Hari Ram Rohilla, Hisar v. ITO, Hisar

ITA 3715/DEL/2016 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 26-10-2016 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 371520114 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN AAAHH3551H
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 3715/DEL/2016
Duration Of Justice 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant Hari Ram Rohilla, Hisar
Respondent ITO, Hisar
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 26-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC 2
Tribunal Order Date 26-10-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 17-10-2016
Next Hearing Date 17-10-2016
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 21-06-2016
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SM C - II NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI A CCOUNTANT M EMBER ITA NO. 3715 /DEL/2016 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2010 - 1 1 HARI RAM ROHILLA 245 DEFENCE COLONY HISAR - 125001 (HARYANA) VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2 HISAR (HARYANA) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A A AHH3551H ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. RAJESH KUMAR SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 17.10 .201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 . 10 .201 6 ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18 .0 3 .2016 OF LD. CIT(A) FARIDABAD . 2. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(10 AA ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (HEREI NAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS ARREARS OF LEAVE ENCASHMENT AMOUNTING TO RS. 2 51 040 / - . NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENTS WAS SOUGHT. THEREFORE THE CASE IS DECIDE D EX - PARTE AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR ON MERIT. ITA NO. 3715 /DEL /201 6 HARI RAM ROHILLA 2 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF CHAUDHARY CHARAN SINGH HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY HISAR (HEREINAFTER CALLED CCSU) AND RETIRED FROM SERVICE BE FORE 24.05.2010. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE R ETURN OF INCOME ON 20.08.2010 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 6 05 090 / - WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. THE AO INITIATED REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE PREMISE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD WRONGLY CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 10(10) IN RESPECT ARREARS OF LEAVE ENCASHMENT. HE REJECTED THAT LEAVE ENCASHMENT WERE EXEMPT UP TO THE LIMIT OF RS.3 LAC IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH LIMIT STOOD EXHAUSTED IN THE EARLIER YEAR AT THE TIME OF THEIR RECEIPT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE RET IRED BEFORE THIS CUTOFF DATE THE AO OPINED THAT THE EXTENDED BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. HE JETTISONED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(10) OF THE ACT AN D HELD THAT THE CORRECT SECTION APPLICABLE WAS SECTION 10(10 AA)(II) S INCE THE A SSESSEE WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF CCSU. T HE AO HELD THAT SUCH EMPLOYEES COULD NOT BE TERMED AS GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND HENCE THE BENEFIT U/S 10(10)(I) WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. RESULTANTLY HE MADE ADDITION TOWARDS THE AMOUNT OF AR REARS OF LEAVE ENCASHMENT RECEIVED AMOUNTING TO RS. 2 51 040 / - . ITA NO. 3715 /DEL /201 6 HARI RAM ROHILLA 3 4. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO ECHOED THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A `HOLDER OF CIVIL POST UNDER THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND HENC E NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(10)(I) OF THE ACT AND UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO ON THIS ISSUE . FEELING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP BEFORE THE ITAT BY WAY OF FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. 5 . I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAM KANWAR RANA VS. ITO WARD - 3 HISAR IN ITA NO.1307/DEL/2016 VIDE ORDER DATED 16.06.2016 HAS ALLOWED EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF ARREARS OF LEAVE ENCASHMENT AND THE RELEVANT FINDINGS ARE GIVEN IN PARAS 9 & 10 OF THE SAID ORDER WHICH READ AS UNDER: 9. AS REGARDS THE SECOND AMOUNT OF RS.1 88 720/ - RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR TOWARDS THE ARREARS OF LEAVE ENCASHMENT IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIM ED EXEMPTION U/S 10(10AA)(I) WHICH WAS REFUSED BY THE AO BY HOLDING THE CASE TO BE COVERED UNDER SUB - CLAUSE (II) OF SECTION 10(10AA). THE LD. CIT(A) AFFIRMED THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO ON THIS POINT THEREBY DENYING THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF THE ARREARS OF LEAVE ENCASHMENT RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR. 10. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED ITA NO. 3715 /DEL /201 6 HARI RAM ROHILLA 4 THAT THERE IS NOT MUCH DIFFERENCE IN THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 10(10)(I) AND 10(10AA)(I) AND THE VIEW TAKEN IN RESPECT OF ARREARS OF GRATUITY U/S 10(10) SHOULD BE FOLLOWED FOR ARREARS OF LEAVE ENCASHMENT U/S 10(10AA). THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THIS PROPOSITION. AS BOTH THE SIDES ARE CONSENSUS AD IDEM ON THE POSITION THAT THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CONTEXT OF S ECTION 10(10) AS APPLICABLE TO LEAVE GRATUITY BE FOLLOWED HERE IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 10(10AA) IN THE CONTEXT OF LEAVE ENCASHMENT I AM DESISTING FROM INDEPENDENTLY EXAMINING THE LATER PROVISION. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT I HAVE HELD THE ASSESSEE TO BE E NTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S 10(10)(I) IN RESPECT OF ARREARS OF GRATUITY FOLLOWING THE SAME I EXTEND THE BENEFIT OF E XEMPTION U/S 10(10AA)(I) IN RESPECT OF ARREARS OF LEAVE ENCASHMENT. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 6. SO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID OR DER DATED 16.06.2016 THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 7 . IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED . (ORDER PRON OUNCED IN THE COURT ON 26 /10 /2016) SD/ - (N. K. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DAT ED: 26 /10 /2016 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT