ACIT, Coimbatore V. Sri M.Palanisamy, Coimbatore

ITA 1583/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9871 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-1969
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 19-09-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 201

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE Dr. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No. 1583Mds/2010 Assessment year : 2004-05 The Income-tax Officer, Ward-III(1), Trichy. Vs. Shri R.M.Sundaram, 15/203B, Harihar Apartments, Moolji Ramji Colony, Trichy – 620 020. PAN – AANPS2624M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Guru Bashyam, IRS, JCIT Respondent by : Shri S. Keerthirajan, CA Date of Hearing : 22 nd November, 2012 Date of Pronouncement : 22 nd November, 2012 O R D E R PER Dr. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT This appeal is filed by the Revenue. The relevant assessment year is 2004-05. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) at Tiruchirappalli dated 25.05.2012/20.6.2012 and arises out of the ITA 1583/12 :- 2 -: assessment completed under sec.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. In computing the income for the concerned assessment year, the assessee has claimed exemption of ` 5 lakhs under sec.10(10C) against the amount received by him on voluntary retirement. The assessing authority disallowed the claim. The Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) on the other hand, relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Geetha Mohan (2006) 201 CTR 551) and held that the assessee is entitled to claim the benefit under sec.10(10C). He has also relied on a number of other decisions including the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of State Bank of Travancore & Ors vs. CBDT & Another (282 ITR 587). He also referred to a number of decisions rendered by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Benches on the same issue. Accordingly, he allowed the claim of the assessee. It is against the above that the Revenue has come in appeal before us. 3. It is to be seen that the Tribunal, Chennai ‘C’ Bench in the case of N. Ananthakrishnan v. ITO in ITA No.1195/Mds/2009 has held in similar circumstances that the assessee is entitled for deduction under sec.10(10C). The law relating to the above ITA 1583/12 :- 3 -: condition has been considered by the Hon’ble High Courts in a number of decisions and held in favour of the assessee. Reference may be made to the following judgments : 1. CIT vs. S. Sundar & Others (2006) 284 ITR 687 (Mad.) 2. CIT vs. G.V.Venugopal (2005) 273 ITR 307 (Mad) 3. CIT & Others vs. P. Surendra Prabhu (2005) 279 ITR 402 (Kar.) 4. In the facts and of the circumstances of the case, we find that the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) has just followed the law declared by the constitutional courts and there is no infirmity in the order passed by him. This appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Thursday, the 22 nd of November, 2012 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (Vikas Awasthy) (Dr.O.K.Narayanan) Judicial Member Vice-President Chennai, Dated the 22 nd November , 2012 mpo* Copy to : Appellant/Respondent/CIT/CIT(A)/DR