Mohan Shankar Kulkarni, Solapur V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 73/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 7324514 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S P WALIMBE
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.38/PN/2014 A.Y. 2007-08 BALARAM GANPAT SHIKARE 19B/305, GAURAV NIWAS JULE SOLAPUR NARSINH NAGAR SOLAPUR 413004 PAN: ACKPS2625P APPELLANT VS. ITO, WARD 2(2), SOLAPUR RESPONDENT ITA NO.40/PN/2014 A.Y. 2007-08 DATTATRAYA MARGU JADHAV 82, ASHOK NAGAR VIJAPUR ROAD SOLAPUR 413004 PAN: ABDPJ7830K APPELLANT VS. ITO, WARD 2(1), SOLAPUR RESPONDENT ITA NO.42/PN/2014 A.Y. 2007-08 IBRAHIM MAHIBOOB SHAIKH SBI COLONY, BLOCK NO.3 BHAVANI PETH, SHELGI ROAD SOLAPUR 413002 PAN: ADFPS4379E APPELLANT VS. ITO, WARD 2(2), SOLAPUR RESPONDENT 2 ITA NO.44/PN/2014 A.Y. 2007-08 NARAYAN VITHAL SHINDE 4B MORAYA SOCIETY SBI COLONY, VIJAPUR ROAD SOLAPUR 413004 PAN: ACVPS1050R APPELLANT VS. ITO, WARD 2(2), SOLAPUR RESPONDENT ITA NO.46/PN/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 PARMESHWAR SHIVAPPA KALSHETTI 8D HRIKRUPA MOURYA NAGAR VIJAPUR ROAD SOLAPUR 413004 PAN: ABHPK2693R APPELLANT VS. ITO, WARD 2(1), SOLAPUR RESPONDENT ITA NO.48/PN/2014 A.Y. 2008-09 SUDHIR SHAMRAO DEO 162/18, MANAS APARTMENTS RAILWAY LINES SOLAPUR 413001 PAN: AAQPD4866R APPELLANT VS. ITO, WARD 2(1), SOLAPUR RESPONDENT 3 ITA NO.73/PN/2014 A.Y. 2007-08 MOHAN SHANKAR KULKARNI FLAT NO.1, MUGDHA APARTMENTS RAILWAY LINES SOLAPUR 413001 PAN: ABDPK2691M APPELLANT VS. ITO, WARD 2(1), SOLAPUR RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRAMOD S. SHINGTE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.P . WALIMBE DATE OF HEARING: 27.01.2014 DATE OF ORDER : 29.01.2014 ORDER PER BENCH: THIS BATCH OF APPEALS PERTAINS TO DIFFERENT ASSESS EES RAISING THE IDENTICAL ISSUES IN WHICH RESPECTIVE IMPUGNED O RDERS OF THE CIT(A) ARE CHALLENGED. HENCE, THESE APPEALS WERE H EARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORD ER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE ASSESSEES HAVE TAKEN THE GROUNDS WHICH ARE V ERBATIM IN ALL THE APPEALS AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN REOPENING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, WI THOUT RECORDING ANY REASONS TO BELIEVE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN NOT GRANTI NG EXEMPTION U/S 10(10C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE SUM OF RS.5,00,000/- AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN NOT GRANTI NG RELIEF U/S 89(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, OF A SUM OF RS.950/- WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON WHATSOEVER. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN NOT GRANTING THE REL IEF U/S 89(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, OF THE ENTIRE AM OUNT WHICH YOUR APPELLANT IS ENTITLED AS PER THE PROVISI ONS OF LAW. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES FOR TO LEAVE, ADD, ALTER, MOD IFY, DELETE, AND ALTER ABOVE GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE T IME OF HEARING, IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBM ITS THAT THE ASSESSEES ARE NOT PRESSING THE GROUND NO.1 AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 4. THE CORE CONTROVERSY IS IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF E XEMPTION U/S.10(10C) OF I.T. ACT. ALL THESE ASSESSEES WERE THE EMPLOYEES OF STATE BANK OF INDIA, RETIRED VOLUNTARILY AS PER EXIT OPTION SCHEME ANNOUNCED BY BANK. IN THEIR RETURNS OF INCO ME, THE ASSESSEES HAVE CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S. 10(10C) ON EX -GRATIA AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM BANK ON THEIR VOLUNTARY RETIRE MENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DENIED CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S. 10 (10C), WHICH WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). 5. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MA TERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOU R OF THE ASSESSEES BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MUMBAI HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF NAGESH DEVIDAS KULKARNI VS. CIT (2007) 291 ITR 407 (MUM), WHEREIN, THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS H ELD THAT THE EX-GRATIA PAYMENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEES ON THEI R VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT IS A COMPENSATION RECEIVED ON TERMINATIO N OF EMPLOYMENT AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEES ARE ENTITLED FO R THE EXEMPTION U/S.10(10C) AS WELL AS THE RELIEF U/S.89( 1) IN RESPECT THEREOF. THE AMOUNT RECEIVED ON VOLUNTARY RETIREME NT IS NOTHING 5 BUT PROFIT IN LIEU OF SALARY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT TERM IN SECTION 89(1) AND HENCE SUCH AMOUNT IS ALSO QUALIFI ED FOR RELIEF U/S.89(1) OF I.T. ACT. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO GRANT THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEES. 6. SO FAR AS THE GROUND NOS.3 AND 4 ARE CONCERNED, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THESE ARE ONLY THE ALTERNATIVE PLEAS TO THE GROUND NO.2. AS THE ASSESSEES HAVE SUCCEEDED ON GR OUND NO.2, THE GROUND NOS.3 AND 4 BECAME INFRUCTUOUS. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 29 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) (R.S. PADVEKAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 29 TH JANUARY, 2014 GCVSR COPY TO:- 1) ASSESSEE 2) DEPARTMENT 3) THE CIT(A)-III, PUNE 4) THE CIT-III, PUNE 4) THE DR, B BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE. 5) GUARD FILE //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, I.T.A.T., PUNE