RAVINDER KUMAR,KARNAL V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KARNAL

ITA 5553/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Ravinder Kumar, an ex-serviceman, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning the assessment year 2019-20. The primary contention was regarding the taxability of retiral benefits received by the assessee, which included gratuity and commutation of pension, both of which are exempt from tax under specific sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer had added a substantial amount under 'Income from Salary', which the Tribunal found to be incorrect. The Tribunal also addressed the procedural issue of the delay in filing the appeal, criticizing the lower authority's rigid stance on not condoning the delay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472470 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Other Referred Cases: Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471, Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs Gobardhan Sao and Others 2002 AIR 1201 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: PARIKSHIT AGGARWAL; CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT
• Keywords: Salary income; FORM 26AS
• Section: 147; 144; 22; 20

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िदʟी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िदʟी ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आअसं.5553/िदʟी/2024 (िन.व. 2019-20) ITA No.5553/DEL/2024 (A.Y.2019-20) Ravinder Kumar, H.No. 807, H.B.C, Karnal, Haryana 132001 PAN: AQTPK-4288-P ...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Karnal, Haryana 132001 ..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथŎ Ȫारा/ Appellant by : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Chartered Accountant ŮितवादीȪारा/Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 03.02.2025 घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : : 14.02.2025 आदेश/ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 04.11.2024, for assessment year 2019-20. 2. Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessee is an ex-serviceman. During the period relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee had received retiral benefits in the form of gratuity and commutation of pension which are free from tax. To substantiate his contention he placed on record copy of the Pension Payment Order (PPO) at page 20 & 21 of the paper book. The Assessing Officer (AO) on the basis of Form 26AS made addition of Rs.27,89,735/- under the head ‘Income from Salary’ and assessment framed u/s. 2 ITA No.5553/DEL/2024 (AY 2019-20) 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 11.01.2024 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act filed appeal before the CIT(A). The appeal before the CIT(A) was time barred by 189 days. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay, the CIT(A) without condoning delay dismissed the appeal in limine. The assessee had given detailed reasons for delay in filing of appeal. However, the CIT(A) without appreciating the reasons dismissed the appeal. The ld. AR submits that the assessee has prima facie good case on merits. 3. Per contra, Shri Sanjay Kumar representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. The ld. DR submits that the assessee failed to respond to the notices issued by the AO and was also negligent in filing of appeal within time before the CIT(A). 4. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. Undisputedly, there was delay of 189 days in filing of appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee had mentioned reasons for delay in filing of appeal in Form no. 35. On perusal of reasons given by the assessee causing delay in filing of appeal, it appears that the delay in filing of appeal was not intentional. The reasons appears to be bonafide. The CIT(A) has taken a pedantic view in rejecting the reasons given by the assessee causing delay in filing of first appeal. 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in an unequivocal manner has repeatedly held that acceptance of reason given by the appellant/petitioner explaining delay should be the rule and refusal an exception. By taking a pedantic and hyper technical view the explanation furnished should not be rejected, causing loss and irreparable injury to the party against whom the lis terminates. The expression “sufficient cause” should be liberally construed so as to sub-serve the ends of justice. 3 ITA No.5553/DEL/2024 (AY 2019-20) 5.1 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 has held that liberal approach should be adopted while dealing with an application praying for condonation of delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. Pedantic and hyper technical approach should not be adopted while dealing with an application for condonation of delay. 5.2 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs Gobardhan Sao and Others 2002 AIR 1201 (SC) has held that the expression “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. The courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over jubilation of disposal derive. Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafide can be imputed to the defaulting party. 6. On merits of the addition, I find that, the AO has erred in making addition of retrial benefits of the assessee. A perusal of the PPO at page 20 & 21 of the paper book reveals that apart from pension, retiral benefits include gratuity Rs.7,30,471/- and commutation of service pension Rs.13,83,329/-. The death-cum-retirement gratuity is exempt from tax u/s. 10(10) of the Act and commutation of pension is exempt u/s. 10(10A) of the Act. Hence, the AO erred in making addition of amounts received under the above heads by the assessee. The AO is directed to exclude aforesaid amount from the addition made in impugned assessment year. In the result ground no. 3 of appeal is allowed pro tanto. 4 ITA No.5553/DEL/2024 (AY 2019-20) 7. In ground no. 4 of appeal, the assessee has assailed addition of Rs.17,408/- u/s.56 of the Act under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’. No submissions were made in respect of the above said ground of appeal. The ld. AR of the assessee made statement at Bar that he is restricting his submissions only on the issue of retiral benefits of gratuity and commutation of pension. Therefore, ground no. 4 of appeal is dismissed. 8. Ground no. 5 and 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence, require no separate adjudication. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on Friday the 14th day of February, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) ᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER िदʟी/Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 14.02.2025 NV/- ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant , 2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. The PCIT 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी 5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, DELHI "