ACIT, Bijapur V. Sri. Venugopal V. Katti, Bijapur

ITA 490/BANG/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 57472 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SARAVANAN B JT
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment; Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.490/BANG/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, BIJAPUR. VS. SRI VENUGOPAL V. KATTI, BEHIND S.P. BUNGLOW, BAGALKOT ROAD, BIJAPUR. PAN: ADCPK 7835N APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI SARAVANAN, B., JT. CIT(DR) RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 15.02.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.02.2012 O R D E R PER N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THE APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14 TH FEBRUARY, 2011 OF THE CIT(APPEALS), BELGAUM FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE DEPAR TMENT: ITA NO.490/BANG/2011 PAGE 2 1. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN IGNORING E-CIRCULAR ON EX IT OPTION SCHEME ISSUED BY THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, C ORPORATE CENTRE, MUMBAI. AS PER PARA 10 OF THE AID CIRCULAR IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT NO EXEMPTION OF EX-GRATIA FROM INCOM E TAX U/S. 10(10C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, IS INTENDED IN THAT SCHEME. 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN PRESUMING THAT REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 2BA OF I.T. RULES, 1962 HAVE BEEN MET. 3. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL IGNORING BOARDS INSTRUCTION NO.200/34/2009-ITA.1 DATED 6-10-2009 WH EREIN IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE STATE BANK OF PATIALA AND STATE BANK OF INDIA ARE OFFERING EXIT OPTION SCHEMES TO EMPLOYEES OF VA RIOUS GRADES IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE BANK. THESE SCHEMES CLEAR LY LAY OUT THAT THEY ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECT ION 10(10C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. SOME EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE AVAILED OF THESE SCHEMES ARE NEVERTHELESS CLAIMING EXEMPTION O F THE BENEFITS RECEIVED FROM SUCH SCHEME UNDER SECTION 10 (10C). 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. AT TH E VERY OUTSET, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS DEPARTMENTAL AP PEAL IS LESS THAN RS.3 LAKHS I.E., THE AMOUNT PRESCRIBED BY THE CBDT FOR N OT FILING THE APPEAL, SO THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE FILED THIS APPEAL IN VIEW OF THE INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE CBDT. 4. THE LD. DR, HOWEVER, STATED THAT THE ISSUE AGITA TED BY THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD BE DECIDED ON MERITS. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS NOTICED THAT SECTION 268A HAS BEEN IN SERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2008 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1.4.99. T HE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 268A READ AS UNDER: 268A. (1) THE BOARD MAY, FROM TIME TO TIME, ISSUE ORDERS, INSTRUCTIONS OR DIRECTIONS TO OTHER INCOME-TAX AUTH ORITIES, FIXING SUCH MONETARY LIMITS AS IT MAY DEEM FIT, FOR THE PU RPOSE OF REGULATING FILING OF APPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR REFE RENCE BY ANY INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS C HAPTER. ITA NO.490/BANG/2011 PAGE 3 (2) WHERE, IN PURSUANCE OF THE ORDERS, INSTRUCTION S OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1), AN INCOME- TAX AUTHORITY HAS NOT FILED ANY APPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR REFEREN CE ON ANY ISSUE IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, IT SHALL NOT PRECLUDE SUCH AUTHORITY FROM FILING AN APPEAL OR AP PLICATION FOR REFERENCE ON THE SAME ISSUE IN THE CASE OF - (A) THE SAME ASSESSEE FOR ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR, OR (B) ANY OTHER ASSESSEE FOR THE SAME OR ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR. (3) NOTWITHSTANDING THAT NO APPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR REFERENCE HAS BEEN FILED BY AN INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO THE ORDERS OR INSTRUCTIONS OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED UND ER SUB-SECTION (1), IT SHALL NOT LAWFUL FOR AN ASSESSEE, BEING A P ARTY IN ANY APPEAL OR REFERENCE, TO CONTEND THAT THE INCOME-TAX AUTHOR ITY HAS ACQUIESCED IN THE DECISION ON THE DISPUTED ISSUE BY NOT FILING AN APPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR REFERENCE IN ANY CASE. (4) THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OR COURT, HEARING SUCH APPEAL OR REFERENCE, SHALL HAVE REGARD TO THE ORDERS, INSTRUC TIONS OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) AND THE CIR CUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH SUCH APPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR REFERENC E WAS FILED NOT FILED IN RESPECT OF ANY CASE. (5) EVERY ORDER, INSTRUCTION OR DIRECTION WHICH HA S BEEN ISSUED BY THE BOARD FIXING MONETARY LIMITS FOR FILING AN A PPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR REFERENCE SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE B EEN ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) AND THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SEC TIONS (2), (3) AND (4) SHALL APPLY ACCORDINGLY. 6. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE BOARDS INSTRUCTIO NS OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED TO OTHER INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES ARE BINDING ON THOSE A UTHORITIES, THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENT OUGHT NOT TO HAVE FILED THE APPEAL IN VI EW OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 268A SINCE THE TAX EFFECT IN THE INSTANT CASE IS LESS THAN RS.3.00 LAKHS I.E., THE AMOUNT PR ESCRIBED BY THE CBDT FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL, SO THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT IS D ISMISSED. ITA NO.490/BANG/2011 PAGE 4 PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 15 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012. SD/- SD/- ( GEORGE GEORGE K. ) ( N.K. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 15 TH FEBRUARY , 2012. DS/- COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, BANGALORE.