Shri S.Gopinathan, Trichy V. ITO, Trichy

MA 59/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6351 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHAJI P JACOB M P
• Assessee Lawyers: S KEERTHIRAJAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH C : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] M.P.NO. 59 /MDS/2011 & I .T.A NO.471/MDS/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SHRI S.GOPINATHAN 5, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR 4 TH STREET MILK SOCIETY KARUMANDAPAM TIRUCHIRAPALLI 620 001 [PAN AHYPG5265G] VS THE ITO WARD II(2) TIRUCHIRAPALLI (PETITIONER) (RESPONDENT) M.P.NO. 60 /MDS/2011 & I .T.A NO.470/MDS/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SHRI N.KRISHNAPPAN 4, LAKSHMI APARTMENTS 81, AMMA MANDAPAM ROAD SRIRANGAM TIRUCHIRAPALLI [PAN AAHPK8908J] VS THE ITO WARD II(2) TIRUCHIRAPALLI (PETITIONER) (RESPONDENT) M.P.NO. 61 /MDS/2011 & I .T.A NO.472/MDS/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SHRI N.SELVARAJ 15/P SALAI ROAD, WORIYUR TIRUCHIRAPALLI 620 001 [PAN ALJPS5009H] VS THE ITO WARD II(2) TIRUCHIRAPALLI (PETITIONER) (RESPONDENT) PETITIONERS BY : SHRI S.KEERTHIRAJAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P JACOB M.P 59,60&61/2011 ITA 470,471 & 472/2007 :- 2 -: O R D E R PER HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THESE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS ARE IN RE LATION TO TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 9.9.2008, WHEREBY THE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEES FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(10C) OF THE ACT WERE DENIED AND ALSO CONFIRM ED BY THE ITAT. 2. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS KOODATHIL KALLYATAN AMBUJKSHAN (2008) 219 CT R(BOM) 80, ORDER DATED 4.7.2008, HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVO UR OF THE ASSESSEE. FOLLOWING THIS DECISION, THE BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES HAS TAKEN A UNIVERSAL VIEW TO ALLOW EXEMPTION TO EMPLOYEES RETIRING UNDER OPTIONAL EARLY RETIREMENT SCHEME (OERS) TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTI ON U/S 10(10C) OF THE ACT. FOLLOWING THESE SUBSEQUENT EVENTS, THIS BE NCH HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY TAKING A VIEW THAT SUCH A CLAIM IS EXI GIBLE TO ANY EMPLOYEE OF THE BANK TAKING OERS. HENCE, WE FIND A RECTIF IABLE MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THEREFORE, WE ALLOW ALL T HE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS BY RECALLING THE COMMON ORDER OF THE TRIB UNAL DATED 9.9.2008. 3. SINCE NO FURTHER FACTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE BROUGHT ON RECORD AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS STANDS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, WE CHOSE TO DECIDE THEM SIMULTANEO USLY. NONE OF THE PARTIES HAD OBJECTION TOT HAT EFFECT. HOWEVER, THE LD.DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN ALL THE CASES. M.P 59,60&61/2011 ITA 470,471 & 472/2007 :- 3 -: 4. IN ALL THESE CASES, THE COMMON GRIEVANCE IS REGARD ING ALLOWANCE OF THEIR CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION U/S (10C) ON THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY THEM WHEN THEY OPTED FOR RETIREMENT UND ER OERS FRAMED BY ICICI BANK. ALL THESE ASSESSEES ARE THE FORMER EMPLOYEES OF ICICI BANK. THE ASSESSEES HAD TAKEN VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT THEREFROM UNDER THIS SCHEME. ON THE SUMS RECEIVED ON SUCH RETIREME NT, THEY HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 10(10C) WHICH WAS DENIED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO BY THE LD. CIT(A). 5. THE LD.AR HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BL E APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CHANDRA RANGANATHAN & ORS. VS CIT, 326 ITR 49, WHEREIN SIMILAR ASSESSEES WERE FOUND ELIGIBLE FOR SUCH A CLAIM U/S 10(10C) OF THE ACT. THE USUAL STAND TAKEN BY THE L D.DR WAS THAT THIS DECISION OF APEX COURT WAS IN RELATION TO AMOUNTS R ECEIVED BY THE EMPLOYEES ON VRS FROM RBI AND NOT IN RELATION TO EM PLOYEES OF ICICI. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS N.CHELLADURAI & ORS. (317 ITR 370) H AD CLEARLY HELD THAT THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED UNDER THE OERS FROM ICICI BANK BY EMPLOYEES OF THE SAID BANK, WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTI ON UNDER SECTION 10(10C) OF THE ACT. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL STANDS AND THE DECISI ONS RELIED BEFORE US, WE FIND THAT THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS DECISION(SUPRA) WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE HON'BLE S UPREME COURT. M.P 59,60&61/2011 ITA 470,471 & 472/2007 :- 4 -: VIDE ITS DECISION DATED 21.1.2009 IN THE CASE OF C HANDRA RANGANATHAN & ORS. VS CIT (326 ITR 49), IT HAS HELD THAT CBDT B Y ITS LETTER DATED 8.5.2009 HAD INDICATED A VIEW THAT EMPLOYEES RETIRI NG FROM RBI WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(10C) OF THE ACT. THIS DECISION IS BASED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS KOODATHIL KALLYATAN AMBUJAKSHAN(309 ITR 113). AFTER CONSIDERING THE CONJOINT READING OF THESE DECISIONS , IT BECOMES CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE EMPLOYEES OF ICICI BANK OPTING FOR O ERS SHALL ALSO BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(10C) OF THE ACT. CON SEQUENTLY, WE ALLOW ALL THESE APPEALS BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDERS OF TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES STA ND ALLOWED. 8. TO SUMMARIZE THE RESULT, BOTH MISCELLANEOUS PETI TIONS AND APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES STAND ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.5.2011. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( HARI OM MARATHA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 27 TH MAY, 2011 RD COPY TO: PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR