9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R These two appeals by the assessees are directed against the separate orders each dated 23.12.2015 of ld. CIT(A), Hisar. 2. Common issues are involved in these appeals which were heard together so these are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. In ITA No. 905/Del/2017 for the assessment year 2010-11, following grounds have been raised by the assessee: "1. That the notice issued U/s 148 and assessment order passed U/s 147/143(3) and the additions/ disallowances made are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. That the reason to believe was never framed by the AO and notice issued is without any tangible material, which is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction and without application of mind by the assessing officer. 3. That no proper statutory approval has been taken by the Assessing officer U/s 151 of the I.T. Act, 1961, as required. If any approval is taken then the approval is in very mechanical manner without application of mind by the statutory authority hence the proceedings initiated U/s 147/148 is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 4. That, the assessing officer/CIT(A) erred in complet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it is gathered that the main grievance of the assessee relates to the addition made by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) on account of arrears of gratuity and leave encashment added u/s 10(10)(iii) and 10(10AA)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') respectively. 5. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee was an employee of Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar and retired from service before 24.05.2010. Return for the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration declaring total income of ₹ 6,97,180/- was filed on 07.07.2010, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee in the computation of income annexed with the return of income furnished details of arrear on gratuity amounting to ₹ 10,00,000/- and arrear of leave encashment amounting to ₹ 2,61,031/- and claimed the same amount as exempt u/s 10(10) of the Act. The assessee also filed the detailed note on payments of gratuity, leave encashment and LTC etc. on superannuation alongwith the return of income. The AO made the impugned addition b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in ITA No. 1307/Del/2016 for the assessment year 2010-11 in the case of Ram Kanwar Rana, Hisar Vs ITO, Ward-3, Hisar were furnished which are placed on record. 8. In his rival submissions the ld. DR although supported the orders of the authorities below but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. 9. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that an identical issue relating to the gratuity, having similar facts has already been adjudicated by the ITAT Delhi Benches, 'SMCII', New Delhi in ITA No. 3713/Del/2016 for the assessment year 2011- 12 in the case of Dharam Jeet Dahiya Vs ITO, Ward-1, Hisar, wherein the relevant findings have been given in paras 7 & 8 of the order dated 26.10.2016 which read as under: "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 given in p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 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 question is as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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 a case falls under clause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
