Balasaheb Shivram Kokane, Aurangabad V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -1, , Aurangabad

ITA 690/PUN/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 103 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8862 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 06-11-2022
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 14-09-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital receipt
• Section: 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT ITA No. 690/PUN/2022 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Balasaheb Shivram Kokane, RM-93/4, Balaji Nagar, Bikaner Mithai, Waluj, MIDC, Aurangabad – 431 136 PAN : ANLPK4179L Vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Aurangabad Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order dated 24-06-2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in relation to the assessment year 2016-17. 2. There is a delay of 22 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. I am satisfied with the reasons so stated in the affidavit and, therefore, the delay is condoned and the instant appeal is admitted for disposal on merits. Assessee by Ms. Arrchena Shetty Revenue by Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing 07-11-2022 Date of pronouncement 07-11-2022 ITA No. 690/PUN/2022 Balasaheb Shivram Kokane 2 3. The assessee is aggrieved by not treating the amount received from his employer under early retirement scheme as a ‘Capital receipt’ and hence, not chargeable to tax. 4. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the assessee was working with Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited. He filed the return declaring total income of Rs.31,36,810/-, in which relief u/s.89(1) was claimed on account of Voluntary Retirement scheme availed by him. The assessee claimed in the return that the amount received was towards Early Retirement Scheme (ERS) and hence, covered under Rule 21A(1)(a). The assessee also contended before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings that the amount was not at all chargeable to tax as it was in the nature of ‘Capital receipt’. Relevant discussion in this regard has been made on page 8 of the assessment order recording the assessee’s claim of ‘capital receipt’. The AO held that the amount was not a ‘capital receipt’ but a “revenue receipt’ chargeable to tax under section 17 read with rule 21(A)(1)(c). He thus restricted the claim u/s. 89(1) to Rs.2,59,198/- as against Rs.9,75,935/- made by the assessee ITA No. 690/PUN/2022 Balasaheb Shivram Kokane 3 which led to the addition. The ld. CIT(A) remained unconvinced and upheld the assessment order on this score. 5. I have heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s claim of the amount having been received as a ‘capital receipt’. The ld. AR has brought to my notice three orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre accepting the amount received as ‘capital receipt’ in the hands of other employees who received the amount on Termination of service under Early Retirement Scheme in similar circumstances. One order passed by the NFAC, Delhi is in the case of Kisan Goroba Kharade dt. 05-09-2022, another one is dated 02-09-2022 in the case of Deepak Shankarbhai Patel and still another dated 01-08-2022 in the case of Kailas Dadaji Pagare. In all these three appeals, the ld. CIT(A) has accepted the claim of ‘capital receipt’ towards the amount received by these hitherto employees of Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited who availed the Early Retirement Scheme benefit similar to the assessee. The ld. AR requested that the matter may be restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for passing the speaking ITA No. 690/PUN/2022 Balasaheb Shivram Kokane 4 order in the case of the assessee. No serious objection was taken by the ld. DR. In view of the rival but common submissions, I set-aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for disposing the appeal on merits after taking into consideration the view canvassed in the above three appeals and further, if any appeals by the Revenue, against such orders have been presented before the Tribunal and the consequential fate of such appeals. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed reasonable opportunity of hearing. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 07 th November, 2022. Sd/- (R.S.SYAL) उपा य / VICE PRESIDENT प ु णे Pune; दनांक Dated : 07 th November, 2022 Satish ITA No. 690/PUN/2022 Balasaheb Shivram Kokane 5 आदेश की ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant; 2. 3. थ / The Respondent The CIT(A) concerned 4. 5. The Pr.CIT concerned DR, ITAT, ‘SMC’ Bench, Pune 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Date 1. Draft dictated on 07-11-2022 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 07-11-2022 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member - JM 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. - JM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *