K.Alagappan, Trichy V. ITO, Trichy

ITA 1631/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 58141 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G NANDHA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S KEERTHIRAJAN
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI B BENCH, CHENNAI. BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT & SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1631/MDS/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 SHRI K. ALAGAPPAN, 95,NAMAKKAL ROAD, THATHIENGARPET, TRICHY DISTRICT. [PAN:AAMPA7655F] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD II(2), TRICHY. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. KEERTHIRAJAN, C.A. REVENUE BY : SHRI G. NANDHA KUMAR, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 1 9 . 0 3 .201 2 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.03.2012 ORDER PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), TIRUCHIRAPPALLI DATED 21.01.2009 IN ITA NO. 97/07-08 PASSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. SHRI S. KEERTHIRAJAN, C.A. REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI G. NANDHA KUMAR, JCIT REPR ESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN FILED LATE B Y 2 YEARS AND 181 DAYS AND THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT FOR CONDON ATION OF DELAY OF 1 YEAR I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1631 1631 1631 1631/M/11 /M/11 /M/11 /M/11 2 AND 8 MONTHS ALONG WITH APPEAL MEMO AGAINST WHICH, DEFECT MEMO STANDS ISSUED TO FILE AFFIDAVIT/CONDONATION PETITION FOR R EMAINING PERIOD OF DELAY OF 921 DAYS. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE FIL ED ANOTHER AFFIDAVIT FOR CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BY TAKING THE PLEA THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER MEDICAL TREATMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUE STED TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING AS THE ASSES SEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN FILING OF THE APPEAL BEYOND STI PULATED TIME. 2.1 TO THIS PLEA OF THE CONDONATION OF DELAY, THE L D. DR DID NOT STRONGLY OBJECT. 2.2 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES AND CONSIDERING TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD WITH REGARD TO LIMITATION ISSUE, WE ARE SATISFIED T HAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM NOT FILING THE A PPEAL WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME AS HE WAS NOT KEEPING WELL AND HE HAS SUPPORTE D SUCH SUBMISSION WITH THE AFFIDAVIT. AS SUCH, WHILE ACCEPTING THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING. 3. THE SOLE GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT GRANTING EXEMPTION OF ` .5,00,000/- UNDER SECTION 10(10C) OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE, WHO RETIRED FRO M ICICI BANK UNDER EARLY RETIREMENT SCHEME. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1631 1631 1631 1631/M/11 /M/11 /M/11 /M/11 3 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS NOW COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CHANDRA RANGAN ATHAN & ORS VS. CIT [326 ITR 49] AND BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MAD RAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF K.R. ALAGAPPAN AND OTHERS VS. ACIT [2011] 3 32 ITR 517 (MAD). THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL CONSIS TENTLY ALLOWING THE SAID DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10(10C) IN THE HANDS OF THE EMPLOYEES, WHO OPTED FOR RETIREMENT EITHER UNDER VRS OR ERO SCHEME. 5. THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHOR ITIES. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CHANDRA RANGANATHAN & ORS VS. CIT [SUPRA] AND THE H ONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF K.R. ALAGAPPAN AND OTHERS VS. ACIT [SUPRA]. 7. SINCE, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT INTERPRETED SE CTION 10(10C) IN THE MANNER THAT EVEN AFTER AVAILING EXEMPTION UNDER SEC TION 89(1), SUCH EMPLOYEES ARE ALSO ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SEC TION 10(10C) OF THE ACT, WE ARE BOUND TO APPLY THE LAW AS INTERPRETED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHOR ITIES AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10(10C) OF THE ACT AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1631 1631 1631 1631/M/11 /M/11 /M/11 /M/11 4 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 27.03.2012. SD/ - SD/ - (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) VICE - PRESIDENT (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 27.03.2012 VM/- TO: THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.