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 WAS PASSED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER REJECTING THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.10(10C) ON THE GROUND THAT THE EXIT OPTION SCHEME OF STATE BANK OF INDIA DID NOT S ATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED UNDER RULE 2BA. 3. IN APPEAL THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING VARIOUS DECISIONS INCLUDING THE DECISI ON OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KO ODATHIL KALLYATAN AMBUJAKSHAN REPORTED IN 309 ITR 113 AND THE DECISIO N OF THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MARUTI SUMAPPA GHEJI VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 578/PN/2010. 4. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVE NUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE CIT(A), KOLHAPUR FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYEES OPTED FOR EXIT OPTION SCHEME DECLARED BY SBI AND STATE BANK OF PATIALA AND OTHER ASSOCIATE BANKS ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S.10(10C) AS RIGHTLY POINT ED 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 CAS E, THE CIT(A), KOLHAPUR ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTI ON U/S.10(10C) AND FURTHER ALLOWING ASSESSEES APPEAL ON THIS GROUND IGNORING THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO FULFILMEN T OF LEGAL REQUIREMENTS LAID DOWN UNDER RULE 2BA OF THE I.T.RU LES, 1962 FOR ITS ADMISSIBILITY. 3. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT MONETARY LIMITS SPECIFI ED UNDER INSTRUCTION NO.3 OF 2011 DATED 09.02.2011 MAY NOT B E APPLIED TO THE PRESENT CASE AS IT COVERS IN EXCLUSIONS AS M ENTIONED IN PARA 8(B) OF THE SAID INSTRUCTION. 4. THE APPELLANT ALSO PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOLHAPUR BE V ACATED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 5. AFTER HEARING THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E AND ON PERUSAL OF ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A), WE FIND 3 IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO WARD-2, RATNAGIRI VS. DATTATRAYA DHUNDIRA MARATHE V IDE ITA NO.1095/PN/2011 ORDER DATED 05-09-2012. WE FIND TH E TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BY HOLDIN G AS UNDER: 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT (A) AND THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. ADMITTEDLY THE TAX EFFECT IN THE INSTANT CASE IS LESS THAN RS.3 LAKHS. THEREFOR E, IN VIEW OF THE VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS NOT MAI NTAINABLE AND HAS TO BE DISMISSED AS UNADMITTED. EVEN OTHERW ISE ON MERIT ALSO THE ISSUE STANDS DECIDED AGAINST THE REV ENUE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL. WE FIND IN THE CASE OF IT O VS. GANPATRAO PATIL (WHERE BOTH OF US ARE PARTIES) WE H AVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BY HOLDIN G AS UNDER: 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE AS UNDER. THE ASSESSE E WAS EMPLOYEE OF THE STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OPTED FOR VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT AS PER EXIT OPTION SCHEME (EOS ) DECLARED BY THE BANK. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR T HE A.Y.2007-08. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S.10(10C) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE EX-GRATIA AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE BANK ON HIS VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT. THE SAID CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.10(10C) WAS REJECTE D BY THE AO FOLLOWING THE CBDT CIRCULAR F.NO.200/34/2009 - ITA.I, DATED 08-10-2009. THE AO DENIED THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE U/S.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 O F CIT VS. KOODATHIL KALLYATAN AMBUJAKSHAN, 219 CTR 80 (BOM.) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FURTH ER FIND THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE IS ALSO SQUARELY COVERED B Y THE DECISIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES OF THE ITAT IN THE FOLLOWING CASES : 1. ITO VS. SHRI JAVERILAL DALICHAND CHHAJED, ITA NO . 326/PN/2010, DATED 08-11-2011. 2. SHRI VENUGOPAL VS. KATTI, ITA NO. 4090/BANGALORE/2011 DATED 15-02-2012. 3. ITO VS. ROHIT KUMAR, ITA NO. 969/AHD/2010, DATED 05-05-2011, ITA A BENCH, AHMEDABAD. WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 3. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4 7. SINCE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED HIS DECISI ON IN THE CASE OF VIJAY GANPATRAO PATIL WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY US, THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, T HE SAME IS UPHELD AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DI SMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. 6. SINCE THE FACTS IN THE INSTANT CASE ARE IDENTICA L TO THE FACTS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL CITED (SUPRA), THEREFORE, W E FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF EX EMPTION U/S.10(10C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS UPHELD. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSE D. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 23 RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- ( R.K.PANDA ) ( SHAILENDRA KUMAR YAD AV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER GSPS PUNE, DATED THE 23 RD NOVEMBER, 2012 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE ITO, WARD-2, ICHALKARANJI. 3. THE CIT(A), KOLHAPUR. 4. THE CIT, KOLHAPUR. 5. THE DR A BENCH, PUNE. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE.