Jeevan Chandra Kabadwal,, Bhimtal v. DCIT, Nainital

ITA 3152/DEL/2010 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 14-01-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 315220114 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN ABRPK0652O
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 3152/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 6 month(s) 20 day(s)
Appellant Jeevan Chandra Kabadwal,, Bhimtal
Respondent DCIT, Nainital
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 14-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 14-01-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 11-01-2011
Next Hearing Date 11-01-2011
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 24-06-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES D: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3152/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 JEEVAN CHANDRA KABADWAL VS. DCIT VILLAGE BIJRAULI NAINITAL. P.O. PANDEY GAON BHIMTAL (NAINITAL). ABRPK0652O (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUDHANSU SRIVASTAVA ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.K. MON GA SR. DR ORDER PER I.P. BANSAL J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS DI RECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 16.2.10 FOR A.Y. 2008-09. 2. ASSESSEE WAS WORKING WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA AS DEPUTY MANAGER. HE TOOK VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT UNDER THE STAFF SUPERV ISING EXIT OPTION SCHEME OFFERED BY THE BANK. ALONG WITH OTHER RETIREMENT B ENEFITS HE WAS PAID EX- GRATIA OF RS. 9 42 464/- UNDER THE SAID SCHEME OUT OF WHICH ASSESSEE CLAIMED A SUM OF RS. 5 LAKH AS EXEMPT. THE ASSESS EE CLAIMED THE SAID AMOUNT U/S 10(10C) OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (ACT) WH ICH WAS DISALLOWED BY ITA NO. 3152/D/10 2 THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT AS PER PARA 10 OF THE SCH EME WHICH STATED THAT IT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE RULE 10(10C) OF THE ACT AND NO BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION OF EX-GRATIA FOR INCOME TAX WAS INTENDED IN THE SCH EME. 3. LD. CIT(A) HAS REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED HENCE IN APPEAL. 4. BEFORE US IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF ITAT KOLKATA BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. KRISHNA GOPAL SAHA 121 ITD 368 (CAL.) THIRD MEMBER WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS AN EM PLOYEE OF STANDARD CHARTERED BANK AND HAD RECEIVED COMPENSATION OF RS. 18 87 798/- AS PER EARLY SEPARATION PLAN (ESP). HE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS. 5 LAKH U/S 10(10C) OF THE ACT. THE EMPLOYER VIDE THEIR LETTER DATED 14.11.06 STATED THAT THE EMPLOYEES AVAILING THE SAID ESP SCHEME ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(10C) OF THE ACT AS THE SCHEME WAS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 2BA(I) TO (V). HOWEVER THE SAID CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAIL DSP VR EMPLOYEES ASS OCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA 262 ITR 638 (CAL.) AND IT IS HELD THAT AN EMPLOYEE WHO TAKES VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT IS ENTITLED TO GET EXEMPTION U /S 10(10C) EVEN IF THE PAYMENT IS STRETCHED OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS AND FUR THER IT WAS HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 10(10C) SHOULD BE INTERPRETED IN A MANNER BENEFICIAL TO ITA NO. 3152/D/10 3 THE OPTEE FOR VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT AND IT WAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S 10(10C) OF THE ACT. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND RELYING UPON THE ORDER OF AO AND CIT(A) LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS R IGHTLY DISALLOWED. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. THE GROUND TAKEN BY AO FOR REJECTION OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT EMPLOYER OF THE ASSES SEE HAD STATED IN PARA 10 THAT THE PROPOSED SCHEME DID NOT COMPLY WITH RUL E 10(10C) OF THE ACT AND NO BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION OF EX-GRATIA FOR THE IN COME TAX WAS INTENDED IN THE SCHEME. SIMILARLY IN THE AFOREMENTIONED CASE O F DCIT VS. KRISHNA GOPAL SAHA THE EMPLOYER HAD STATED THAT EMPLOYEES A VAILING THE SAID ESP SCHEME ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(10C) O F THE ACT. THEREFORE THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE FACTS OF THE AFOREMENTIONED CASE OF KOLKATA BENCH ARE SIMILAR AND FOR THE REASONING GIV EN THEREIN WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION IN REJECTION OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE BY THE AO AND THEREFORE WE HOLD THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY REJE CTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ADDITION MADE IN THIS REGARD IS DE LETED AND APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 3152/D/10 4 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.1.11 (A.K. GARODIA) (I.P. BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER * KAVITA DATED: COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT