GAJANAN PANDURANG BAJIRAO, MUMBAI V. ITO 26(1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2416/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 93019 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Benefit of exemption

Judgement Text

IN THE INCO ME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A. NO. 2416/M/2014 ( AY: 2008 - 2009 ) GAJANAN PANDURANG BAJIRAO, BAJIRAO HOUSE, MANDVI GALLI, VERSOVA, ANDHERI (W), MUMBAI 61. / VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 26(1)(3), MUMBAI. ./ PAN : AAAPB7962L ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY SHRI SUNIL C MONE, CA / REVENUE BY : SMT. N.V. NADKARNI, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 23.6.2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :23.6.2015 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 10.4.2014 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 28, MUMBAI DATED 30.9.3013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 2009. IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS WHICH READ AS UNDER: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDE R OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY HOLDING THAT THE SCHEME OF THE EMPLOYER NEW INDIA CO. OP. BANK (NIVRS 2007) DOES NOT HAVE AN INCOME TAX EXEMPTION. IN VIEW OF THE CLAUSE BY CLAUSE COMPLIANCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, ON MERITS, THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) SHOULD BE QUASHED. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY HOLDING OUT THAT THE EMPLOYER NEED TO STATE THAT VRS SCHEME FRAMED IS IN COMPLIANCE TO RULE 2BA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1 962. IN VIEW OF THE CLAUSE BY CLAUSE COMPLIANCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, ON MERITS, THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) SHOULD BE QUASHED. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY HOL DING OUT THAT THE SCHEME IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO CERTAIN CLASS OF EMPLOYEES AND THE POLICY ABOUT VACANCIES CAUSED IS NOT 2 MENTIONED IN THE VRS SCHEME AND HENCE IT IS NOT COMPLYING RULE 2BA R . W.S. 10(10C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IN VIEW OF THE CLAUSE BY CLAUSE COMPLIANCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, ON MERITS, THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) SHOULD BE QUASHED. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY HOLDING OUT THAT THE SCHEME IS NOT COVERED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 309 ITR 113 IN THE CASE OF K. K . AMBUJAKSHAN FURTHER CONFIRMED BY SUPREME COURT AND ACCEPTED BY CBDT. IN VIEW OF THE CLAUSE BY CLAU SE COMPARISON SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THIS HIGH COURT JUDGMENT, THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) SHOULD BE QUASHED . 5. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY IGNORING THE JUDGM ENTS OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAIL DSP, CALCUTTA TRIBUNAL SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF KRISHNA GOPAL SAHA AND OTHER JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) SHOULD BE QUASHED. 6. THE APPELLANTS CASE IS SQUARELY CO VERED BY THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE' ITAT D' BENCH MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF GURUPRASAD PENDSE ITA NO. 6056/MUM/2013 VIDE ORDER DATED 7.3.2014 WHEREIN SIMILAR BANK ISSUE OF SIMILAR BANK EMPLOYEE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, THERE IS A DELAY OF 128 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED BY THE ACT. HE FURTHER MENTIONED THAT THE SAID DELAY IS NOT DUE TO ANY DELIBERATE INTENTION BUT FOR THE REASONS S TATED IN THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DATED 22.3.2014. IN THIS REGARD, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE READ OUT THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE AFFIDAVITS WHICH READ AS UNDER: 1..... 2. AFTER A LONG PERSUATION BY MY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT THE DEPARTMENT PR OCESSED MY RETURN OF INCOME DISALLOWING MY CLAIM. I HAD TO FILE AN APPEAL BY PAYING NECESSARY FEES OF RS. 1,000/ - PLUS THE PROFESSIONAL CHARGES FOR THE APPEAL AND THE APPEAL WAS IN MY FAVOUR IN THE YEAR 2011. 3. HOWEVER, THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT REOPEN ED MY CASE FOR AY 2008 - 2009 AND AGAIN DISALLOWED THE CLAIM U/S 10(10C). I HAD TO AGAIN MADE AN APPEAL BY PAYING NECESSARY FEES OF RS. 1,000/ - PLUS THE PROFESSIONAL CHARGES FOR THE APPEAL WHICH WENT AGAINST ME. 4. IT WAS TOLD BY MY CA THAT I WILL HAVE TO B ARE FEES OF FEW THOUSANDS FOR FILING FURTHER APPEAL TO TRIBUNAL AND ALSO THE PROFESSIONAL FEES. THESE FEES ARE CONSIDERED VERY HEAVY HAVING ALREADY SPENT FEW THOUSANDS FOR THE EARLIER APPEAL. 5. I AM A SALARIED EMPLOYEE AND HAVE NEVER FACED INCOME TAX LIT IGATION. I WAS CONFUSED AS TO FURTHER COURSE OF ACTION AND HENCE COULD NOT FILE MY APPEAL IN TIME. I WAS TOLD THAT SOME FAVORABLE CIRCULAR MAY BE ISSUED BY THE EMPLOYER ON THIS ISSUE. AS A RESULT THE DECISION COULD NOT BE TAKEN FOR FILING THE APPEAL. 6. I HAVE NOW LEARNT THAT DUE TO VARIOUS TRIBUNAL DECISIONS, I HAVE A GOOD CHANCE TO WIN THIS APPEAL WHICH THE ONLY COURSE IS REMAINING FOR CLAIMING THE EXEMPTION. 3 3. I HAVE HEARD THE LD REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES ON THE ISSUE OF DELAY OF 120 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME. ON PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, I FIND THAT THERE I S NO MALA FIDE INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE, IN NOT FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT. THERE IS REASONABLE CAUSE, WHICH RESTRAINED THE ASSESSEE IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE SAME CONSTITUTES A S UFFICIENT REASON TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 128 DAYS. CONSIDERING THE SAME, I CONDONE THE DELAY OF 128 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEALS ON MERITS. 5. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE ALLOWABILITY OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(10C) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE A MOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME (NIVRS 2007) IN RESPECT OF THE EMPLOYEES OF NEW INDIA CO - OPERATIVE BANK. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S AND THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE REVENUE DENIED THE SAID BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION RELYING ON THE CLAUSE (1) TO (5) OF RULE 2BA OF THE SC HEME. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THEY ARE ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION, AS SUCH SCHEMES ARE FLOATED AND EXEMPTION S U/S 10(10C) OF THE ACT ARE AIMED AT ATTRACTING THE MORE EMPLOYEES FOR ADOPTING SUCH SCHEMES. THE SAID LOGIC WAS APPROVED BY THE VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNALS / COURTS. AT THE OUTSET, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO ONE OF SUCH DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF GURUPRASAD GOPAL PANDSE VS. ITO IN ITA NO.6056/MUM/2013 (AY 2008 - 09), DATED 7.3.2014. THIS IS THE CASE WHERE AN EMPLOYEE OF THE SAME EMPLOYER I.E., NEW INDIA COOP. BANK, ADOPTED THE SAID VRS SCHEME OF 2007 AND FOUND ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(10C) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE RETIREMENT BENEFIT OF RS.6.01 LAKHS BY THE D BENCH OF ITAT, MUMBAI. IN THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA), THE BENCH RELIED ON ANOTHER DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASES OF UMA SUBRAMANI AN & TOW OTHERS IN ITA NOS. 3120, 3122 & 3468/MUM/2012, DATED 10.8.2012. THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THEM ELIGIBLE ON THE SIMILAR CLAUSES OF THE SCHEME AND RELEVANT PORTIONS ARE EXTRACTED IN THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL (PARA 2.4). AFTER HEARING THE LD REPRESEN TATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON PERUSAL OF THE CITED DECISION OF 4 THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA), I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE CASES STAND COVERED IN THEIR FAVOUR. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS OF THIS ORDER, THE SAID PARA 2.4 FROM THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 7.3. 2014 (SUPRA) IS EXTRACTED AS FOLLOWS: 2.4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF NEW INDIA CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD. AND HAD OPTED FOR VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT,THAT ON HIS VOLUNTARY RET IREMENT HE RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.6.01 LAKHS,THAT CLAIM MADE HIM WAS REJECTED BY THE AO AND THE FAA. WE FIND THAT FAA HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS THAT WERE TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.DOWNSIZING OF STAFF CANNOT BE THE PURPOSE OF ANY VRS. HERE,WE WO ULD LIKE TO REFER TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF SAIL DSP VR EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION 1998 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SECTION 10(10C) WAS INSERTED IN ORDER TO MAKE VRS ATTRACTIVE,SO AS TO REDUCE HUMAN COMPLEMENT S FOR SECURING ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF CERTAIN COMPANIES,THAT SAID PRINCIPLE WAS ELABORATED BY VARIOUS DEPARTMENT - AL CIRCULARS AND EXPLANATORY STATEMENTS ISSUED FROM TIME TO TIME,THAT RULE 2BA OF THE RULES, WAS AMENDED ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS FOR THAT PURPOSE, THAT ALL THE FACTORS SHOWED THAT PROVISION WERE INSERTED IN THE ACT TO MAKE VRS MORE ATTRACTIVE AND BENEFICIAL TO THE EMPLOYEE OPTING FOR VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT, THAT PROVISIONS HAD TO BE INTERPRETED IN A MANNER BENEFICIAL TO THE OPTEE,IF THERE IS ANY AMBIG UITY.AS PER THE COURT,RULE 2BA PRESCRIBED THE MONETARY LIMIT.(262ITR638). WE FURTHER FIND THAT IN THE CASES OF Y.S.C.BABU & A.V.S. RAGHAVAN EMPLOYEES OF SYNDICATE BANK,HONBLE HIGH COURT OF AP HAD HELD THAT THEY WERE ENTITLED TO CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S.10 (10C ) OF THE ACT.SYNDICATE BANK IS ONE OF THE COMMERCIAL BANK LIKE THE SBI.THUS,THERE IS NO JUSTIFICA - TION FOR DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN THE RBI AND A COMMERCIAL BANK.WHAT IS TO BE SEEN IS WHETHER THE INTERPRETATION ADOPTED IS BENEFICIAL TO THE OPTEE OR NOT ? WE FURTHER FIND THAT A BENCH OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL HAS,IN THE CASES OF UMA SUBRAMANIAN & TWO OTHERS(ITA NOS.3120,3122 & 3468/MUM/ 2012),DEALT THE ISSUE OF VRS OF THE SBI EMPLOYEES AND APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(10C) OF THE ACT.IN ITS ORDER DATED 10.08.2012, TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER : 2.ALL THE THREE ASSESSEES IN THE PRESENT CASES ARE EX - EMPLOYEES OF THE STATE BANK OF INDIA (IN SHORT SBI). THEY OPTED FOR VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME AS PER STAFF EXIT SCHEME OF THEIR EMPLOYER SBI AND IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, EXEMPTION OF RS 5 LAKHS WAS CLAIMED BY THEM U/S.10(10C) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961. IN THE ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED U/S.143(3), THE AO ALLOWED THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S.10(10C) IN VIE W OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN WP NO.1051 OF 2010 IN THE CASE OF RAVIKANT G. SETH VS. CIT RENDERED VIDE ORDER DATED 23.08.2010. BY THE SAID ORDER, CIT - 2, THANE WAS DIRECTED BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE PETITIO NER WAS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S.10(10C) OF THE ACT AND THE RULES MADE UNDER THE INCOME - TAX RULES, 1962. AS PER THE DIRECTION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, THE LD. CIT - 2, THANE PASSED AN ORDER U/S.264 ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE NAMELY SHRI RAVI KA NT SETH U/S.10(10C) OF THE ACT. 3.SUBSEQUENTLY, THE LD. CIT - 26, MUMBAI CAME ACROSS THE DECISION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SBI EXIT OPTEES VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (WP NO.2129 OF 2007) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAD TAKEN NOTE OF REQUI REMENT OF RULE 2BA ACCORDING TO WHICH THE VACANCY CAUSED BY THE VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT WAS NOT TO BE FILLED - UP IN ORDER TO AVAIL THE BENEFIT OF SEC.10(10C). IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT AS PER THE RELEVANT PROVISION OF CLAUSE 14 OF THE STAFF EXIT SCHEME OF SBI, TH E EXIT OPTION WAS AIMED AT IMPROVING THE LEVEL OF MORAL IN THE BANK AND NOT AT RIGHTSIZING AND THE BANK WAS TO HAVE DISCRETION TO FILL - UP THE VACANCIES CAUSED BY RELEASE OF OFFICERS UNDER THE EXIT OPTION. AFTER TAKING NOTE OF RULE 2BA AS WELL AS THE PROVI SIONS OF CLAUSE 14 OF STAFF EXIT SCHEME, THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT IF THE PETITIONERS WERE AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID CLAUSE OR THE RULE, IT WOULD BE OPEN TO THEM TO INDEPENDENTLY PURSUE WHATEVER REMEDY THEY MAY HAVE AT LAW. ACCORDING TO THE LD. C IT, THE DECISION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SBI EXIT OPTEES (SUPRA) WAS IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO U/S.143(3) IN THE CASES OF THE ASSESSEES WERE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE INASMUCH AS DEDUCTION U/S.10(10C) AMOUNTING TO RS. 5 LAKHS WAS WRONGLY ALLOWED TO THEM. HE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE SAID ORDERS WITH A 5 DIRECTION TO THE AO TO FRAME THE SAME DE NOVO AFTER WITHDRAWING EXEMPTION OF RS.5 LAKHS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEES U/S.10( 10C) OF THE ACT AS THE REQUIREMENT OF RULE 2BA OF IT RULES WAS NOT SATISFIED. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT PASSED U/S.263 SETTING ASIDE AND REVISING THE ORDERS OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEES HAVE PREFERRED THESE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4.WE HAVE H EARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. ALTHOUGH THE LD. DR HAS STRONGLY RELIED ON THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT PASSED U/S.263 IN SUPPORT OF THE REVENUE'S CASES, IT IS OBSERVED THAT IN PARAGRAPH NO.5 OF THE SAID ORDERS, THE LD. CIT HIMSELF HAS STATED THAT NOTHING HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SBI EXIT OPTEES (SUPRA) AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER U/S.10(10C). WHAT THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HEL D WAS THAT THE CLAUSE 14 OF THE SBI EXIT SCHEME WAS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH RULE 2BA OF THE INCOME - TAX RULES AND IT WAS LEFT OPEN TO THE PETITIONER AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID CLAUSE OR THE RULE TO INDEPENDENTLY PURSUE WHATEVER REMEDY THEY MAY HAVE AT LAW. 5.AT T HE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CITED VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL WHEREIN A SIMILAR ISSUE RELATING TO THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION U/S.10(10C) HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED ON MERIT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE . IN ONE OF SUCH DECISIONS RENDERED IN THE CASE OF PANDYA VINODCHANDRA BHOGILAL VS. ITO 45 DTR 105, AHEMADABAD BENCH OF THE ITAT HELD THAT CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION U/S.10(10C) CANNOT BE DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT THE SCHEME OF VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT FRAMED BY THE EMPLOYER IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULE 2BA. FOR THIS CONCLUSION, THE AHMEDABAD BENCH RELIED ON THIRD MEMBER DECISION OF THE KOLKATA BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF DY. CIT V. KRISHNA GOPAL SAHA 29 DTR 385 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE, WHO HA D EXERCISED THE OPTION FOR RETIREMENT UNDER THE SCHEME FLOATED BY THE EMPLOYER BANK AND HAD RECEIVED THE COMPENSATION FROM THE EMPLOYER BANK, WAS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S.10(10C) EVEN THOUGH THE SAID SCHEME WAS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF RU LE 2BA. THESE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DECIDING THE SIMILAR ISSUE RELATING TO EXEMPTION U/S.10(10C) IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO WHILE ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FO R EXEMPTION U/S.10(10C) IN THE ASSESSMENTS FRAMED U/S.143(3) WAS A POSSIBLE VIEW AND THE LD. CIT, IN OUR OPINION, WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE SAID ASSESSMENTS AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SBI EXIT OPTEES (SUPRA) WHEREIN NO DECISION WAS RENDERED AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONERS ON MERIT AS AGREED BY THE LD. CIT HIMSELF IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S.263.WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE IM PUGNED ORDERS PASSED U/S.263 AND RESTORE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO U/S.143(3). CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE REFERRED ORDERS THE HONBLE COURTS AND THE COORDINATING BENCH,WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO GET BENEFIT OF THE EXEMPTION PROVIDED U/S.10(10C) OF THE ACT.THEREFORE,REVERSING THE ORDER OF THE FAA WE DECIDED EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. THUS, C ONSIDERING THE COMMONNESS OF THE ISSUE AS WELL AS RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION OF TRIBUNAL, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE ISSUE SHOULD BE DE CIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE . ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS RAISED THE ASSES SEE ARE ALLOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD JUNE, 2015. SD/ - (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 23 .6 .201 5 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS 6 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT - 4. / 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI