Income-tax Officer, V. Prakash Shankar Jaguste, Pune

MA 136/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1200 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S P WALIMBE

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 M.A. NO.136/PN/2013 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.1280/PN/2011 (ASSTT. YEAR: 2006-07) SHRI PRAKASH SHANKAR JAGUSTE, 3, RAHU APARTMENTS, ANAND NAGAR, PUNE 411051 PAN: ACAPJ8198E APPLICANT VS. ITO, WARD 7(2), PUNE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI S.P. WALIMBE DATE OF HEARING : 29-11-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29-11-2013 ORDER PER R.S. PADVEKAR, J.M: THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENU E WITH PRAYER TO RECALL ORDER PASSED BY ITAT IN ITANO.1280 /PN/ 2011, DATED 31-10-2012. 2. IT IS STATED IN THE APPLICATION THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF STATE BANK OF INDIA. THE ASSESSEE OPTE D FOR THE VRS UNDER EXIT OPTION SCHEME DECLARED BY SBI. THE ASSESSEE GOT THE EX-GRATIA PAYMENT ON HIS VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT AND ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S.10(10 C) OF I.T ACT ON THE SAID EX-GRATIA AMOUNT. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE MADE U/S.10(10C) OF I.T ACT, WHICH WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-III , PUNE. THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 10(10C) OF I.T ACT. IT IS STATED IN THE APPLICATION THAT I N CASE OF JAGDISH R. EKTARE IN ITA NO.12/PN/2012, DATED 26.06 .2012, THE ISSUE WAS SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO EXAMI NE THE MATTER AFRESH WITH REGARD TO THE COMPLIANCE WITH GU IDELINE NO.(III) & (IV) OF RULE 2BA. IT IS PLEADED THAT TH E ORDER MAY BE RECALLED AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF JAGDISH R. EKTARE (SUPRA), THE ISSUE MAY BE DECIDED . IN SOME AND SUBSTANCE, IT IS PLEADED THAT THE ISSUE WO ULD HAVE BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. WE HEARD LD. DR. NONE WAS PRESENT FOR THE ASSES SEE. THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ITO, KOLHAPUR VS. SHRI VIJAY GANPATRAO PATIL FOR DECIDIN G THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN ITA NO.1280/PN/2012 IS AS UNDER: 3. WE HAVE ALSO HEARD THE LD. D.R. WE FIND THAT T HE ISSUE STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY T HE DECISION OF THE ITAT PUNE IN THE CASE OF ITO, KOLH APUR VS. SHRI VIJAY GANPATRAO PATIL (SUPRA). THE OPERAT IVE PART OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IS AS UNDER: 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE AS UNDER. THE ASSESSE E WAS EMPLOYEE OF THE STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OPTED F OR VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT AS PER EXIST OPTION SCHEME (EO S) DECLARED BY THE BANK. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S. 10(1 0C) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE EX-GRATIA AMOUNT RECEI VED FROM THE BANK ON HIS VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT. THE SAI D CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S. 10(10C) WAS REJECTED BY TH E A.O. FOLLOWING THE CBDT CIRCULAR F. NO.200/34/2009-ITA.I , DATED 8.10.2009. THE A.O. DENIED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/SEC. 10(10C) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEFORE THE LD CIT(A ). THE LD CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KOODATHIL KALLYATAN AMBUJAKSHAN, 219 CTR 80 (BO M) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE IS ALSO SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISIONS OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCHES OF THE ITAT IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: 1) ITO VS. SHRI JAVERILAL DALICHAND CHHAJED, ITA N O. 326/PN/2010 DATED 8/11/2011 2) SHRI VENUGOPAL VS. KATTI, ITA NO.4090/BANGALORE/ 2001 DATED 15.2.2012 3) ITO VS. ROHIT KUMAR, ITA NO. 969/AHD/2010 DT. 5/5/2011, ITAT, A BENCH, AHMEDABAD, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. MOREOVER, THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONA L HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KOODATHIL KALLYATAN AMBUJAKSHA N (SUPRA) HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD AND THE REQUIRED CIRCULAR IS ALSO ISSUED. WE, THEREFORE, A LLOW THE RESPECTIVE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT T HE A.O TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 10(10C) OF THE ACT. 4. MERELY BECAUSE IN ONE CASE, MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT DOES NOT MEAN THA T THE SAID APPROACH SHOULD BE ADOPTED IN ALL THE CASES. WE FI ND NO MERIT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH NOVEMBER 2013. SD/- SD/- (R.K.PANDA) (R.S. PADVEKAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED 29 TH NOVEMBER 2013 GCVSR COPY TO:- 1) DEPARTMENT, 2) ASSESSEE 3) THE CIT(A)-III, PUNE 4) THE CIT-III, PUNE 5) THE DR, B BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE. 6) GUARD FILE //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT PUNE BENCHES, PUNE.