Smt. Renuka Rajan, L/R Late T.Ramesh Rajan, Salem V. ITO, Salem

MA 90/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6554 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 17-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 28-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: T S LAKSHMIVENKATARAMAN
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH A CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER .. M.P. NO. 90/MDS/2011 (IN I.T.A. NO. 1096/MDS/2009) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 ITA NO.1096/MDS/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SMT.RENUKA RAJAN, L/R LATE T.RAMESH RAJAN 2/348,TCM COLONY, KUNJANDIYUR, METTUR T.K. SALEM. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD II(5), NO.3,GANDHI ROAD, SALEM. PAN AARPR 2683 K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI T.S.LAKSHMI VENKATARAMAN DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THROUGH THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, ASSESSEE PL EADS FOR RECALL OF AN ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 16.11.200 9. THE SAID ORDER WAS PASSED EXPARTE SINCE THE ASSESSEE DI D NOT ENTER APPEARANCE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. AS PER TH E ASSESSEE, PAGE OF 4 MP NO.90//MDS/11 ITA NO.1096/MDS/09 SMT.RENUKA RAJAN 2 IT WAS UNDER BONAFIDE IMPRESSION THAT THE APPEAL SH OULD BE BLOCKED PENDING A DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT. 2. NOW, WE FIND THAT REASONABLE CAUSE HAS BEEN SHO WN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT ENTERING APPEARANCE. HENCE, TH E APPEAL IS RECALLED AND RE-ADJUDICATED HEREUNDER. 3. THE ASSESSEE WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF ICICI BANK AND HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S.10(10C) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 (IN SHORT THE ACT ) OPTING FOR EARLY RETIREMENT OPTIO N 2003 SCHEME FROM THE SAID BANK. THIS CLAIM WAS DISALLOW ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS LD. COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX(A) FOR A REASON THAT THE SCHEME WAS NOT IN ACCO RDANCE WITH RULE-2BA. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX VS.M.CHELLADURAI & OTHERS IN 317 ITR 370 . HOWEVER, NOW WE FIND THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF K.R.ALAGAPPAN AND OTHERS IN [2011] 332 ITR 517(MAD.) HAS HELD THAT ICICI EMPLOYEES ARE ALSO ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S.10(10C) OF THE ACT. HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT ITS EARLIER DECISION IN THE CASE OF M.CHELLADURAI (SUPRA) STOO D REVERSED PAGE OF 4 MP NO.90//MDS/11 ITA NO.1096/MDS/09 SMT.RENUKA RAJAN 3 BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE C ASE OF CHANDRA RENGANATHAN VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN 326 ITR 49. IN RESULT, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF ASSE SSEE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIVE THE ASSESSEE B ENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S.10(10C) OF THE ACT. 4. TO SUMMARISE THE RESULT, BOTH THE MISCELLANOUS PETITION AS WELL AS THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE SEVENTEEN TH DAY OF JUNE, 2011. SD/- SD/- ( GEORGE MATHAN ) ( ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 17 TH JUNE, 2011. K S SUNDARAM COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE PAGE OF 4 MP NO.90//MDS/11 ITA NO.1096/MDS/09 SMT.RENUKA RAJAN 4 DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHORITY 3. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO P.S. 6. KEEP FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER