Sri.Subhash babu Sukumaran, Varkala V. TheITO, Trivandrum

ITA 313/COCH/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6265 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 26-08-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SAJJIV
• Assessee Lawyers: T M SREEDHARAN
• Keywords: Benefit of exemption
• Section: 201; 208

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN SMC BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA N O . 31 2 /COC H/ 2020 : ASST.YEAR 2014 - 2015 SRI. PRABHAKARAN K C/O.M/S.T.M.SREEDHARAN & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES, 2 ND FLOOR, KALYAN CHAMBERS CHITTOOR ROAD, NEAR SOUTH JN KOCHI 682 016. PAN : AFIPP3050N . VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3 KANNUR . (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN, SR.ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SRI.B.SAJJIV, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 24.09.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 .09.2020 O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), KOZHIKODE IN APPEAL NO.ITA - 189 / KNR / CIT(A) / CLT/ 201 0 - 1 1 DATED 04.10.2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 2009 . 2. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN, LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SRI.B.SAJJIV, LEARNED SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL THAT THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE IS DELAYED BY 208 DAYS FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED NECESSARY AFFIDAVIT FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE DELAY WAS ON ACCOUNT OF THE PAPERS BEING SENT TO THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE CHARTERED ACCOUNT ANT HAD FORWARDED THE ITA NO . 312 /COCH/20 20 . SRI. PRABHAKARAN K . 2 PAPERS TO THE OFFICE OF THE LEARNED SR.COUNSEL. ON ACCOUNT OF COVID - 19 PANDEMIC, THE OFFICE OF THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WAS NOT FUNCTIONAL AND THIS HAD CAUSED THE DELAY. IT WAS THE PRAYER THAT ON ACCOUNT OF THE DELAY CAUSED DUE TO C OVID - 19 PANDEMIC, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE PUT TO DIFFICULTY AND THE DELAY OUGHT TO BE CONDONED. IT WAS ALSO THE SUBMISSION THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAD SUSPENDED THE LIMITATION ACT AS ON 25 TH MARCH, 2020. 4. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE CONDONATION OF DELAY. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH SIDES. THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL HAS CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THAT THE DELAY WAS ON ACCOUNT OF HIS OFFICE NOT FUNC TIONING ON ACCOUNT OF COVID - 19 PANDEMIC. THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL HAVING GIVEN A SPECIFIC CLARIFICATION ON THIS ISSUE, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD TO BE AT FAULT FOR THE DELAY IN FILING OF THIS APPEAL. CONSEQUENTLY, THE DELAY OF 208 DAYS IN F ILING OF THIS APPEAL STANDS CONDONED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISPOSED OF ON MERITS. 6. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION BY THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED MULTIPLE GROUNDS FROM A TO J . HOWEVER, IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CONTESTING ONLY GROUND D AND E . GROUND D IS WITH REGARD TO THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(10C) OF THE I.T.ACT AND GROUND E IS AGAINST REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 14 8. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ISSUE ON MERITS IN RESPECT OF THE ALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION U/S ITA NO . 312 /COCH/20 20 . SRI. PRABHAKARAN K . 3 10(10C) OF THE ACT WAS NOW SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN THE CASE OF STATE BANK OF INDIA V. CENTRAL BOAR D OF DIRECT TAXES REPORTED IN (2006) 282 ITR 587 (KER.). IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE EMPLOYEES BY WAY OF VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME FROM THE BANK ARE ENTITLE D TO RELIEF U/S 89( 1) R.W.S. 17 (3) OF THE I.T.ACT OVER AND ABOVE THE EXEMPTION GRANTED U/S 10(10C)(VIII). THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT HAS FURTHER QUASHED THE LETTER NO.F.174 / 5/ 2001 - ITA - 1 DATED 23.04.2001 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES. IT W AS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF R.BANUMATH Y V. CIT REPORTED IN (2008) 257 TAXMAN 578 (MAD.) W HEREIN THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES L AID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CHANDRA RANGANATHAN & ORS. V. CIT REPORTED IN TS - 5037 - SC - 2009 - O HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S 10(10C) OF THE ACT. SIMILAR IS THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. G.V.VENUGOPAL IN TAX CASE ( APPEAL ) NO.983 OF 2004. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE GRANTED THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(10C) OF THE ACT. 7. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DREW MY ATTENTION TO TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER IN PARA 2 WHEREIN THE LEARNED AO HAS RELIED UPON THE CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY THE CBDT IN 2009. THE LEARNED SR.DR ALSO DREW MY ATTENTION TO PARA 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN THE SAME CLARIFICATION ITA NO . 312 /COCH/20 20 . SRI. PRABHAKARAN K . 4 HAS BEEN RELIED UPON. THE LEARNED SR .DR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL BY FOLLOWING THE CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY THE CBDT. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S 10(10C) OF THE ACT. HE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDE R OF THE A.O. AND THE CIT(A). 8. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ISSUE IS NOW SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF G.V.VENUGOPAL REFERRED TO SUPRA AND IN THE CASE OF R.BANUMATH Y REFERRED TO SUPRA AS ALSO THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF STATE BANK OF INDIA REFERRED TO SUPRA, THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO GRANT THE ASSESSEE THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(10C) OF THE ACT AS CLAIMED. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND D OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED. 9. AS I HAVE ALREADY GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS, THE ISSUE OF REOPENING IS NOT BEING ADJUDICATED. NO OTHER GROUNDS HAVE BEEN ARGUED AND CONSEQUENTLY OTHER GROUNDS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN ARGUE D ARE NOT ADJUDICATED. 10 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 24 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020 . SD/ - (GEORGE MATHAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN , DATED 24 TH SEPTEMBER , 2020 DEVADAS G* ITA NO . 312 /COCH/20 20 . SRI. PRABHAKARAN K . 5 COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) - KOZHIKODE. 4. THE PR.CIT, KOZHIKODE . 5. THE DR, ITAT, KOCHI 6. GUARD FILE. ASST.REGISTRAR/ITAT/KOCHI