Sh. Bhalle Ram Nain, Chandigarh V. ACIT, Bhiwani

ITA 3290/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7372 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 23-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 10(14); 54; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : SMC-II : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3290/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 BHALLE RAM NAIN, C/O PARIKSHIT AGGARWAL, FCA, H.NO.1238, SECTOR 22B, CHANDIGARH. PAN: AAHPN6080C VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-BHIWANI, BHIWANI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PARIKSHIT AGGARWAL, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI DEEPAK GARG, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 23.06.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.06.2016 ORDER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 13.3.2014 CONFIRMING THE OR DER PASSED U/S 154 BY THE AO DENYING THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(1 4) OF THE ACT IN RELATION TO THE A.Y. 2009-10. ITA NO.3290/DEL/2014 2 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS A DEVELOPMENT OFFICER OF LIC OF INDIA, WHO FILED RETU RN CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 10(14) ON EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS .1,12,466/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED. THEREAFTER, THE AO PASSED ORD ER U/S 154 ON 8.8.2012 DENYING THE BENEFIT OF SUCH EXEMPTION. TH E LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE RECTIFICATION ORDER. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED T HE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE QUESTION AS TO W HETHER OR NOT EXEMPTION U/S 10(14) SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO THE DEVEL OPMENT OFFICERS OF THE LIC HAS BEEN DECIDED BY VARIOUS HIGH COURTS IN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. BRANCH MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA, 298 ITR 358 (P&H) HAS APPROVED THE VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE, A BRANCH OF LIC, COULD NOT BE HELD AS AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT FOR NOT DEDUCTING TA X AT SOURCE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE REVENUE DID NOT CHALLENGE SIMULTA NEOUS ORDERS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL PERTAINING TO THE OTHER OFFICES OF THE LIC. THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. MADAN GOPAL BANSAL (2014) 366 ITR ITA NO.3290/DEL/2014 3 319 (RAJ) HAS ALLOWED EXEMPTION U/S 10(14) IN RESPECT OF CON VEYANCE ALLOWANCE AND ADDITIONAL CONVEYANCE ALLOWANCE FOR M EETING ACTUAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN DISCHARGE OF THE FIELD DUTI ES. THIS SHOWS THAT THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER EXEMPTION U/S 10(14) SHOULD BE ALLOWED, IS AT ANY RATE, A DEBATABLE ONE. SECTION 154 TALKS OF RECTI FYING A MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM RECORD. IT DOES NOT ENCOMPASS DEBATAB LE ISSUES WITHIN ITS FOLD. IF TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE ON A POINT, THE IS SUE BECOMES DEBATABLE AND MOVES OUT OF THE PURVIEW OF RECTIFICATION PROCE EDINGS. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIE D IN UPHOLDING THE DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(14) IN PROCEEDINGS U/S 1 54 OF THE ACT. I, THEREFORE, OVERTURN THE SAME. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.06.2 016. SD/- [R.S. SYAL] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED, 23 RD JUNE, 2016. DK ITA NO.3290/DEL/2014 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.