Laxman Lal Shukla, Kanpur V. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Kanpur

ITA 352/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2066 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 147; 148; 10

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.352/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 08 SHRI LAXMAN LAL SHUKLA, 61/18, MAINPURI BHANDAR, HULAGANJ, KANPUR - 208001 PAN:ABXPS4710R VS. ACIT 4, KANPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) A SSESSEE BY SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY S HRI AMIT NIGAM , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 23/09/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 0 9 / 1 0/201 5 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE OR DER OF LEARNED CIT (A) II, KANPUR DATED 20.03.2015 FOR A.Y. 2007 08. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOUR GROUNDS AND ONE GRI EVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THIS THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 147 IS NO T VALID BECAUSE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. APART FROM THIS, THE A SSESSEE IS DISPUTING THE ADDITION OF RS. 500,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. BY DENYING EXEMPTION U/S 10 (10C) OF THE I. T. ACT. 3. LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE IS SUE ON MERIT ABOUT ALLOWABILITY OF EXEMPTION U/S 10 (10C) IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS:- 1. CIT VS. APPASAHEB BABURAO KAMBLE, 122 DTR 238 (KAR. ) 2. SMITA ASHOK CHANSIKAR VS. ITO, IN ITA NO. 8717/MUM/ 2011 DATED 17.12.2013, PAPER BOOK PAGES 41 TO 49. 2 HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASS ESSEE WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF SBI AND IN THESE TWO CASES ALSO, THE ASSESSEE WAS AN EM PLOYEE OF SBI. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIN D THAT THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE AND IN THESE CITED CASES ARE IDENTICAL . IN THE PRESENT CASE AND IN THESE TWO CASES ALSO, THE ASSESSEE WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF SBI AND THEY EXERCISED THE OPTION OF VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT UNDER THE EXIT OPTION SCHEM E AND CLAIMED EX GRATIA/COMPENSATION AMOUNT AS EXEMPT U/S 10 (10C) O F THE I. T. ACT. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED IN BOTH THE CASES CITED BE FORE US AND LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS . HENCE, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THESE TWO JUDGMENTS, WE HOLD THAT IN THE PRESENT CA SE ALSO, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 10 (10C) IS ALLOWABLE. WE DIRECT THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY. IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION, THE ISSUE ON VALIDITY OF NOTICE U/S 148 D OES NOT CALL FOR ANY ADJUDICATION BECAUSE NOW IT IS OF ACADEMIC INTEREST ONLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 09/10/2015 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGIST RAR