9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 218 - HC - Income TaxExemption u/s 10(10C) - revised return was filed after the time limit prescribed - request for refund - whether the persons, who retired under the scheme called Early Retirement Option are entitled to claim exemption or not under Section 10(10C) ? - HELD THAT - The issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court made in S.Palaniappan Vs. Income Tax Officer, Chennai, 2015 (10) TMI 405 - SUPREME COURT respondents are directed to grant the benefit of exemption under Section 10(10C) of the IT Act and refund appropriate amount to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petitioner, being a senior citizen, cannot be denied of the benefit of exemption under Section 10(10C) of the Act and the financial benefit that had accrued to the petitioner, which would be more than a lakh of rupees. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the third respondent should grant the benefit of exemption to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the third respondent is directed to grant the benefit of exemption u/s 10(10C) of the Act and refund the appropriate amount to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for interest is rejected.
Issues involved:
Petitioner's request for refund under Section 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 rejected due to filing revised return after prescribed time limit. Analysis: Issue 1: Refund request rejection The petitioner's request for refund relevant to the assessment year 2004-2005 under Section 10(10C) of the IT Act was rejected as the revised return was filed after the prescribed time limit. The petitioner's husband, an ex-employee of ICICI Bank, opted for voluntary retirement under the "Early Retirement Option" scheme. The relief of exemption under Section 10(10C) was not granted initially. The Apex Court had settled the issue in favor of retired employees in a previous judgment. The impugned proceedings were issued solely on the grounds of belated filing of returns. Issue 2: Legal Precedents The counsel for both sides agreed that the issue in this case aligns with the decision of the Apex Court in C.A.No.4411 of 2010 and subsequent judgments by this Court. Reference was made to a specific order in W.P.No.42385 of 2016 where the Court emphasized that technicalities should not hinder the implementation of Supreme Court orders. The circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes under Section 119 of the Act aimed to grant relief to retirees under the Early Retirement Option Scheme. Issue 3: Board's Authority The Board's power under Section 119(2)(c) of the Act allows for relaxation of requirements to avoid genuine hardship. The Board extended benefits to similarly placed individuals as per the Supreme Court's judgment, treating them as a class of cases. The Court highlighted the Board's discretion to relax provisions under Chapter IV or Chapter VI-A if non-compliance was due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control. Issue 4: Relief Granted Considering the petitioner's senior citizen status and the financial benefit involved, the Court held that denial of exemption under Section 10(10C) was unjust. The Court directed the third respondent to grant the exemption and refund the appropriate amount to the petitioner within a specified timeframe. In conclusion, the Court allowed the Writ Petition, set aside the impugned orders, and directed the respondents to provide the exemption and refund within a stipulated period, emphasizing the importance of honoring legal precedents and ensuring fairness in tax assessments.
|
