Smt. Kewal Krishan Chawla, Karnal v. ITO, Karnal

ITA 1291/DEL/2012 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2013 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 129120114 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN ABBPC0406G
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 1291/DEL/2012
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant Smt. Kewal Krishan Chawla, Karnal
Respondent ITO, Karnal
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 18-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 18-10-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 01-10-2013
Next Hearing Date 01-10-2013
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 15-03-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI U. B. S. BEDI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1291 / DEL/ 2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ) KEWAL KRISHAN CHAWLA VS. ITO WARD 2 C/O PRAVEEN KUMAR SHARMA KARNAL ADVOCATE 493-L MODEL TOWN KARNAL PAN : ABBPC0406G I.T.A. NO. 1292/DEL./2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09) JAGDISH KUMAR MEHTA VS. ITO WARD-2 C/O PARVESH KUMAR SHARMA ADV. KARNAL 493-L MODEL TOWN KARNAL PAN:AJXPM3894N (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PARVESH K. SHARMA ADV. DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI VIVEK KUMAR DR ORDER PER U B S BEDI JUDICIAL MEMBER: THESE TWO APPEALS OF TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSEE ARE DIR ECTED AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) KARNAL DATE D 18.07.2011 IN RESPECT OF THREE ASSESSEES INCLUDING THESE TWO ASSESSEES RE LATABLE TO ASSESSMENT I.T.A. NOS. 1291 1292 /DEL/2012 2 YEARS 2007-08 AND 2008-09 WHEREBY CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION OF RS.5 LACS U/S 10(10C) HAS BEEN CHALLEN GED. 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER IN RESPECT OF THREE ASSESSEE S INCLUDING TWO APPELLANTS APPEALS IN RESPECT OF THE THIRD ASSESSEE NAMELY ROO P LEKHA SHARMA IN I.T.A. NO. 1290/DEL/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WAS F ILED WHICH CAME FOR CONSIDERATION AND F BENCH OF ITAT DELHI VIDE ORDE R DATED 3.04.2013 HAS NOT ONLY CONDONED THE DELAY OF 160 DAYS BUT ALSO AL LOWED THE APPEAL OF THIS ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ISSUE IN BOTH THESE APPEALS AN D THE ISSUE DECIDED IN THE APPEAL OF ROOP LEKHA SHARMA IS SIMILAR AND THE DELA Y IN FILING OF APPEALS WAS OF THE SAME DURATION EXCEPT LITTLE DIFFERENCE I N RETURNED AND ASSESSED INCOME THEREFORE IT WAS STATED THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. BY FILING A COPY OF THE F BENCH OF ITAT ORDER IN THE CASE OF THE THIRD ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) IT WAS PLE ADED FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AS WELL AS ALLOWING THE APPEALS. 3. LD. D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES B ELOW AND PLEADED FOR CONFIRMATION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE DELAY CAUSED IN FILING OF APPEAL W AS OF THE SAME PERIOD AS INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF THE THIRD ASSESSEE AND THES E ASSESSEE HAVE TAKEN SIMILAR PLEAS AS TAKEN BEFORE F BENCH IN THE APPE AL OF THE THIRD ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY THE ISSUE IN RELATION TO DISALLOWANCE OF DELETION U/S 10(10C) WAS OF THE SAME MAGNITUDE IN THE CASE OF THESE ASSESSEE S THAT OF THE THIRD ASSESSEE. F BENCH OF ITAT HAS NOT ONLY CONDONED THE DELAY BUT ALSO ALLOWED THE RELIEF AS CLAIMED BY THE 3 RD ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NO. 1290/DEL/2012. RELEVANT CONCLUSION IN RESPECT TO B OTH THESE ISSUES HAS BEEN I.T.A. NOS. 1291 1292 /DEL/2012 3 CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY F BENCH VIDE ORDER DATE D 30.04.2013 AS PER PARA 2-7 OF THE ORDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN FILED LATE B Y 181 DAYS FOR WHICH DEFECT MEMO WAS ISSUED BY THE REGISTRY AND IN RESPONSE THERETO ASSESSEE FILED CONDONATION PETITION ADMITTING DELAY OF 160 DAYS AND HAS PLEADED FOR CONDONING THE SAME BY RAISING FOLLO WING PLEA: THE APPELLANT IS AN EMPLOYEE O STATE BANK OF INDIA . HE GOT VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF RS.5 00 000/- U/S 10(10C) OF THE IT ACT WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE I NCOME TAX OFFICER KARNAL. HE PREFERRED AN APPEAL AGAINST TH E ORDER BEFORE THE CIT(A) KARNAL. THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE COMMISSIONER OF APPEAL VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 18.07.2 011 WHICH WAS RECEIVED ON 28.07.2011. THE APPELLANT WAS REQU IRED TO FILE APPEAL BY 27.09.2011. BUT THE APPELLANT FILED RECT IFICATION APPLICATION U/S 154 OF THE I. T. ACT 1961 BEFORE T HE CIT(A) KARNAL VIDE THIS APPLICATION DATED 23.08.2011 IN VI EW O THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF CHANDRA RANGATHAN & OTHERS VS CIT (2010) 326 ITR 49 (S.C.) WHICH WAS DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE CIT(A) VIDE ORDE R DATED 17.02.2012. THAT THE DELAY OF 160 DAYS MAY PLEASE BE CONDONED A S THE APPELLANT WAS UNDER BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT THE ORDER S WILL BE RECTIFIED BY THE CIT APPEALS SO HE COULD NOT FILE T HE APPEAL. IT IS THEREFORE REQUESTED THAT HE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BY 160 DAYS MAY PLEASE B CONDONED TO MEET THE END OF JUSTI CE. 3. LD. D.R. PLEADED THAT THE PLEA RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED AS ASSE SSEE HAS JUST WASTED THE TIME BY MOVING THE APPLICATION U/S 154 W HEN REMEDY LIES WITH THE ITAT. THEREFORE APPLICATION OF THE ASSES SEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WITH RE GARD TO THE CONDONATION PETITION AND FIND THAT THERE WAS BONA F IDE BELIE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN VIEW OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF CHANDRA RANGNATHAN & OTHERS VS CIT (2010) 326 ITR 4 9 (S.C.) ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE IS ENTITLED TO GET RELIEF WHI CH SHOULD BE GRANTED U/S 154 OF THE I. T. ACT 1961. IN VIEW OF THE ENT IRETY OF FACTS I.T.A. NOS. 1291 1292 /DEL/2012 4 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE CONDONE THE DELAY IN VIEW OF PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ADMIT THE A PPEAL FOR HEARING. 5. BRIEF FACTS INDICATE THAT H APPELLANT IS AN EMPL OYEE OF STATE BANK OF INDIA AND HAS FILED HER INCOME TAX RETURN F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON 8/9/2008 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 3 54 600/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE I. T. ACT 1 961 ON 10.11.2009 AT RETUNED INCOME IN WHICH THE APPELLANT CLAIMED EX EMPTION OF RS.5 LACS U/S 10(10C) OF THE I. T. ACT 1961. LATER ON NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF T HE I. T. ACT 1961 DISALLOWING DEDUCTION OF S.5 LACS UNDER SECTION N10 (10C) OF THE I. T. ACT 1961. THE APPELLANT PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFOR E CIT(A) WHO DISMISSED THE APPEAL VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 18.07.201 1. 6. ASSESSEE CAME UP IN FURTHER APPEAL AND WHILE REL YING UPON THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF CHAN DRA RAGNATHAN & OTHERS VS CIT (SUPRA) AND RELYING UPON DELHI BENC H AND CHANDIGARH BENCHES DECISION IN THE FOLLOWING CASES PLEADED FOR ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE: I) KANVAL PAL SINGH VS ITO (2008) 11 DTR (DEL.)(TRI B) 543. II) NARESH KASHYAP VS DCIT & JAGDISH CHAND CHAUDHRY VS DCIT I.T.A. NO. 921 & 922/CHD/2011 DATED 31.10.201 1. III) SHRI BIKRAM JIT PASSI VS DCIT I.T.A. NO. 925/ CHD/2011 DATED 01.11.2011. 7. LD. D.R. HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIE S BELOW AND PLEADED FOR ITS CONFIRMATION. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES CONSIDERED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD AND PRECEDENTS AS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. A.R . OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT IN THE CASE BEFORE HO NBLE SUPREME COURT THERE WAS DISPUTE OF SIMILAR NATURE OF EMPLO YEES OF RESERVE BANK OF INDIA WHERE EXEMPTION U/S 10(10C) WAS CLAIM ED WHEREAS ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE IS EMPLOYEE OF SBI BUT POINT DECIDED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IS SIMILAR TO THE ISSUE IN HA ND. MOREOVER THE DELHI BENCH AND CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASES CITED (SUPRA) HAVE TAKEN A VIEW FAVOURING ASSESSEE WHEN NO CONTRARY DE CISION HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD BY LD. DR WHO HAS JUST CONTENDED THAT HONBLE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT RELATES TO EMPLOYEES OF RBI WHEREAS IN ASSESSEES CASE ASSESSEE IS BRANCH MANAGER OF SBI KARNAL. WE DO NOT FIND ANY DIS-SIMILARITY EITHER WITH REGARD TO I SSUE IN HAND OR FACTUAL SITUATION INVOLVED. AS SUCH WHILE ACCEPTI NG THE APPEAL OF THE I.T.A. NOS. 1291 1292 /DEL/2012 5 ASSESSEE WE DIRECT TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). 7. AS A RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE GE TS ACCEPTED. 5. THEREFORE FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT AS RELIED UPO N BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WE CONDONE THE DELAY CAUSED IN FI LING OF THESE APPEALS AND ALSO ALLOW THE RELIEF AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEES I N RESPECT TO SECTION 10(10C) DEDUCTION AND DIRECT THE A.O. TO GIVE EFFEC T TO THIS ORDER GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEES. 6. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ACCEPTED. 7. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH OCT. 2013. SD./- SD./- (B.C. MEENA) (U.B.S.BEDI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 18 TH OCT. 2013 SP. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A)-XXV NEW DELHI AR ITAT 5. CIT(ITAT) NEW DELHI NEW DELHI