9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal by the assessee against the order dated 16.03.2016 of ld. CIT(A), Faridabad. 2. The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the denial of exemption u/s 10(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) out of the amount received by the assessee towards arrear of gratuity to the extent of ₹ 6,50,000/- and on account of arrears of leave encashment to the extent of ₹ 2,82,232/-. Nobody was present on behalf of the assessee neither any adjournments was sought. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee was an employee of Choudhary Charan Singh, Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar and received arrear of Death cum retirement gratuity of ₹ 6,50,000/-. The assessee filed the return of income on 11.05.2012 declaring an income of ₹ 5,27,880/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on the returned income. The AO observed that the assessee in the computation of total income, annexed with the return of income, furnished the details of receipt of arrears of gratuity and the detailed note on payment of Gratuity, Leave Encashment and LTC etc. The AO did not allow the claim of the assessee for exemption of &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 6,50,000/- on account of excess claim of gratuity are upheld. Similarly the addition made by the AO on account of leave encashment ₹ 2,82,232/-. The appeal on this ground is dismissed. 5. Now the assessee is in appeal. 6. I have considered the submissions of ld. DR and perused the material available on the record. It is noticed that the issues under consideration have already been decided by the various benches of the ITAT New Delhi in favour of the assessee wherein identical facts were involved, the assessee has also relied on the following decisions in his written submissions: Sh. Ram Kanwar Rana Vs ITO, Ward-3, Hisar in ITA No. 1307/Del/2016 dated 16.06.2016 Sh. Bhupendra Kumar Nehra Vs ITO, Ward-1, Hisar in ITA No. 1222/Del/2016 dated 20.07.2016 Sh. Ram Dhari Rana Vs ITO, Ward-3, Hisar in ITA No. 1360/Del/2016 dated 10.08.2016 7. It is noticed that an identical issue relating to the gratuity, having similar facts has already been adjudicated by the ITAT Delhi Benches, SMC-1 , New Delhi in ITA No. 1307/Del/2016 for the assessment year 2010-11 in the case of Ram Kanwar Rana Vs ITO, Ward-3, Hisar, wherein the relevant findings have been giv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e total income of the assessee of such previous year or years, the amount exempt from income-tax under this clause shall not exceed the limit so specified as reduced by the amount or, as the case may be, the aggregate amount not included in the total income of any such previous year or years. 5. A careful perusal of the above provision indicates that if a case falls under clause (i) of section 10(10), the entire amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity becomes exempt. Au contraire, if a case falls under sub-clause (iii) of section 10(10), then, the exemption is limited to the amount as the Central Government may notify in official gazette. It is an accepted position that the Notification u/s 10(10)(iii) issued on 24.5.2010 raised the ceiling of exemption from ₹ 3,50,000/- to ₹ 10 lac. Since the original amount was received by the assessee during the currency of an earlier year on his retirement, the exemption limit prevalent at that time at ₹ 3,50,000/- was used by the assessee. It is nobody s case that the extended limit of exemption can be applied to the assessee, because of his retirement which took place much before the cut-off date. To be more specific, the q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of death-cum-retirement gratuity at ₹ 10 lac, under which the assessee has received the arrears of retirement gratuity under this scheme only. The above facts amply demonstrate that CCSU is covered under the expression State. This is further corroborated from Article 12 of the Constitution of India which states that: In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, the State includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the legislature of each of the States either local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. The expression other authorities has been interpreted in Umesh v. Singh A 1967 Pat. 3(9) F.B. as including: a Board, a University, the Chief Justice of a High Court, having the power to issue rules, bylaws or regulations having the force of law. The above discussion manifests that CCSU is covered within the meaning of State . 8. As the assessee is found to be an employee holding a civil post under a State, in my considered opinion, the provisions of section 10(10)(i) are fully attracted in this case entitling him to exemption for the amount under consideration. Once ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
