9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 621X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he total income in terms of section 10(13)( ii) of the Act. Thus, prayer (d) is allowed and the petition stands disposed of accordingly. - Vikramajit Sen And Dr. S. Muralidhar, JJ. For the Petitioner : Rajiv Tyagi. For the Respondent : Ms. Prem Lata Bansal. ORDER 1. The petitioner has made the following prayers in this writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India : (a) quash the impugned order dated 20-11-2002 condone the delay in filing the revision petitions for the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1993-94 and hear the same on merits; (b) quash the impugned order dated 20-11-2002 of the respondent No. 2 holding that so far as assessment year 1990-91 was concerned, the revision petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l open for consideration under article 226 of the Constitution. 3. Section 4 is the charging section under the IT Act. Section 10 lists out item of income which would not be included in the computation of total income. Clause (ii) of sub-section (13) of section 10 excludes from the total income any payment from an approved superannuation fund made to an employee in lieu of or in commutation of an annuity on his retirement at or after a specified age or on his becoming incapacitated prior to such retirement. 4. The conundrum which has arisen in this case is entirely of the petitioner/assessee s making. He offered for taxation the annuity received by him from the superannuation fund which was exempted from inclusion in the total inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we consider it appropriate to exercise our extraordinary powers to correct the injustice. 7. At this juncture we may note that Ms. Bansal, learned counsel for the department, placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Shelly Products [2003] 261 ITR 367 to contend that the department could not be faulted for accepting the returns filed by the assessee where he himself had offered for tax the sum received from the superannuation fund. On a considered view of the matter, we do not see how the judgment in Shelly Products case (supra) can be said to apply in the facts of the present case. 8. We are of the view that, in the facts of the present case, there is no justification for the amounts received by the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
