Sri R.Subbiah, CHENNAI V. ITO, Trichy

ITA 666/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4765 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Benefit of exemption

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH D CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. ITA NO.665/MDS./11 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2004-05 SRI K.R.CHINNA PICHAPPAN D-5,VIGNESH MANTHRALAYA, RAGHAVENDRAPURAM, SRIRANGAM, TIRUCHIRAPALLI. VS. THE ITO, WARD II(2), TIRUCHIRAPALLI. PAN ACPPC 5850 K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.666/MDS./11 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2004-05 SRI R.SUBBIAH, L2,SOWBAGHYA,BLOCK II, SHANKAR ABODES, VASUDEVAN STRET, T.V.KOIL, TIRUCHIRAPALLI. VS. THE ITO, WARD II(2), TIRUCHIRAPALLI. PAN ABMPS 1935 K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.667/MDS./11 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2004-05 SMT T.KALYANI, 1,VYASARAJA NAGAR, SRIRANGAM, TIRUCHIRAPALLI. VS. THE ITO, WARD II(2), TIRUCHIRAPALLI. PAN AALPK 8261 G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.SRIDHAR DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI K E B RENGARAJAN PAGE OF 5 ITA.665/666/667 /MDS/11 2 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE A RE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX(A), TIRUCHIRAPPALLI DATED 19.10.2005, 11.05.2009 AND 19.10.2005 RESPECTIVELY. THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.665/MDS.11 OF SHRI K.R.CHINNA PICHAPPAN HAS BEEN FILED WITH A DELAY OF 194 DAYS, ITA NO.666/MDS./11 OF SHRI R.SUBBIAH WITH A DELAY O F 641 DAYS AND ITA NO.667/MDS./11 OF SMT. T.KALYANI WITH A DELAY OF 194 DAYS. ALL THE ASSESSES HAVE FILED PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. REASONS CITED IN THE PETITION IS THAT THE Y WERE NOT ADVISED PROPERLY BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, WHEN THE RESPECTIVE APPEALS FILED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A),TIRUCHIRAPALLIL WERE DISMISSED. RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAN D ACQUISITION VS. KATIJI 167 ITR 471 AND THAT OF N. BALAKRISHNAN V. M. KRISHNAMURTHY, (1998) 7 SCC 123, THE ASSESSES SUBMIT THAT THE DELAY CAUSED TO THE COMPLEXITIES INVOLVED SHOULD BE CONDONED AND APPEALS DECIDED ON MERITS. LD. DR DID NOT STRONGLY OBJECT THE CONDONATION OF DELAYS. WE FIND THAT REASONABLE CAUSE HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSES, SI NCE ASSESSES WERE INITIALLY ADVISED BY CHARTERED ACCOUN TANTS NOT PAGE OF 5 ITA.665/666/667 /MDS/11 3 TO PURSUE THE MATTER FURTHER, BUT NEVERTHELESS, LAT ER CAME TO KNOW THAT SUFFICIENT GROUNDS WERE THERE FOR PURSUIN G THEIR CASES BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE DELAYS ARE THEREFO RE CONDONED AND APPEALS ARE TAKEN ON RECORD. 2. ALL ASSESSEES WERE EMPLOYEES OF ICICI BANK AND HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S.10(10C) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 (IN SHORT THE ACT ) OPTING FOR EARLY RETIREMENT OPTIO N 2003 SCHEME FROM THE SAID BANK. THIS CLAIM WAS DISALLOW ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS LD. COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX(A) FOR A REASON THAT THE SCHEME WAS NOT IN ACCO RDANCE WITH RULE-2BA. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX VS. M.CHELLADURAI & OTHERS IN 317 ITR 37 0. HOWEVER, NOW WE FIND THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF K.R.ALAGAPPAN AND OTHERS VS. ACIT [2011] 33 2 ITR 517(MAD.), HAS HELD THAT ICICI EMPLOYEES ARE ALS O ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S.10(10C) OF THE ACT. HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT ITS EARLIER DECISION IN THE CASE OF M.CHELLADURAI (SUPRA) STOO D REVERSED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE C ASE OF CHANDRA RENGANATHAN VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN PAGE OF 5 ITA.665/666/667 /MDS/11 4 326 ITR 49. IN RESULT, THE ASSESSEES HAVE TO SUCCE ED. WE THEREFORE, ALLOW THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEES AND DIREC T THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIVE THE ASSESSEES BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S.10(10C) OF THE ACT. 4. TO SUMMARISE THE RESULT, APPEALS OF ALL THE AS SESSEES ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE TIME OF HEAR ING THE APPEALS ON 7 TH JULY, 2011. SD/- SD/- ( GEORGE MATHAN ) ( ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 7 TH JULY, 2011. K. S. SUNDARAM COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE PAGE OF 5 ITA.665/666/667 /MDS/11 5 DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 07.07.11 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHORITY 07.07.11 3. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO P.S. 6. KEEP FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER