9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion under section 154. The Assessing Officer disregarded Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of SAIL DSP VR Employees' Association, 1998 (2003 (2) TMI 46 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT ), on the ground that this issue has already been decided in assessment order and, therefore, it cannot be reconsidered, even in the light of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court's decision. learned CIT(A), on the other hand, referred to an aspect of the said decision. In our considered view, what ought to have been examined by the Assessing Officer was whether, in the light of the principles laid down by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, the interpretation canvassed by the assessee could be accepted as one of the possible views of the matter. That exercis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, on facts as well as on law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the issue raised by the appellant is debatable and outside the scope of the provisions of section 154. (4) That on facts as well as on law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of the ld. Assessing Officer in denying exemption of ₹ 5,00,000/- under section 10(10C) in respect of the amount received by the appellant under the VRS scheme of HSBC Bank, the employer, alleging that the said scheme is not in accordance with the requirement as prescribed in Rule 2BA of the Income Tax Rules and in total disregard of the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court and the Jurisdictional Appellate Tribunal on the identical issue. 3. The issue in appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed. The Assessing Officer declined the aforesaid request for rectification on the short ground that the purview of section 154 is restricted to the issues, which are not considered and decided in the orders passed by the Assessing Officer , and thus the rectification petition filed by the assessee on the issues already decided by the A.O. in his order u/s. 143(3) is outside the scope of section 154 of the I.T. Act . Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before learned CIT (Appeals), but without any success. 4. Learned CIT (Appeals) was of the view that since the amount received by the assessee on her voluntary retirement from HSBC was in excess of the maximum amount permissible under Rule 2BA, she is not entitled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal before us. 5. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered factual matrix of the case as also the applicable legal position. 6. We find that as held by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of SAIL DSP VR Employees' Association, 1998 (supra), undoubtedly Their Lordships held that there is no conflict between the VRS Scheme of the SAIL employee and Rule 2BA, but Their Lordships also observed as follows :- An expression used in the statute is not always to be interpr4eted literally or grammatically. Sometimes, it has to be interpreted having regard to the context in which the expression is used and having regard to the object and purpose for which the same is enacted. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome Tax Rules (as noted in paragraph 3.1 of the lead order). Yet, the Third Member decision was that to the extent of ₹ 5,00,000/- the assessee was eligible for deduction u/s. 10(10C). In coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal, inter alia, took note of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court's guidance in the matter. What is held by the Tribunal in this Third Member decision is at the minimum a possible view of the matter, and so far as this Division Bench is concerned a binding judicial precedent. 9. No doubt in a normal situation, so far as matters capable of two views being taken will be outside the ambit of section 154. However, right now, we are dealing with interpretation of section 10(10C) and so far as this interpret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anvassed by the assessee could be accepted as one of the possible views of the matter. That exercise has not been done. 10. For the reasons set out above, we vacate the orders of the authorities below. Having regard to the fact that the issue was covered in favour of the assessee by a Third Member decision of this Tribunal in the case of Krishna Gopal Saha (supra), which constituted a possible interpretation, and which, in the light of SAIL DSP VR Employees' Association, 1998 case (supra) ought to have been adopted by the Assessing Officer, we uphold the grievance of the assessee. The Assessing Officer is accordingly directed to give relief. 11. In the result, I.T.A. No. 1407/Kol./2011 is allowed. All other appeals are also al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
