9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 395 - AT - Income TaxEx gratia amount received by the assessee - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - Although the issue of Exit Option Scheme of SBI was considered by the Tribunal Ahmedabad (2010 (1) TMI 961 - ITAT AHMEDABAD) but one has to examine the scheme under question under which this assessee has opted the VRS in the light of decision cited. There is one more fact brought to our notice that one of the Board's instruction dated 6.10.2009 were not considered by learned CIT(A). Therefore, one has to examine the VRS under which the assessee was granted the ex gratia payment whether in any manner discussed in the said CBDT instruction dated 6.10.2009. For these two reasons, we deem it proper to restore this issue back to the file of learned CIT(A) with the direction that the issue is required to be readjudicated in the light of the order of Hon'ble ITAT 'B' Bench Ahmedabad or any other order of the Tribunal as also the CBDT instructions. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes.
Issues:
1. Exemption of ex gratia amount received under Exit Option Scheme 2. Interpretation of Section 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act 3. Consideration of precedents in similar cases Issue 1: Exemption of ex gratia amount received under Exit Option Scheme The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the deletion of an addition of Rs. 5,00,000 made on account of ex gratia amount received by the assessee under the Exit Option (VRS) Scheme. The Assessing Officer (AO) contended that the ex gratia payment did not qualify for exemption under Section 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act. The AO referred to a CBDT Circular stating that the Exit Option Scheme of the Bank did not fulfill the conditions laid down in Rule 2BA of the IT Act. The assessee relied on various legal decisions to support the claim for exemption, citing cases where similar ex gratia payments were considered eligible for relief under Section 89 and exemption under Section 10(10C). Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act The ld. CIT(A) considered the arguments presented by the appellant and found them justified based on the nature of the amount received and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a relevant case. The CIT(A) ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that employees opting for the Exit Option Scheme were eligible for exemption under Section 10(10C) of the Act. The Revenue contended that the decision was not applicable to the facts and scheme under which the payment was granted, citing a Board Circular that was not considered by the CIT(A). The Revenue argued that the relief was wrongly granted, emphasizing the importance of adhering to Board instructions. Issue 3: Consideration of precedents in similar cases The respondent-assessee argued that the issue of ex gratia payment received from the State Bank of India was covered by decisions of the Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad. Reference was made to a specific case where a Coordinate Bench had held that the exemption under Section 10(10C) was admissible for a similar scheme of the State Bank of India. The Tribunal noted the legal propositions from the cited precedents and allowed the ground in favor of the assessee based on the similarity of the scheme in question with previous cases. The Tribunal directed a reexamination of the issue by the CIT(A) in light of the Tribunal's order and the CBDT instructions that were not previously considered. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues related to the exemption of ex gratia amount received under the Exit Option Scheme, the interpretation of Section 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act, and the consideration of precedents in similar cases. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of analyzing the specific scheme under which the assessee received the payment and directed a reevaluation by the CIT(A) to ensure compliance with relevant legal provisions and instructions.
|
