SUNIL KUMAR SINHA,LUCKNOW V. ITO-1(4), LUCKNOW -NEW, LUCKNOW

ITA 274/LKW/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sunil Kumar Sinha, an employee of HMT Ltd., Tractor Division, who received a payment under Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) upon the closure of the division. Initially, his income tax return was processed without any issues, but later he discovered that the VRS payment was exempt under section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He appealed to the Ld. First Appellate Authority seeking this exemption, but his appeal was dismissed due to a delay of 922 days in filing. The assessee then approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which decided to restore the case to the First Appellate Authority, directing them to consider the appeal on its merits after addressing the delay issue.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712585 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Wipro Finance Ltd. Vs. CIT [2022] 443 ITR 250 (SC), ITA/514/CHANDI/2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R.K. AGARWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NEELAM DIMAN

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.274/LKW/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sunil Kumar Sinha A-23, Vishnupuri Colony Nahar Road, Near Shukla Chauraha Jankipuram, Lucknow v. The ITO-1(4) Lucknow - New TAN/PAN:ADPPS6761A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Smt. Neelam Diman, C.A. Respondent by: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR) O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 05.02.2025, passed by the Addl/JCIT(A)-4, Hyderabad for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was an employee of HMT Ltd., Tractor Division, Pinjore and had received payment under VRS on the closure of Tractor Division. The assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration, declaring a total income of Rs.65,34,220/-. The Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore processed the return under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) Act, determining the total income of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.274/LKW/2025 Page 2 of 4 the assessee as declared by the assessee. Subsequently, the assessee came to know, from other employees who had taken retirement under VRS from HMT Ltd., Tractor Division, that the amount received under VRS on closure of HMT Ltd., Tractor Division, would be exempt under section 10(10B) of the Act. The assessee, therefore, preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority objecting the amount of income assessed by the CPC and requested the Ld. First Appellate Authority to allow exemption to the assessee under section 10(10B) of the Act. 3.0 The Addl/JCIT(A)-4, Hyderabad dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason of there being a delay of 922 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. 4.0 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal of his appeal by the Addl/JCIT(A)-4, Hyderabad by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. The learned CIT(A erred in not condoning delay of appellant for 922 days wherever in the case of colleague of appellant Faceless CIT Appeals condoned the delay of 973 days in his colleague having PAN AEYPR9974A. Hon'ble Chandigarh ITAT SMC bench has also condoned the delay of his colleague Deepak Budhani in ITA/514/CHANDI/2022 for 2 Years, 5 Months and 17 days on similar grounds. A jobless person does not want to stick in litigation by claiming wrong refund so he has not filed any appeal. So delay at CIT Appeal level be condoned. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.274/LKW/2025 Page 3 of 4 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering additional claim of appellant wherever there is no bar on appellate authorities to consider the claim of assessee. We have relied upon the decision Wipro Finance Ltd. Vs. CIT [2022] 443 ITR 250 (SC) wherein Apex Court allowed the additional claim of assessee which was first claimed at Tribunal. A bunch of cases of colleagues of appellant are allowed by Chandigarh ITAT benches. As per Article 265 of Constitution no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. If the claim of assessee is not allowed then it is the case of unjust enrichment of Income Tax department, so, income of Rs.54,40,960 may please be reduced and Tax of Rs.16,50,570 be refunded along with due interest. 3. As appeal is dismissed on both grounds delay and merits the appeal may please be decided here. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the Grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard and disposed of. 5.0 During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that the Addl/JCIT(A)-4, Hyderabad had dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason of delay of 922 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority and that the Addl/JCIT(A)-4, Hyderabad had not dealt with the issue in dispute on merits. 6.0 The Ld. CIT (D.R.) had no objection to the restoration of appeal to the file of the Ld. First Appellate Authority. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.274/LKW/2025 Page 4 of 4 7.0 We have heard both the parties and have also perused the material on record. Looking into the facts of this case, we restore this file to the Office of the Ld. First Appellate Authority with the direction to condone the delay in filing of the appeal and decide the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee to present his case. We also caution the assessee to fully comply with the directions of the Ld. First Appellate Authority in the set-aside proceedings when called upon to do so, failing which, the Ld. First Appellate Authority would be at complete liberty to pass the order in accordance with law, based on material available on record even if it is ex-parte qua the assessee. 8.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31/07/2025. Sd/- Sd/- [NIKHIL CHOUDHARY] [SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:31/07/2025 JJ: Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR By order Assistant Registrar/DDO Printed from counselvise.com "