ITO, Ward 3(3), Latur V. Shri Subhash Keshav Sankpal, Latur

ITA 42/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 4224514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L PATHADE
• Assessee Lawyers: CHA NDRAKANT MAMDAPURE
• Section: 148; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.41/PN/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 ITO, WARD 3(3), LATUR APPELLANT VS. LATE SHRI NANASAHEB VENKATRO MANE, L/H SMT. SUNITA NANASAHEB MANE, 1167, LAXMI COLONY, LATUR. PAN: AECPM4681H RESPONDENT ITA NO.42/PN/2013 A.Y. 2007-08 ITO, WARD 3(3), LATUR APPELLANT VS. SHRI SUBHASH KESHAV SANKPAL, VIKRAM NAGAR, BANK COLONY, LATUR. PAN: ATBPS9636A RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.L. P ATHADE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI CHA NDRAKANT MAMDAPURE DATE OF HEARING: 17.02.2014 DATE OF ORDER : 17.02.2014 ORDER PER BENCH: THESE APPEALS PERTAIN TO DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ON SI MILAR ISSUES FILED AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF CIT(A ), SO THEY WERE 2 HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS C OMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. IN ITA NO.41/PN/2013, THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE APPEAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHETHER THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN ALLOWING T HE DEDUCTION IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC . 10(10C) AND RULE 2BA, THEREBY CHALLENGING CONSTITUTIONAL VA LIDITY OF THE SEC. 10(10C) AND RULE 2BA? 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHETHER THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN PASSING AN ORDER, WHICH IS ULTRA-VIRUS TO THE NOTIFICATION/ORDER OF T HE CBDT DATED 06/10/2009? 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHETHER THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN ALLOWING T HE DEDUCTION U/S 10(10C) OF THE ACT WITHOUT ASCERTAINI NG THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SCHEME AND WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE SCHEME AS HAS BEEN DONE BY THE ITAT I N THE CASE OF K.K. AMBUJAKSHAN (309 ITR 113)? 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHETHER THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN ALLOWING T HE DEDUCTION EVEN THOUGH CLAUSE 10 OF THE BANK EXIT OP TION SCHEME ITSELF STATES THAT THE SCHEME IS NOT APPROVE D AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 10(10C) OF THE ACT. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE, W HETHER THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN RELYING ON THE CAS E LAW OF CIT VS K.K. AMBUJAKSHAN ( 309 ITR 113) WHICH WAS DELIVERED ON 04/09/2008 I.E. PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF NOTIFICATION/ORDER OF THE CBDT DATED 06/10/2009? 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHETHER THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN RELYING ON THE CASE LAW OF CIT VS. K.K. AMBUJAKSHAN (309 ITR 113) WHICH WAS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE RBPS EXIT OPTION SCHEME AND DISTINGUISHABLE ON THE BASIS OF FACTS?. 7. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHETHER THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN PASSING TH E ORDER WITHOUT FOLLOWING CBDT'S NOTIFICATION/ORDER VIDE F. NO.200/ 34/2009-ITA DATED 6/10/2009 3 3. THE ASSESSEE IS AN EMPLOYEE OF STATE BANK OF IND IA AND HAS OPTED FOR VOLUNTARILY RETIREMENT SCHEME. IN HIS RE TURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S. 10(10C) ON EX-G RATIA RECEIVED FROM BANK ON HIS VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER DENIED CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S. 10(10C). IN APPEAL, THE CIT(A) GRANTED RELIEF BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND RIVAL CONTENTIONS. THE A.O. HAS ASSESSED THE INCOME OF TH E APPELLANT ON THE BASIS OF RETURN FILED BY THE APPEL LANT IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(10C) OF THE ACT IS SQ UARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KOODATHIL KALLYATAN AMBUJAKS HAN (2009) 309 ITR 113. THE HON'BLE I.T.A.T. PUNE HAS A LSO DECIDED THE SAME ISSUE ABOUT ALLOWABILITY; OF DEDUC TION U/S 10(10C) TO SBI EMPLOYEES IN THE CASE OF ITO WARD 2( 4) JALGAON VS. HARIBHAU SALI ITA NO.1429/PN/2009 A.Y. 2007-08 DATED 25/03/2011. THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS HELD AS UNDER '3. WE FIND THAT THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF KOODATHIL KALLYATAN AMBUJAKSHAN (SUPRA) ARE EXACTLY SIMILAR T O THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. NOTHING CONTRARY WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD ON BEHALF OF THE LEARNED DR BEFOR E US. 4. FACTS BEING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING, WE ARE INCLINED TO CONCUR WITH THE FINDI NGS OF THE CIT(A). IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE F IND THAT THE OPTIONAL EARLY RETIREMENT SCHEME OF SBI AL SO SATISFIED THE CONDITIONS OF RULE 2BA. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE RECEIPTS THEREUNDER WERE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(10C) OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME.' 6.1 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND RESPECTFULL Y FOLLOWING THE ABOVE REFERRED DECISIONS OF HON'BLE B OMBAY HIGH COURT AND HON'BLE ITAT PUNE I HOLD THAT THE AP PELLANT IS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION OF RS.5,00,000/- U/S 10(10 C) OF THE ACT. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. GROUND NOS.3 & 4 ARE ALLOWED. 4 THE SAME HAS BEEN OPPOSED ON BEHALF OF REVENUE. O N THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE S UPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE. 3.1 AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND M ATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE D ECISION OF THE HONBLE MUMBAI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NAGESH DEV IDAS KULKARNI VS. CIT (2007) 291 ITR 407 (MUM), WHEREIN, THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE EX-GRAT IA PAYMENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT IS A COMPENSATION RECEIVED ON TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR THE EXEMPTION U/S.10(1 0C) AS WELL AS THE RELIEF U/S.89(1) IN RESPECT THEREOF. THE AMOUN T RECEIVED ON VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT IS NOTHING BUT PROFIT IN LIEU OF SALARY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT TERM IN SECTION 89(1) AND HENCE SUCH AMOUNT IS ALSO QUALIFIED FOR RELIEF U/S.89(1) OF I. T. ACT. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO GRANT TH E RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN, ITA NO.42/PN/2013, SIMILAR ISSUES AROSE TO T HAT OF THE ITA NO.41/PN/2013. FACTS BEING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWI NG THE SAME REASONING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO GRA NT THE RELIEF AS DISCUSSED IN PRECEDING PARA. 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REV ENUE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 17 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 17 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 GCVSR 5 COPY TO:- 1) DEPARTMENT 2) ASSESSEE 3) THE CIT(A), AURANGABAD 4) THE CIT, AURANGABAD 5) THE DR, A BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE. 6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, I.T.A.T., PUNE