PL Karuppan Chetty, Karaikudi V. ACIT, Madurai

ITA 1781/CHNY/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5212 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-04-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 25-08-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Section: 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH A CHENNAI (BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER) .. I.T.A. NO. 1781/MDS/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SHRI PL. KARUPPAN CHETTY, NO.16, MUTHU STREET, FIRST CROSS, NORTH NAVARATNA NAGAR, SEKKALAI, KARAIKUDI 630 002. PAN : AKDPK2400K (APPELLANT) V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE II, MADURAI 2. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS IS A RECALLED MATTER. THIS TRIBUNAL HAS RECA LLED ITS EARLIER ORDER WHEREBY ASSESSEE WAS DENIED EXEMPTION UNDER S ECTION 10(10C) OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT) ON THE BENEFITS RECEIVED BY HIM ON OPTING FOR VOLUNTARY RE TIREMENT SCHEME OF M/S ICICI BANK. I.T.A. NO. 1781/MDS/08 2 2. THE A.O. AS WELL AS THE CIT(APPEALS) HAD TAKEN A VIEW THAT ASSESSEE WHO HAD OPTED FOR THE EARLY RETIREMENT OPT ION SCHEME FROM ICICI BANK WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(10C) OF THE ACT. 3. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL C ONTENTIONS. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS NO MORE RES INTEGRA . HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF K.R. ALAGAPPAN V. ACIT (3 22 ITR 517) HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT EMPLOYEES OF ICICI BANK WOULD ALS O BE ELIGIBLE FOR SUCH EXEMPTION AND FURTHER, THAT ITS EARLIER DECISI ON IN CIT V. M. CHELLADURAI AND OTHERS (2009) 317 ITR 370 (MAD.) ST OOD REVERSED BY THE DECISION OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF C HANDRA RANGANATHAN AND OTHERS V. CIT (2010) 326 ITR 49 (SC ). WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(10C) OF THE ACT HAS TO BE ALLOWED. 4. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED AN ALTERNATIVE GROUND S EEKING RELIEF UNDER SECTION 10(10)(III) OF THE ACT IF RELIEF UNDE R SECTION 10(10C) OF THE ACT WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO IT. SINCE WE HAVE ALR EADY HELD THAT I.T.A. NO. 1781/MDS/08 3 ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10 (10C) OF THE ACT, THIS PARTICULAR GROUND BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL, 2011. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 20 TH APRIL, 2011. KRI. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A)-I, MADURAI (4) CIT-I, MADURAI (5) D.R. (6) GUARD FILE