2015 (11) TMI 868 - HC - Income Tax

Entitlement to exemption under section 10(10C) - amount received by the Respondent - Assessee on his voluntarily retirement - Held that - We dismiss the appeal only on the ground that the Revenue having accepted the decision of the Tribunal in Javerilal D. Chhajed (2011 (11) TMI 663 - ITAT PUNE) then in an identical matter it is not open to the Revenue to challenge a subsequent order. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal 2000 (12) TMI 101 - SUPREME Court has held that the Revenue must be consistent and it cannot differentiate between different assessees. This was in the context of a High Court order. The same principle should apply in case of jurisdictional Tribunal order. We are of the view that it is not open to the Revenue to pick and chose the Assessee s against whom they would filed appeal in this Court. The law should be uniformly applied its application cannot change depending upon the person affected. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to order dated 29th August, 2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2007-08.
- Validity of exemption claim under Section 10(10C) by the Respondent - Assessee.
- Interpretation of Rule 2BA of the Income Tax Rules 1962 in relation to entitlement of relief under Section 10(10C).
- Consistency in Revenue's appeal decisions and the impact on subsequent orders.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenges the ITAT's order regarding the Respondent - Assessee's claim for exemption under Section 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2007-08. The primary issue revolves around the justification of the ITAT's decision regarding the validity of the exemption claim.

2. The main contention raised by the Revenue questions the ITAT's reliance on a specific case law and the interpretation of Rule 2BA of the Income Tax Rules 1962. The Revenue argues that the conditions laid down in the Exit Option Scheme for S.B.I. employees do not fulfill all the requirements of Rule 2BA r.w.s. 10(10C) of the Act. The question of whether partial satisfaction of Rule 2BA would entitle an assessee to relief under Section 10(10C) is also raised for consideration.

3. The Respondent - Assessee, an ex-employee of State Bank of India, claimed exemption under Section 10(10C) in relation to the amount received upon voluntary retirement as per the Exit Option Scheme of the Bank. The Assessing Officer initially rejected this claim, citing a circular issued by the CBDT indicating that such schemes were not eligible for deduction under Section 10(10C).

4. Upon appeal, the CIT(A) overturned the Assessing Officer's decision, citing relevant case laws and precedents supporting the Assessee's claim for exemption. The Tribunal further upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, taking into account previous rulings and dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

5. The High Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds of consistency in Revenue's appeal decisions. It emphasized the importance of uniform application of the law and the need for the Revenue to be consistent in its approach to similar cases. The Court highlighted that once a decision has been accepted in a similar matter, it is not open for the Revenue to challenge subsequent orders without valid reasons.

6. The Court's ruling underscores the principle that the Revenue must provide justifiable reasons for taking a different stance in similar cases where the Tribunal has already decided on the issue. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of the appeal and imposition of costs on the Commissioner of Income Tax. The judgment emphasizes the importance of maintaining consistency and fairness in tax appeal decisions.