Milind Madhav Inamdar, Pune V. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 13(2), , Pune

ITA 671/PUN/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Milind Madhav Inamdar, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which denied interference with the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru, for the assessment year 2017-18. The appellant had received a compensation from his employer under a compulsory retirement scheme and initially offered a part of it as income under section 56 of the Act, claiming a partial exemption under section 10(10B). Upon realizing his entitlement to a full exemption, he sought to revise his claim in the appeal, which was treated as a fresh claim by NFAC and thus denied. The ITAT found that the revision of the claim was not a fresh claim and directed the matter back to the Assessing Officer for verification and adjudication.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 136319 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 26-12-2022
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 07-09-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 56; 143(1); 250

Judgement Text

॥ आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, पुणे “सी” न्यायपीठ, पुणे में ॥ ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 5 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE “C” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं. / ITA No. 671/PUN/2022 कर धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18 Milind Madhav Inamdar, D-1, Flat No. 11, Kakade Park, Chinchwadgaon Pune-411033 PAN : AABPI5098K . . . . . . . अपीलाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CPC, Bengaluru. . . . . . . .प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Suhas Kulkarni सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 27/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 06/01/2023 आदेश / ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; The present appeal is challenged the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short “NFAC”] dt. 24/06/2022 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short “the Act”] denying to interfere with the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru [for short “CPC”] for assessment year [for short “AY”] 2017-18. Milind Madhav Inamdar ITA No.671/PUN/2022 PAN: AABPI5098K ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 5 2. The grounds challenged are as under; “1. The appellant contends that, compensation amount of Rs.28,75,480/- was erroneously offered to tax in the ITR as other income is eligible for complete exemption as per the 2nd Proviso to section 10(10B) of the ITA, 1961. 2. The appellant contends that, the learned CIT(A) erred in not dealing with the appellant’s contentions on merits by passing a speaking order. 3. The appellant craves leave to add / modify / amend / delete all / any of the grounds of appeal.” 3. We note that this appeal was filed with a delay of 17 days accompanying an affidavit explaining the reasons for delay. On perusal of record and hearing the Ld. DR, we find that the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafied which really prevented the assessee in filing the present appeal in time; therefore, in the larger interest of justice, we condoned the said delay. 4. At the time of hearing there was no appearance from the assessee nor through his representative and after hearing the submissions of Ld. DR, we proceeded with the matter, wherein we note that, the Milind Madhav Inamdar ITA No.671/PUN/2022 PAN: AABPI5098K ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 5 assessee was in receipt of compensation from its employer company “HMT Company Limited” under compulsory retirement scheme framed by the Govt. of India, however the appellant under a bonafied belief offered the said sum u/s 56 of the Act with a corresponding claim of exemption for ₹5,00,000/- u/s 10(10B) as against the full exemption by virtue of 2 nd proviso to section 10(10). After coming the fact of entitlement for full exemption to his knowledge, the appellant preferred an appeal before Ld. NFAC, however same was denied in the absence of revised return treating it as fresh claim. 5. Undisputedly, the original claim of exemption u/s 10(10B) finds place in the revised ITR filed by the appellant, hence the revision of the claim for full exemption in terms of 2 nd proviso to section 10(10B) cannot be termed as fresh claim. There is a vide difference in revision of claim and fresh claim. Not all correction in original claim made in the ITR filed warrants revision, as in the present case, the appellant inadvertently restricted his claim for exemption u/s Milind Madhav Inamdar ITA No.671/PUN/2022 PAN: AABPI5098K ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 5 10(10B) to a ceiling than eligible in terms of 2 nd proviso thereto, such being the case, the Ld. CPC should have allowed the rightful claim in view of the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No: 14 (XL-35) dt April 11, 1955. It states: "Officers of the Department must not take advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to his rights. It is one of their duties to assist a taxpayer in every reasonable way, particularly in the matter of claiming and securing reliefs and in this regard the Officers should take the initiative in guiding a taxpayer where proceedings or other particulars before them indicate that some refund or relief is due to him. This attitude would, in the long run, benefit the Department for it would inspire confidence in him that he may be sure of getting a square deal from the Department. Although, therefore, the responsibility for claiming refunds and reliefs rests with assessee on whom it is imposed by law, officers should 6. Since the revised claim of the appellant for full exemption pursuant to 2 nd proviso to section 10(10B) of the Act calls for verification in the light of evidentiary documents, in our pragmatic view the matter deserves remand back to jurisdictional assessing officer. Ergo we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh adjudication on the limited issue of Milind Madhav Inamdar ITA No.671/PUN/2022 PAN: AABPI5098K ITAT-Pune Page 5 of 5 entitlement to full exemption u/s 10(10B) after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. At the same time, we direct the assessee to present himself before the Assessing Officer with relevant documentary evidences to represent his case on merits without seeking unreasoned adjournments. 7. Resultantly, the appeal of the appellant is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE in above terms. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on this Friday 06 th day of January, 2023. -S/d- -S/d- S. S. GODARA G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / PUNE ; दिन ांक / Dated : 06 th day of January, 2023. आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1.अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The NFAC, New Delhi. 4. The CIT Concerned, Pune 5. DR, ITAT, Pune “C” Bench, Pune 6. ग र्डफ़ इल / Guard File. आिेश नुस र / By Order, वररष्ठ दनजी सदिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकरअपीलीय न्य य दिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.