9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 939X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee, who had exercised the option for retirement under the Scheme floated by the employer bank and had received the compensation from the employer bank, was entitled to exemption u/s.10(10C) even though the said scheme was not in conformity with the requirement of Rule 2BA - thus, the assessee was entitled to get benefit of the exemption provided u/s.10(10C) of the Act - the order of the FAA is reversed – Decided in favour of Assessee. - ITA No. 6056/Mum/2013 - - - Dated:- 7-3-2014 - Sh. Rajendra And Sanjay Garg,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Anil J. Sathe For the Respondent : Shri Sanjeev Jain ORDER Per Rajendra, AM. Challenging the order dt.30.09.2013 of the CIT(A)-28,Mumbai,assessee has raised following Gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Supreme Court and accepted by CBDT. In view of the clause by clause comparison submitted by the assessee with this High Court judgment, the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) should be quashed. 5. The Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer by ignoring the judgments of Calcutta High Court in the case of SAIL DSP, Calcutta Tribunal Special bench in the case of Krishna Gopal Saha and other judicial pronouncements. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) should be quashed. 6. Your Appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or delete any of the foregoing ground of appeal. 2.Assessee, an individual,filed his return of income on 23.07.2008 declaring total income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ves that VRS was not tax exempted in the opinion of the bank, that there was no mention in the policy about the fact that vacancies caused on account of retirement would not be filled and VRS was done with a view to result in overall reduction in the existing strength of the employees. FAA held that judgment delivered by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the cases of Kodathil Kallyatan Ambuslakshan,was not applicable in the case under consideration. Finally he upheld the order of the AO. 2.3.Before us, Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that CBDT had issued circular on 26. 11.1992 (Circular No. 640), that in answer to question no.9 of the circular it was clarified that if VRS could be applicable certain section of employees even the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icial to the optee,if there is any ambiguity.As per the court,Rule 2BA prescribed the monetary limit.(262ITR638).We further find that in the cases of Y.S.C.Babu A.V.S. Raghavan employees of Syndicate Bank,Hon ble High Court of AP had held that they were entitled to claim exemption u/s.10 (10C) of the Act.Syndicate Bank is one of the commercial bank like the SBI.Thus,there is no justifica - tion for differentiating between the RBI and a commercial bank.What is to be seen is whether the interpretation adopted is beneficial to the optee or not ? We further find that A Bench of Mumbai Tribunal has,in the cases of Uma Subramanian two others(ITA Nos.3120,3122 3468/Mum/ 2012),dealt the issue of VRS of the SBI employees and applicability o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sec.10(10C). It was also noted that as per the relevant provision of clause 14 of the Staff Exit Scheme of SBI, the exit option was aimed at improving the level of moral in the bank and not at rightsizing and the bank was to have discretion to fill- up the vacancies caused by release of officers under the exit option. After taking note of Rule 2BA as well as the provisions of clause 14 of Staff Exit Scheme, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that if the Petitioners were aggrieved by the said clause or the rule, it would be open to them to independently pursue whatever remedy they may have at law. According to the Ld. CIT, the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of SBI Exit Optees (supra) was in favour of the revenue a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has cited various decisions of the Tribunal wherein a similar issue relating to the assessee's claim for exemption u/s.10(10C) has been considered and decided on merit in favour of the assessee. In one of such decisions rendered in the case of Pandya Vinodchandra Bhogilal vs. ITO 45 DTR 105, Ahemadabad Bench of the ITAT held that claim for exemption u/s.10(10C) cannot be denied on the ground that the scheme of Voluntary retirement framed by the employer is not in accordance with the Rule 2BA. For this conclusion, the Ahmedabad Bench relied on Third Member decision of the Kolkata Bench of the ITAT in the case of Dy. CIT v. Krishna Gopal Saha 29 DTR 385 wherein it was held that the assessee, who had exercised the option for retirement u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
