ITO, CHENNAI V. Umasankar, CHENNAI

ITA 2327/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7168 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 17-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN
• Assessee Lawyers: P HARIBABUC A
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 143(3); 11

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . , . , BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.2324/MDS./2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08) INCOME TAX OFFICER, SALARY WARD III(3), CHENNAI. VS. SMT. P.THILAKAVATHY , 19/12A,OLD BANK OF BARODA STREET,AMBATURE, CHENNAI 600 053. PAN ABEPT 9649 C ( / APPELLANT ) ( ! / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MR.P.RADHAKRISHNAN JCIT D.R / RESPONDENT BY : MR.P.HARIBABU,C.A ./ I.T.A.NO.2325/MDS./2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08) INCOME TAX OFFICER, SALARY WARD III(3), CHENNAI. VS. SMT.REKHA SURESHKUMAR , OLD NO.40,NEW NO.8,2 ND CROSS STREET, R.K.NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 028. PAN AABPS 1979 H ( / APPELLANT ) ( ! / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MR.P.RADHAKRISHNAN JCIT D.R / RESPONDENT BY : MR.R.VENKATARAMAN, ITP ITA NOS.2324 TO 2329 /MDS/14 2 ./ I.T.A.NO.2326/MDS./2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08) INCOME TAX OFFICER, SALARY WARD III(3), CHENNAI. VS. M RS.USHA KANNAN , UMAPATHY STREET EXTENSION WEST MAMBALAM, CHENNAI 600 033. PAN AFAPR 1500 D ( / APPELLANT ) ( ! / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MR.P.RADHAKRISHNAN JCIT D.R / RESPONDENT BY : MR.S.VENUGOPALAN,C.A ./ I.T.A.NO.2327/MDS./2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08) INCOME TAX OFFICER, SALARY WARD III(3), CHENNAI. VS. SHRI UMASANKAR , PLOT NO.10,SHANMUGA BHAVAN, VARALAKSHMI NAGAR, KOLATHUR,CHENNAI 600 099. PAN AAKPU 7872 N ( / APPELLANT ) ( ! / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MR.P.RADHAKRISHNAN JCIT D.R / RESPONDENT BY : MR.T.VASUDEVAN,ADVOCATE ITA NOS.2324 TO 2329 /MDS/14 3 ./ I.T.A.NO.2328/MDS./2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08) INCOME TAX OFFICER, SALARY WARD III(3), CHENNAI. VS. SHRI S.RAJKUMAR , DEV APARTMENTS, 5 TH AVENUE, BESANT NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 090. PAN AFVPR 6321 P ( / APPELLANT ) ( ! / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MR.P.RADHAKRISHNAN JCIT D.R / RESPONDENT BY : MR.T.VASUEVAN,ADVOCATE ./ I.T.A.NO.2329/MDS./2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08) INCOME TAX OFFICER, SALARY WARD III(3), CHENNAI. VS. SHRI V .RAMAN , L-92,RBI QUARTERS, KAMARAJ SALARI, K.K.NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 078. PAN AFAPR 1500 D ( / APPELLANT ) ( ! / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MR.P.RADHAKRISHNAN JCIT D.R / RESPONDENT BY : NONE ! '# / DATE OF HEARING : 09.12.2014 $%& '# /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.12.2014 ITA NOS.2324 TO 2329 /MDS/14 4 '# / O R D E R PER A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE SIX APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)-IV, CHENNAI IN ITA N O.622/13-14 DATED 28.02.2014, ITA NO.624/13-14 DATED 12.03.2014 , ITA NO.627/13-14 DATED 21.02.2014, ITA NO.625/13-14/A-I V DATED 28.02.2014, ITA NO.533/13-14 DATED 28.02.2014, AND ITA NO.564/13- 14 DATED 28.02.2014, RESPECTIVELY PASSED UNDER SECT ION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION250 OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ISSUES AND G ROUNDS FOR ALL THESE TWO APPEALS ARE COMMON, THEY ARE DISPOSED OFF BY TH IS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THREE IDENTICAL AND SIMIL AR GROUNDS IN ALL ITS SIX APPEALS WHEREIN THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVE D BY THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT (A), WHO HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEES IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S.10(10C) OF THE ACT WITH RESPECT TO T HE COMPENSATION RECEIVED IN LIEU OF THE VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME UNDER E.O.S (EXIT OPTION SCHEME). ITA NOS.2324 TO 2329 /MDS/14 5 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE IS THAT, ALL THE ASSESS ES ARE RETIRED EMPLOYEES OF STATE BANK OF INDIA AND HAD CLAIMED DE DUCTION U/S.10(10C) OF INCOME TAX ACT AGAINST THE COMPENSAT ION RECEIVED FOR OPTING VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT UNDER EOS SCHEME. THIS CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE SCHEME W AS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE-2BA OF THE I T RULES. ON APPE AL, THE LD.CIT (A) ALLOWED THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 10( 10C) OF THE ACT BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS:- 15. SEC.10(10C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, USES THE EXPRESSION ANY AMOUNT RECEIVED BY ANY EMPLOYEE AT THE TIME OF HIS VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY SCHEME OR SCHEMES OF VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT . IT IS SETTLED, THAT IF A PLAIN LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS PRODUCES A MANIFESTLY ABSURD AND UNJUST RESULT, WHICH THE LEGI SLATURE COULD NOT HAVE INTENDED, THE COURT IS SUPPOSED TO MODIFY THE LANGU AGE USED BY THE LEGISLATURE EVEN TO DO SOME VIOLENCE TO IT, SO AS T O ACHIEVE THE OBVIOUS INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE AND PRODUCE A RATIONAL CONSTRUCTION. AN EXPRESSION USED IN THE STATUTE IS NOT ALWAYS TO BE INTERPRETED LITERALLY OR GRAMMATICALLY. SOMETIMES IT HAS TO BE INTERPRETED H AVING REGARD TO THE ITA NOS.2324 TO 2329 /MDS/14 6 CONTEXT IN WHICH THE EXPRESSION IS USED AND HAVING REGARD TO THE OBJECT AND PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE SAME IS ENACTED. SEC.10(10C) WAS INSERTED IN ORDER TO MAKE VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT ATTRACTIVE SO AS TO RE DUCE HUMAN COMPLEMENTS FOR SECURING ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF CERTAIN COMPANIE S. THE OBJECT WAS ELABORATED BY VARIOUS DEPARTMENTAL CIRCULARS AND EX PLANATORY STATEMENTS ISSUED FROM TIME TO TIME. SIMILARLY, RULE 2BA OF T HE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962, WHICH WAS INSERTED BY INCOME TAX(SIXTEEN AMEN DMENT) RULES, 1962, WAS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME. ALL THESE GO TO SHO W THAT THIS WAS INTENDED TO MAKE VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT MORE ATTRACTIVE AND BE NEFICIAL TO THE EMPLOYEE OPTING FOR VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT. THEREFORE, THIS H AS TO BE INTERPRETED IN A MANNER BENEFICIAL TO THE OPTEE, OF VOLUNTARY RETIRE MENT, IF THERE IS ANY AMBIGUITY. 16. SUMS PAID ON VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT TO THE EXTE NT OF RUPEES FIVE LAKHS ARE EXEMPTED FROM BEING CHARGED TO TAX BY REA SON OF SEC.10(10C). EVEN IF THE PAYMENT IS STRETCHED OVER A PERIOD OF Y EARS, THE SAME WOULD NOT BECOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN ANY SUBSEQUENT ASSESSME NT YEAR. 17. IT FURTHER TRANSPIRES THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE INSTANT ASSESSEE AND (OTHER SIMILARLY PLACED ASSESSEES) BY FOLLOWING JUDICIAL RULINGS, AMONG OTHERS, INCLUDING OF THE JURISDICTIO NAL ITAT/HC, AS ALSO OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT NAMELY, (OTHER LESS AUTHORATIVE RULINGS ON THE ISSUE, OF ITA NOS.2324 TO 2329 /MDS/14 7 LOWER APPELLATE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT QUOTED HERE, PR IMARILY FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY AND UNCLUTTERED COMPREHENSION). 1. CIT VS. KODATHIL KALLYATTAM AMBUJAKSHAM 309 ITR 113(BOM.) CONFIRMED LATER BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CHANDRA RANGANATHAN VS. CIT 326 ITR 49(SC). 2. CIT VS. G.V.VENUGOPAL 273 ITR 307 (MAD.) WHEREIN, THE LORDSHIPS HAVE CONSIDERABLY AND LIBERA LLY HELD THAT ASSESSEES RECEIVING COMPENSATION ON VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT WOUL D GET BENEFIT NOT JUST UNDER SECTION.10(10C), BUT OVER AND ABOVE THE SAME, SIMULTANEOUS BENEFIT UNDER SECTION.89(1) OF THE ACT TOO . 18. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KODATHIL KALLYATTAM AMBUJAKS HAM 309 ITR 113(BOM.) HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT WITH REFERENCE TO THE VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME, HELD THAT : NORMALLY, THEREFORE, THE SCHEME OUGHT TO BE READ AS A SCHEME FRAMED BY THE COMPANY OR AUTHORITY SET OUT UNDER SECTION 1 0(10C). FURTHER, RULES HAVE BEEN FRAMED AS GUIDELINES FOR THE PURPOS E OF SEC.10(10C). THESE SIX GUIDELINES ALSO WILL HAVE TO BE READ BEAR ING IN MIND THE OBJECT OF SECTION 10(10C) ITSELF. UNDER THE RULES, A SCHE ME FRAMED FOR VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT OR TERMINI ON OF SERVICE MUST BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS AS SET OUT THEREIN IN THE SCHEME A ND, THEREFORE, MUST EITHER EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY COMPLY WITH THE REQUI REMENTS. MERELY ITA NOS.2324 TO 2329 /MDS/14 8 BECAUSE THE SCHEME MAY NOT EXPRESSLY SET OUT THAT T HE POSTS WILL NOT BE FILLED, IT CANNOT RESULT IN THE SCHEME NOT BEING A SCHEME FALLING UNDER SECTION 10(10C), READ WITH RULES 2BA. IT WILL HAVE TO BE READ IN A HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION WITH THE SUBSTANTIVE PROVIS IONS OF THE ACT, SO AS NOT TO RENDER IT ULTRA VIRES OF THE SUBSTANTIVE PRO VISIONS OF THE ACT. ONE HAS TO SEE THE SCHEME FRAMED IN TERMS OF SEC.1 0(10C) AND WHETHER IT SATISFIES THE GUIDELINES IN TERMS OF RUL E 2BA. FURTHER, IT IS WELL- SETTLED THAT CIRCULARS CAN BIND THAT ITO BUT WILL N OT BIND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR THE TRIBUNAL OR THE COURT OR EVEN THE ASSESSEE. THE COURT, THEREFORE, IS NOT PRECLUDED TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE I RRESPECTIVE OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR. ON A PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF RULE 2BA, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SCHEME FOR VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT OR TERMINATION OF SERVICE ITSELF MAY NOT EXPRESSLY STATE ALL THE TERMS AND IT IS POSSIBLE FOR THE COUR T TO READ THE IMPLIED TERMS OF THE SCHEME. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE SAME HAD BEEN SO READ. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(10C) AS CLAIMED. 19. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. G.V.VENUGOPAL 273 ITR 307 (M AD.) IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT THAT NOTIONS OF EQUITY DO NOT APPLY TO TAXING STATUTE S. IN INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THERE ARE SEVERAL PROVISIONS GRANTING TWIN BE NEFITS WHILE IN OTHER PROVISIONS, DOUBLE BENEFITS HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED. ON A ITA NOS.2324 TO 2329 /MDS/14 9 PLAIN READING OF THE STATUTE, IF THE ASSESSEE IS EN TITLED TO TWO BENEFITS, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE GRANTED BOTH THE BENEFITS AN D THERE WAS NO PROHIBITION TO THE TWIN BENEFITS IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED UNDER VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME. THE RELIEF CONTEMPLAT ED UNDER SECTION 89(1) IS AIMED TO MITIGATE THE HARDSHIP THAT MAY BE CAUSE ON ACCOUNT OF HIGH INCIDENCE OF TAX DUE TO PROGRESSIVE INCREAS E IN TAX RATES AND THAT PAYMENT UNDER THE VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME IS COVERED BY THE WORD SALARY WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN A VERY WIDE DEFINITION IN SEC.17 AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS COVERED BY SEC.89 , HE WOULD GET BOTH THE BENEFITS. 20. WHILE DECIDING ON THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW, IN THE AFORESAID CASE, AS TO WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OBTAINING THEREIN, THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE TO OBTAIN SIMULTANEOUS BENEFIT UNDER SECTION.10(10C) AS WELL AS SECTION 89(1), IN RESPECT OF THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED UNDER THE VOLU NTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME OF SBI, THE HONBLE COURT, WHILE REITERATING THE FOLLOWING TWO WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLES IN TAX LAW, I.E (I) THERE IS NO EQUITY IN TAX, AND THE PRINCIPL E OF STRICT OR LITERAL CONSTRUCTION APPLIES IN INTERPRETING TAX STATUTES. HENCE, ON THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE, IF THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLE D TO TWO BENEFITS, HE HAS TO BE GRANTED BOTH THESE BENEFITS. ITA NOS.2324 TO 2329 /MDS/14 10 (II) IF THERE ARE TWO REASONABLE INTERPRETATIONS O F TAXING STATUTES, THE ONE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE ACCEPTED. WENT ON TO GIVE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY DISMISSIN G THE DEPARTMENTS STAND OF TAXING COMPENSATION RECEIVED UNDER VRS, AS DEVOI D OF MERIT. 21. FURTHER STILL, IN THE SAME CASE, THE HONBLE COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT IF SEC.89(1) R.W.S 17(3)(I) OF THE ACT IS INTENDE D TO GIVE BENEFIT TO EMPLOYEES ON THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION RECEIVED FR OM THE EMPLOYER ON TERMINATION OF SERVICES, WE FAIL TO SEE WHY COMP ENSATION RECEIVED BY AN EMPLOYEE ON VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT BE NOT GIVEN TH E SAME BENEFIT. THERE IS NO INTELLIGIBLE DIFFERENTIA BETWEEN THE EM PLOYEES WHO RECEIVE COMPENSATION BY WAY OF TERMINATION OF SERVICE AND O N VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT WITH THE OBJECT SOUGHT TO BE ACHIEVED WH ICH IS TO MITIGATE OR ALLEVIATE THE HARDSHIP THAT MAY BE CAUSED ON ACCOUN T OF HIGH INCIDENCE TO TAX DUE TO PROGRESSIVE INCREASE OF TAX. IN OUR VIEW, THE WORD TERMINATION OF SERVICE IS U SED IN SEC.17(3)(I) IN A LIBERAL SENSE SO AS TO TAKE ALL CATEGORIES OF CASES , SUCH AS VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT, SUPERANNUATION, COMPULSORY RETIREMENT, RESIGNATION, DISMISSAL AND SO ON. WE ARE THEREFORE INCLINED TO ALLOW ALL THESE WRIT PETITIONS AND HOLD THAT COMPENSATION AMOUNT RECEIVE D BY THE EMPLOYEES UNDER THE VRS FROM THE BANK ARE ENTITLED TO GET RELIEF UNDER ITA NOS.2324 TO 2329 /MDS/14 11 SECTION 89(1) R.W.S.17(3)(I) OF THE ACT OVER AND AB OVE THE EXEMPTION GRANTED UNDER SECTION 10(10C)(VIII) AND THE LETTER NO.F.174/5/2001-ITA- I, DATED 23.04.2001 ISSUED BY THE CBDT, BANGALORE W OULD STAND QUASHED. FURTHER IN THE ACT, THERE ARE SEVERAL PROVISIONS GR ANTING TWIN BENEFITS WHILE IN OTHER PROVISIONS, DOUBLE BENEFITS HAVE BEE N SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED. THERE IS NO PROHIBITION TO THE TWIN BE NEFITS IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED UNDER VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME. THE RELIEF CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 89(1) IS AIMED TO MITIGA TE THE HARDSHIP THAT MAY BECAUSE ON ACCOUNT OF HIGH INCIDENCE OF TAX DUE TO PROGRESSIVE INCREASE IN TAX RATES. HENCE THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGH T IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM SIMULTANEOUS BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 10(10C) AS WELL AS SEC.89(1) IN RESPECT OF THE COMP ENSATION RECEIVED UNDER VRS. THE WORD SALARY AS DEFINED IN SECTION 17 OF THE A CT INCLUDES ANY PROFIT IN LIEU OF SALARY, WHICH HAS BEEN DEFINED IN SECTIO N 17(3) OF THE ACT TO INCLUDE ANY AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION DUE OR RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS EMPLOYER OR FORMER EMPLOYER IN CONNECTION WITH THE TERMINATION OF HIS EMPLOYMENT. HENCE, PAYMENT UNDER THE VOLUNTA RY RETIREMENT SCHEME IS COVERED BY THE WORD SALARY, WHICH HAS B EEN GIVEN A VERY WIDE DEFINITION IN SECTION 17. SINCE THE ASSESSEE I S COVERED BY SECTION 89, HE WILL GET BOTH THE BENEFITS, WHICH HE HAS CLA IMED FOR. THE WORD ITA NOS.2324 TO 2329 /MDS/14 12 SALARY AS DEFINED IN SECTION 17 OF THE ACT INCLUD ES ANY PROFIT IN LIEU OF SALARY, WHICH HAS BEEN DEFINED IN SECTION 17(3) OF THE ACT TO INCLUDE ANY AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION DUE OR RECEIVED BY THE ASSES SEE FROM HIS EMPLOYER OR FORMER EMPLOYER IN CONNECTION WITH THE TERMINATION OF HIS EMPLOYMENT. HENCE, PAYMENT UNDER THE VOLUNTARY RETI REMENT SCHEME IS COVERED BY THE WORD SALARY, WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN A VERY WIDE DEFINITION IN SECTION 17. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS COV ERED BY SECTION 89, HE WILL GET BOTH THE BENEFITS, WHICH HE HAS CLAIMED FO R. IT HAS FURTHER BEEN HELD IN THE CASE OF CHANDRA RAN GANATHAN & OTHERS VS. CIT(SC) 326 ITR 49 THAT, FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KOODATHIL KALLYATAN AMBUJAKSHAN, 309 ITR 113, T HE CBDT HAS ACCEPTED ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT SUPRA, THAT THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY RETIRING EMPLOYEES OF THE RBI OPTING FO R OPTIONAL EARLY RETIREMENT SCHEME OR VRS WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEM PTION UNDER SECTION 10(10C). 22. THE HONBLE COURTS ELOQUENT EXPOSITION, RELEV ANT AND OPERATIVE PORTIONS OF WHICH, ARE REPRODUCED AS ABOVE, ON THE ELIGIBILITY AND/OR ALLOWABILITY OF BENEFIT UNDER SECTION.10(10C) AS WE LL AS SEC.89(1) IN RESPECT OF COMPENSATION RECEIVED UNDER THE VOLUNTARY RETIRE MENT SCHEME OF SBI, SO NAMED EXIT OPTION SCHEME OR EOS WHICH THE INST ANT ASSESSEE HAD OPTED FOR, IS SELF EXPLANATORY, UNDERPINNED AS IT I S, ON THE SOLID FOUNDATION OF THE SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW AS O THE INTERPRETATI ON OF BENEFICENT PROVISIONS ITA NOS.2324 TO 2329 /MDS/14 13 OF SEC.10(10C) AND 89 OF THE ACT, AND QUITE CATEGOR ICALLY ANSWERS THE BASIC LINE OF ARGUMENT/S ADVANCED BY THE A.O, IN MAKING I MPUGNED ADDITION, DECIDEDLY, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), THE REVENU E HAS PREFERRED THESE APPEALS BEFORE US. 4. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENT ATIVES REPRESENTING THEIR RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES PLACED REL IANCE ON THE DECISIONS OF THE FOLLOWING IDENTICAL CASE RELIED BY THE LD.CIT(A):- (A) SMT.SHAKUNTLABEN NAGINKUMAR SHAH VS. ITO VIDE ORDER DATED 31.08.2010 PASSED IN ITA NO.537/AHD/2010 (B) CIT VS.G.V.VENUGOPAL, 273 ITR 307(MAD.), (C) SHRI K.BA LASUNDARAM VS. ITO IN ITA NO.1838/MDS./2012 VIDE ORDER DATED 10.04 .2013 CHENNAI TRIBUNAL AND ARGUED BY STATING THAT THE ISSUE IS SQ UARELY COVERED BY THE ABOVE SAID CASE LAWS. 5. LD.D.R COULD NOT SUCCESSFULLY CONTROVERT TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD.A.RS, HOWEVER VEHEMENTLY ARGUED IN SUPPORT O F THE ORDER OF LD.A.O. ITA NOS.2324 TO 2329 /MDS/14 14 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PE RUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE CASE LAWS S UBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEES. FOLLOWING THE CONSISTENT VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN VARIOUS CASES, INCLUDING THE CASES CITED HEREIN ABO VE AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT (SUPR A) WHICH IS SQUARELY COVERED AND DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSES SEE IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCE, WE HEREBY HOLD THAT THE LD.CIT (A) HA S RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 10(10C) OF THE ACT. WE THEREFORE, HAVE NO HESITATION TO CONFIRM T HE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT (A). IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 7. IN THE RESULT ALL THE SIX APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED IN THEIR FAVOUR. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 12 TH DECEMBER,2014 AT CHENNAI. SD/- S D/- (V. DURGA RAO) (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 12 TH DECEMBER, 2014. K S SUNDARAM. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE