2012 (11) TMI 803 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - Delay in filing appeal with Tribunal - Assessee not file the appeal because higher of litigation expense over tax payable Subsequently AO increase the demand by passing order u/s 154 Assessee file an appeal before Tribunal Held that - Subsequently increase in demand is reasonable and sufficient cause for filing the appeal late. Delay condoned. In favour of assessee Exemption u/s 10(10C) VRS - Assessee received salary and pension (including exgratia) Violation of conditions u/s 10(10C) r.w.r. 2BA Held that - Following the decision in case of Shri Bikram Jit Passi (2012 (11) TMI 214 - ITAT, CHANDIGARH) that if AO had any doubt about the scheme he could have enquired from the employer. Assessee cannot be penalized and tax will be levied on him on the assumption that the scheme framed by employer is not in accordance with rule 2BA. Provision of Sec. 10(10C) should be interpreted in a manner beneficial to the optee for voluntary retirement. In favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Late filing of appeal by the assessee, Condonation of delay, Disallowance of exemption u/s 10(10C) of the Income-tax Act.

Analysis:

Late Filing of Appeal:
The appeal was filed 541 days late by the assessee, who sought condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. The counsel explained that the initial return was revised to claim a deduction u/s 10(10C), which the Assessing Officer did not allow. The rectification application was rejected, advising against an appeal due to minimal benefit. However, a subsequent rectification order increased the tax demand significantly, compelling the assessee to file the appeal. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances, condoned the delay in filing the appeal.

Disallowance of Exemption u/s 10(10C):
The issue revolved around the disallowance of exemption u/s 10(10C) of the Income-tax Act. The CIT(A) disallowed the claim of exemption, which was upheld by the AO. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where a similar issue was decided in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal analyzed the conditions of the scheme and relevant rules to determine the eligibility for exemption. It was observed that the scheme did not comply with section 10(10C) and violated specific conditions, rendering it ineligible for exemption. However, the Tribunal, following precedent, allowed the claim of the assessee based on interpretations of relevant legal provisions and court decisions favoring the assessee's entitlement to exemption under section 10(10C).

In conclusion, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause and allowed the claim of exemption u/s 10(10C) in favor of the assessee based on legal interpretations and precedents.