2015 (6) TMI 1127 - AT - Income Tax

Exemption u/s 10(10C) Held that - Decision of the I.T.A.T. Chandigarh Bench rendered in the case of Shri Bikram Jit Passi (2012 (11) TMI 214 - ITAT CHANDIGARH) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Respectfully following the above order of the Tribunal allow the claim of the assessee holding that the authorities below were not justified in disallowing the amount of Rs. 5 lacs under section 10(10C) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of leave encashment which was claimed as exempt under section 10(10AA) - AO had made the disallowance disputing the calculation made by the employer of the assessee - Held that - There was no justification in disputing the calculation made by the employer of the assessee particularly when the employer had allowed the said amount as a deduction after computing the same under the provisions of the law which fact also stands admitted by the Assessing Officer. It is clear that the assessee had received an amount of Rs. 2, 14, 167/- as leave encashment and therefore there was no justification on the part of the Assessing Officer to dispute the calculation made by the employer of the assessee. No clarification has been sought from the employer Bank. In that view of the matter I do not see any reason for making disallowance of Rs. 24, 295/- out of the amount of Rs. 2, 14, 167/- received by the assessee on account of leave encashment from his employer.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the order by the Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
2. Refusal to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
3. Disallowance of the claim under Section 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act.
4. Disallowance of the leave encashment claim under Section 10(10AA) of the Income Tax Act.
5. Validity of the reassessment proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Order by the Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals):
The appellant contested that the orders by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) were "bad in law and beyond all the cannons of law and justice." However, this ground was general in nature and thus no specific comments were provided.

2. Refusal to Condon the Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The assessee filed the return of income for the relevant year declaring taxable income of Rs. 2,23,430 and claimed Rs. 5 lacs as exempt under Section 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal due to an 11-month delay in filing. The assessee argued that the delay was due to incorrect legal advice and later realization of favorable decisions in similar cases. The Tribunal referenced the ITAT Lucknow Bench's decision in similar circumstances, where delays were condoned to impart substantial justice. Following this precedent, the Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for decision on merits.

3. Disallowance of the Claim under Section 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act:
The Tribunal found that the issue was covered in favor of the assessee by the ITAT Chandigarh Bench's decision in the case of Shri Bikram Jit Passi Vs. DCIT. The Tribunal cited similar cases where the courts held that employees who took voluntary retirement were entitled to exemption under Section 10(10C), even if the payment was stretched over years. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim, holding that the authorities were not justified in disallowing the amount under Section 10(10C).

4. Disallowance of the Leave Encashment Claim under Section 10(10AA) of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee received Rs. 2,14,167 as leave encashment, which was claimed as exempt under Section 10(10AA). The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 24,295 of this amount, disputing the employer's calculation. The Tribunal found no justification for this disallowance, noting that the employer had computed the amount under the provisions of the law and the Assessing Officer had not sought clarification from the employer. The Tribunal allowed the full claim of the assessee.

5. Validity of the Reassessment Proceedings:
Since the appeal was allowed on merits, the Tribunal did not find it necessary to decide on the validity of the reassessment proceedings, considering it to be of academic interest.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed in part, with the Tribunal condoning the delay in filing, allowing the claims under Sections 10(10C) and 10(10AA), and not addressing the reassessment validity due to the favorable decision on merits. The order was pronounced in the open court on June 17, 2015.