Arjun maruti Dhumal, Pune V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 1857/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 85022 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P S NAIK
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1857/PN/2013 (A.Y: 2008-09) ARJUN MARUTI DHUMAL 125A, LIC COLONY, ADITYANAND HOUSING SOCIETY, PAUD ROAD, PUNE 411038 PAN: ABEPR8239B APPELLANT VS. ITO, WARD 6(4), PUNE RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.K. KULKARNI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.S. NAIK DATE OF HEARING : 19.09.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.09.2014 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-III, PUNE, FOR A.Y. 2008- 09 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE REJE CTION OF CLAIM MADE BY THE A.O. UNDER S.10(10C) OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE VRS AMOUNT RECEIVED WAS EXEMPT UNDER S.10( 10C) OF THE ACT. IT BE ALLOWED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE DELAY OCCURRED IN FILING THE APPEAL BE CONDONED AND THE APPEAL BE ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE W ITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW. THE DETAILED AFFIDAVIT IN S UPPORT OF CONDONATION WILL BE FILED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES/LEAVE ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. AT THE OUTSET OF HEARING, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 805 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN AFFID AVIT REQUESTING TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL, INTER ALIA, STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WENT IN RE-DEVELOPMENT SCHEME, SO IT HAS CHANGED ITS ADDRESS. THEREFORE, HE COULD NOT GET THE ORDER IN TIME AND, AS AND WHEN HE RECEIVED THE ORDER, HE HAD FILED THE AP PEAL. THIS IS MAIN REASON FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. ACCORD ING TO US, THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED A REASONABLE CAUSE IN FILING THE APPEAL IN TIME. SO, WE ARE CONDONING THE DELAY. 2.1 ON MERIT, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI BHALCHANDRA R. JOSHI V S. ITO IN ITA NO.1330/PN/2011 FOR A.Y. 2008-09, WHEREIN THE TRIBU NAL HAS HELD AS UNDER: 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE WAS THE EMPLOYEE OF THE STATE BANK OF INDIA. THE ASSESSEE OPTED FOR THE VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT UNDER THE EXIT OPTION SCHEME D ECLARED BY THE STATE BANK OF INDIA TO ITS EMPLOYEES. UNDER THE SAID SCHEME, THE EMPLOYEES WERE OFFERED COMPENSATION IF THEY OPTED FOR VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT. AS THE ASSESSEE OPT ED FOR VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT UNDER THE EXIT OPTION SCHEME A ND THE ASSESSEE GOT COMPENSATION FROM THE EMPLOYER BANK. T HE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE EXEMPTION U/S. 10(10C) OF THE ACT WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE A.O AS WELL AS THE LD CIT(A). N OW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. THE LD COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUAR ELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION O F HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KOODATH IL KALLYATAN AMBUJAKSHAN, 219 CTR 80 (BOM). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KOODATHIL KALLYATAN AMBUJAKSHAN(SUPRA) HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY T HE CBDT AND TO THAT EXTENT, CIRCULAR IS ALSO ISSUED BY THE CBDT. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUES STAND SQUARELY COVERED IN F AVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KOODATHIL KALLYATAN AMBUJAKSHAN (SU PRA). MOREOVER, ON THE IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS IN THE CASE OF OTHER ASSESSEES, THE ITAT PUNE BENCH HAS DECIDED THIS ISS UE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE OF ITO WARD 2(2 ) V/S. SHRI VIJAY GANPATRAO PATIL, ORDER DATED 29 TH AUGUST 2012, THE ITAT 'A' BENCH HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM TO THE SAID ASSESSE E WHO WAS THE EMPLOYEE OF THE STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OPTED F OR THE VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME UNDER THE EXIT OPTION S CHEME DECLARED BY THE EMPLOYER BANK. THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE SAID DECISION IS AS UNDER : '2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE AS UNDER. THE ASSESSEE WAS EMPLOYEE OF THE STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OPTED FOR VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT AS PER EXIST OPTION SCHEME (EO S) 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 AMOU NT RECEIVED FROM THE BANK ON HIS VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT. THE SAID CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S. 10(10C) WAS REJECT ED BY THE A.O. FOLLOWING THE CBDT CIRCULAR F. NO.200/34/2009-ITA.I, DATED 8.10.2009. THE A.O. DENIED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/SEC. 10(10C) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEFORE THE LD CIT(A). THE LD CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE D ECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KOODATHIL KALLYATAN AMBUJAKS HAN, 219 CTR 80 (BOM) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE'S CASE IS ALSO SQUAR ELY COVERED BY THE DECISIONS OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCHES OF THE ITAT IN THE FOLLOWING CASES : 1) ITO VS. SHRI JAVERILAL DALICHAND CHHAJED, ITA N O. 326/PN/2010 DATED 8/11/2011 2) SHRI VENUGOPAL VS. KATTI, ITA NO. 4090 /BANGALORE/2001 DATED 15.2.2012 3) ITO VS. ROHIT KUMAR, ITA NO.969/AHD/2010 DT. 5/5/2011, ITAT, 'A' BENCH, AHMEDABAD, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED.' 4. MOREOVER, AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD COUNSEL , THE BOARD HAS ACCEPTED THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF KOODATHIL KALLVATAN AMBUJAKSH AN (SUPRA) AND HAD ISSUED THE CIRCULAR TO THAT EFFECT. WE, THEREFORE, ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A ND DIRECT THE A.O TO ALLOW EXEMPTION AS PROVIDED U/S. 10(10C) OF THE ACT. 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 2.2 NOTHING CONTRARY HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLE DGE ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. FACTS BEING SIMILAR, SO FOL LOWING THE SAME REASONING WE HOLD THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN REJECTION OF CLAI M MADE BY THE ASSESSEE U/S.10(10C) OF THE ACT. OUR THIS VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KO ODATHIL KALLYATAN AMBUJAKSHAN (2008) 219 CTR 80 (BOM). IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE EXEMPTION PROVIDED U/S.10(10C) OF THE ACT ON THE AMOUNT RECEIVED UNDER VOLUNTARY RETI REMENT SCHEME. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 22 ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (G.S. PANNU) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADA V) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED THE 22 ND SEPTEMBER, 2014 GCVSR COPY TO:- 1) ASSESSEE 2) THE DEPARTMENT 3) THE CIT(A)-III, PUNE 4) THE CIT-III, PUNE 5) THE DR, B BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE. 6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, PUNE.