Sri. R. Dhanraj, Bangalore V. ACIT, Bangalore

ITA 284/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0265 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWAPNA DAS JT
• Assessee Lawyers: PRATHIBHA
• Section: 80C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.284/BANG/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SHRI R. DHANRAJ, NO.310, 6 TH MAIN, II BLOCK, KALYAN NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 043. PAN: AANPD 9323Q VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 15(1), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SMT. PRATHIBHA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SWAPNA DAS, JT. CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 30.06.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.07.2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) DATED 05.12.105 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2004-05 INTER ALIA ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER I N THE MANNER WHICH HE DID. 2. THE ID CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONDONED THE DELAY I N FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AS RELIANCE PLACED BY APPELLANT IN THE CASE OF DEVDAS RAMA V CIT REPORTED IN 88 CCH 01 9 MUMBAI HIGH COURT WHICH WAS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO FACTS OF THE APPELLANT CASE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATI ON OF THE ITA NO.284/BANG/2016 PAGE 2 OF 4 APPELLANT AND ALLOWED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(10 C) AND DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80C OF THE ACT AS CLAIMED B Y THE APPELLANT IN FULL. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THA T THERE WAS A SCHEME FOR VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT BY THE COMPAN Y WHICH SATISFIED THE CONDITIONS UNDER SECTION 10(10C) OF T HE ACT READ WITH RULE 2(BA) AND THUS THE APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(10C) AS CLAIMED. 5. ON THE FACTS, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OUGH T TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, THE E XEMPTION WAS ALLOWED IN THE CASE OF VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT GIVEN T O THE EMPLOYEES OF RBI BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBA Y IN THE CASE OF KOODATHIL KALLYATAN AMBUJAKSHAN REPORTED IN 219 CTR (BORN) 80, WHICH JUDGMENT HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD AND THUS BINDING AND CONSEQUENTLY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(10C) OF THE ACT. 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE RELIEF UNDER SECTION 10(10C) AND DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80C OF THE ACT AS CLAIMED IN FULL AND OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE REFUN D AS PRAYED FOR BY THE APPELLANT. 7. FOR THESE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URG ED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE APPEA L MAY BE ALLOWED. 2. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS DISMISSED THE A PPEAL HAVING NOT ADMITTED THE APPEAL ON ACCOUNT OF DELAY IN FILING O F THE APPEAL. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT ADJ UDICATED THE ISSUE ON MERITS AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL BEING BARRED BY LIM ITATION. 3. BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNIS HED THE EVIDENCE EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING OF THE A PPEAL. THE REASONS STATED FOR THE DELAY WAS ON ACCOUNT OF HEART ATTACK SUFFER ED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ITA NO.284/BANG/2016 PAGE 3 OF 4 LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ME CONTENDED TH AT THE CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE CONDONED THE DELAY AND ADMITTED THE A PPEAL FOR HEARING. 4. THE LD. DR PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). 5. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A PPEALS), I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR THE DELA Y IN FILING OF THE APPEAL. EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT THEREOF WAS ALSO FILED, BUT THE CIT(APPEALS) DID NOT ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL BEIN G BARRED BY LIMITATION. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS PROPERLY EXPLAINED A ND THE CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE CONDONED THE DELAY. I THEREFORE COND ONE THE DELAY AND DIRECT THE CIT(APPEALS) TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL ON MERITS, BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 4 TH DAY OF JULY, 2016. SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV ) JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 4 TH JULY, 2016. /D S/ ITA NO.284/BANG/2016 PAGE 4 OF 4 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.