Income-tax Officer, Ward-4, Ichalkaranji V. Shri Samant Vishnu Hindurao, Kolhapur

ITA 1544/PUN/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2014 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2013
• 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: DR PRAYAG JHA
• Assessee Lawyers: ANN KAPTHUAMA
• Section: 148; 10

Judgement Text

ITA NO.1544/PN/2011 SAMANT VISHNU HINDURAO, KOLHAPU R IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE: SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1544 / P N / 20 11 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08 ITO WARD - 4 ICHALKARANJI VS. SAMANT VISH NU HINDURAO KOLHAPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO.ADWPS 2803E APPELLANT BY: DR. PRAYAG JHA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: MS. ANN KAPTHUAMA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 22.02.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 .02.2013 ORDER PER R.S. PADVEKAR:- THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE CHALLENGING T HE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) KOLHAPUR DATED 3.10.2011 FOR THE A.Y. 20 07-08. THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THE APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A), KOLHAPUR FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE EMP LOYEES OPTED FOR EXIT OPTION SCHEME DECLARED BY SBI AND SBI, PATIALA AND OTHER ASSOCIATE BANKS ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10 (10C) AS RIGHTLY POINTED 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 CASE, THE CIT(A), KOLHAPUR ERRED TO IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 1 0 (10C) AND FURTHER ALLOWING ASSESSEE'S APPEAL ON THIS GROUND IGNORING THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO FULFILLMENT OF LEGAL REQUIREMENTS LAID DOWN UNDER RULE 2 BA OF THE IT RULES, 1962 FOR ITS ADMISSIBILITY. 3. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT MONETARY LIMITS SPECIFIED UNDER INSTRUCTIONS NO.3 OF 2011 DATED 09-02-2011 MAY NOT BE APPLIED TO THE PRESENT CASE AS IT COVERS IN EXCLUSIONS AS MENTIONED IN PAR A 8 (B) OF THE SAID INSTRUCTION . 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS REVEALED FROM THE RECORD ARE AS UNDER. THE ASSESSEE WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE STATE BANK OF INDIA WHO OPTE D FOR THE RETIREMENT AS PER EXIT OPTION SCHEME (EOS) ANNOUNCED BY THE BANK. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED EX- GRATIA AMOUNT ON HIS VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT FROM THE BANK. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE EXEMPTION U/S 10(10C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. T HOUGH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS INITIALLY ACCEPTED BY ACCEPTING THE RE TURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT BUT SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSEES CASE WAS RE-OPENED BY ISSUING 2 ITA NO.1544/PN/2011 SAMANT VISHNU HINDURAO, KOLHAPU R 2 NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND THE CLAIM WAS DENIED. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE ISSUE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HELD THAT THE ASSES SEE IS ENTITLED FOR THE EXEMPTION U/S 10(10C) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE EX-GRATIA AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE BANK ON THE VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT UNDER EXI T OPTION SCHEME. THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, PUNE AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTION AL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KOODATHIL KALLYATAN AMBUJAKASHAN (2009) 309 ITR 113. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMI SSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUA RELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE ITAT PUNE IN THE CA SE OF RAMESH DATTATRAY KULKARNI ITA NOS.1304, 1305 & 1306/PN/2011 ORDER DA TED 1.1.2013. THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IS AS UNDER: 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH T HE SIDES. WE FIND THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SUBHANGI VIJAY LELE VIDE ITA NO.1449/PN/2011 ORDER DATED 14-11-2012 FOR A.Y. 200 8-09 (WHERE ONE OF US IS A PARTY) HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.10( 10) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BY HOLDING AS UNDER : 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE BY T HE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. DURUKKAR V. VISHVAN ATH VIDE ITA NO. 1229/PN/2011 ORDER DATED 16-10-2012 WHEREIN THE TRI BUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER : 4. AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR AND ON PERUSAL OF ORDERS OF THE AO AND CIT(A) WE FIND IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO WARD-2, RATNAGIRI VS. DATTATRAYA DH UNDIRA MARATHE VIDE ITA NO.1095/PN/2011 ORDER DATED 05-09-2012. WE FIN D THE 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 EFFE CT IN THE INSTANT CASE IS LESS THAN RS.3 LAKHS. THEREFORE, IN VIEW O F THE VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND HAS TO BE DI SMISSED AS UNADMITTED. EVEN OTHERWISE ON MERIT ALSO THE ISSUE STANDS DECIDED AGAINST THE REVENUE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE B Y VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL . WE FIND IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. GANPATRAO PATIL (WHERE BOTH OF US A RE PARTIES) WE HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BY H OLDING AS UNDER : 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE AS UNDER. THE ASSESSE E WAS EMPLOYEE OF THE STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OPTED FOR V OLUNTARY RETIREMENT AS PER EXIT OPTION SCHEME (EOS) DECLARED BY THE BANK. IN THE RETURN 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 FROM THE BANK ON HIS VOLUNTA RY RETIREMENT. THE SAID CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.10(10C ) WAS REJECTED 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 CHAL LENGED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CI T(A) FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KOODATHIL KALLY ATAN AMBUJAKSHAN, 219 CTR 80 (BOM.) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE IS ALSO 3 ITA NO.1544/PN/2011 SAMANT VISHNU HINDURAO, KOLHAPU R 3 SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES OF THE ITAT IN THE FOLLOWING CASES : 1. ITO VS. SHRI JAVERILAL DALICHAND CHHAJED, ITA NO . 3 26/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. 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, THE SAME I S UPHELD AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 5. 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 C LAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.10(10C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS UPHELD. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSE D. 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRI BUNAL CITED ABOVE AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE, WE SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.10(10C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 6. SINCE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE CASE DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION CITED ( SUPRA), WE SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.10(10C) MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUNDS RAIS ED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 3. WE THEREFORE FIND NO MERIT TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE BEFORE US AND ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE HAVE BEEN DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26.02.2013 SD/- SD/- ( G.S. PANNU ) ( R.S. PADVEKAR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VG/SPS PUNE, DATED 26 TH FEBRUARY, 2013 4 ITA NO.1544/PN/2011 SAMANT VISHNU HINDURAO, KOLHAPU R 4 COPY TO 1 DEPARTMENT 2 ASSESSEE 3 THE CI T, KOLHAPUR 4 THE CIT (A) , KOLHAPU R 5 THE DR, ITAT, PUNE . 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER