ITO Ward-47 (4), New Delhi V. Lalit Kumar Vadhera, New Delhi

ITA 2763/DEL/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9598 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 17-09-2009
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 25-08-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BK GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: LALIT KUMAR VADHERA
• Section: 201; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA : VICE PRESIDENT; A ND SRHI C.L. SETHI : JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2763/DEL/08 ASSTT. YR: 2004-05 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, VS. SHRI LALIT KUMAR VADHERA , WARD 47(4), NEW DELHI. TP-39, MAURYA ENCLAVE, DELHI. PAN/GIR NO. AAFPV8635H ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI B.K. GUPTA SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI LALIT KUMAR VADHERA (ASSESSEE ). O R D E R PER G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA, V.P: THIS APPEAL, BY THE REVENUE , ARISES OUT OF THE OR DER DATED 13-6-2008 OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-XXX, NEW DELHI FOR A.Y. 2004-05 . 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND EMPLOYEE OF ND PL. HE TOOK VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT FROM NDPL. BESIDES RETIREMENT BENEFITS I.E. GRATUITY, LEAVE ENCASHMENT, COMMUTATION OF PENSION ETC. THE A SSESSEE ALSO RECEIVED ADVANCE OF SALARY FOR LEFT OUT SERVICE. ON RETIREME NT BENEFITS, HE CLAIMED 2 EXEMPTION U/S 10(10C) AS ALSO RELIEF U/S 89(1) OF THE ACT. THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM. IN APPEAL, THE CIT(A) FOLLOWI NG THE DECISIONS IN THE CASES OF CIT VS. M. RAMAN (2005) 245 ITR 856 (MAD.) ; CIT VS. G.V. VENUGOPAL (2005) 144 TAXMAN 784; CIT VS. P. SURENDR A PRABHU (2005) 149 TAXMAN 82 (KER.); CIT VS. GEETHA MOHAN (2006) 201 C TR (MAD.) 551; CIT VS. S. SUNDAR 284 ITR 687 (MAD.); AND STATE BAN K OF TRAVANCORE VS. CBDT (2006) 151 TAXMAN 133 (KER.), DECIDED THE ISSU E IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. INASMUCH AS THE CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION S OF VARIOUS HIGH COURTS (SUPRA), AND IT IS NOT SHOWN THAT THE JURISD ICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS TAKEN A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE MATTER, WE SEE NO REA SON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, ORDER OF CIT(A) I S UPHELD. 4. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON _____-9-2009. (C.L. SETHI ) ( G.E. VEERABHADR APPA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: _____-09-2009. MP COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 3