Smt. Bhagyalakshamma Ramanada Rao Deshpande, Bangalore V. The Income-Tax, Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

ITA 21/BANG/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Bhagyalakshamma Ramanada Rao Deshpande, the appellant, who contested the denial of exemption under section 10(10C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for compensation received from Astra Zeneca Pharma India Ltd. due to voluntary retirement. Initially, the exemption was denied by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) during the processing of the return under section 143(1). The appellant's subsequent application for rectification under section 154 was also denied, leading to an appeal before the CIT(A), which was rejected due to an alleged inordinate delay of 10 years in filing the appeal. The appellant argued that the delay was due to bonafide reasons and that the appeal was originally filed manually in 2009, with a condonation petition filed in 2010. The CIT(A)'s decision was challenged before the Tribunal, which found that the necessary documents to substantiate the appellant's claims were not considered initially and thus remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 125232 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 08-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-01-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.21/Bang/2023 Assessment year : 2006-07 Bhagyalakshamma Ramanada Rao Deshpande, No.304, 1 st Allotment, Maruthinagar, Venkatala, 3 rd Main, 5 th Cross, Yelahanka, Bangalore – 560 004. PAN: AFRPD 6592G Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3)(1), Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Prathibha R., Advocate Respondent by : Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 09.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 09.03.2023 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member This appeal is against the order of CIT(A), NFAC dated 25.11.2022 for the assessment year 2006-07. 2. The assessee is an individual and filed a return of income after claiming exemption u/s. 10(10C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] in respect of compensation received from Astra Zeneca Pharma India ITA No.21/Bang/2023 Page 2 of 4 Ltd. on account of voluntary retirement. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) in which the exemption claimed was denied. 3. Aggrieved by the intimation the assessee filed an application u/s. 154 of the Act by stating that the assessee has satisfied the conditions for eligible deduction u/s. 10(10C) of the Act. However, the AO after seeking clarification from Astra Zeneca had concluded that the amount of compensation would not fall within the conditions provided u/s. 10(10C) of the Act and accordingly declined to rectify the intimation by rejecting the application made u/s. 154. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who rejected the same by stating that there is an inordinate delay of 10 years in filing the appeal before him. The CIT(A) rejected the appeal in limine by stating that there is no sufficient cause within the meaning of section 249(3) to condone the delay. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The assessee raised grounds contending the order of the CIT(A) on merits as well as the CIT(A) not condoning the delay without considering the bonafide reasons given by the assessee. 6. During the course of hearing, the ld AR submitted that the appeal as held by the CIT(A) was not filed on 30.7.2019 but filed on 2.9.2009 with a delay of 118 days. The ld AR further submitted that the assessee originally filed the appeal before the CIT(A) manually on 2.9.2009 and condonation petition was filed on 20.12.2010. The ITA No.21/Bang/2023 Page 3 of 4 assessee did not get any notice with regard to the hearing before the CIT(A) and the assessee did not pursue the appeal further. The ld AR also submitted that the assessee uploaded the same appeal online on 30.7.2019 which has been considered now by the CIT(A) stating that there has been a delay of 10 years in filing the appeal. 7. The ld DR supported the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee did not provide any documentary evidence to support that the appeal was originally filed manually and the condonation petition was also filed before the CIT(A). 8. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. We notice that the main reason for the CIT(A) for not condoning the delay which according to the CIT(A) was 10 years is that the assessee did not furnish any proof that the appeal was filed manually on 2.9.2009 and that the condonation petition was also filed on 20.12.2010. Before us, the ld AR produced copies of the above two documents with the acknowledgement of having been filed manually. In our view, the CIT(A) could not adjudicate the issue of condoning the delay properly for the reason that the assessee did not file any documents in this regard. We therefore remit the appeal back to the file of CIT(A) to consider the appeal filed manually on 2.9.2009 and the condonation petition filed on 20.12.2010 for the purpose of adjudicating the appeal de novo. The assessee is directed to file the necessary papers before the CIT(A) and cooperate with the proceedings. Since we have remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) to consider the issue of ITA No.21/Bang/2023 Page 4 of 4 condoning the delay afresh, the grounds with regard to the merits of the case have become academic and accordingly left open. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on this 9 th day of March, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- ( GEORGE GEORGE K. ) ( PADMAVATHY S. ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bangalore, Dated, the 9 th March, 2023. / Desai S Murthy / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore.