9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant at Rs. 5,00,000/- u/s 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act is bad in law and needs to be set aside. 4. . that the order of the Assessing Officer as upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Patiala disallowing Rs. 24295/- out of the leave encashment received by the appellant u/s 10(10AA) of the Income Tax Act 1961 more so when the same has been calculated and allowed by the employer of the appellant while deducting tax at source is bad in law and needs to be set -aside. 5. That the order of the Assessing Officer as upheld by the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) Patiala initiating reassessment proceedings is bad in law and needs to be set aside. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, and delete any of the grounds before the appeal decided." 3. Ground No.1 of the appeal is general in nature and hence, no comments are being given. 4. As regards to ground No.2 of the appeal, the brief facts are that the assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration declaring taxable income of Rs. 2,23,430/-. In the return of income, the assessee had claimed Rs. 5 lacs as exempt under section 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The assessee had also received a letter from the association of which he is a member, who informed him that he will be entitled to the refund as a result of the appeal filed. Thereafter, the assessee sought legal advice and as such, an appeal was filed before the learned CIT (Appeals). It was also claimed by the assessee before the learned CIT (Appeals) that the issue appealed against was covered in his favour as per the decision of the I.T.A.T., Division Bench, Chandigarh in ITA No.925/Chd/2011 vide order dated 1.11.2011 in the case of Shri Bikram Jit Passi Vs. DCIT, Ambala Cantt relating to assessment year 2008-09. Shri Bikram Jit Passi was an employee of the State Bank of India, a similarly situated and had sought retirement under the said scheme. However, the learned CIT (Appeals) held that the reasons submitted by the assessee are very general in nature. He, therefore, held that there was no sufficient reason for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The learned CIT (Appeals) did not consider and decide the merits of the case. At the stage, it will worthwhile to refer the decision of the I.T.A.T., Lucknow Bench 'A', Lucknow dated 24.8.2007 in the case of Shri Arun Rohtag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justice requires that a liberal view be taken then a liberal view would indeed be warranted. It is not the policy of the Act to enable the state to collect money, from citizen and retain the same even when the money 1$ not required to be paid as tax. The fact that the payment has been made erroneously cannot by itself be allowed to stand in the way of the relief being granted to the assesses. If relief is permissible by exercise of a discretionary power vested in the statutory authority then these authorities are required to exercise such discretionary power in a manner which would protect and promote the interest of the assessee. In Voltas Limited vs. DCIT (2000) 241 ITR 471, it was held by Hon'ble A.P. High Court that a party should not suffer for the laps on the part of the counsel and opportunity should be given to the parties to have a decision on merits. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Pramod Bansal and Sons vs. Income Tax Officer (1999) 237 ITR 65 held that where there is an adverse decision of a High Court then it is futile to file an appeal but where that decision of High Court is reversed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, then the delay occurred in filing the appeal on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered the facts of the appeal. The ld. 'AR' placed reliance, on the decision, in the case of Pandya Vinod Chandra Bhogilae V ITO (2010) 045 DTR 105 ITAT, Ahmedabad, to state that the fact-situation of the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision. Having considered the decision, we found that the same is applicable to the facts of the present cases. The relevant and operative part of the decision is reproduced hereunder : "2. Thus the only issue involved in this appeal is about allowability of exemption under section 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The facts of the case are that assessee is a Deputy Manager in SBI and has taken VRS on 31-5-2006 under exit option scheme introduced by the bank of India with effect from 7-5-2005. The assessee received salary and pension amounting to Rs. 3,81,894 (including exgratia). On examination of Form No.16 the Assessing Officer noticed that assessee received exgratia of Rs. 3,07,236 on VRS. He claimed exemption under section 10(10C) of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim by following circular No. Chief CIT, Baroda letter BRD/Chief CIT/Tech/MICS/10(10C)/2009-10, dated 17-6-2006. The assessee relied on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed by the legislature even to do some violence to it so as to achieve the obvious intention of the legislature and produce a rational construction. An expression used in the statute is not always to be interpreted 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. Sec.10(10C) was inserted in order to make voluntary retirement attractive so as to reduce human complements for securing economic viability of certain companies. This object was elaborated by various departmental circulars and explanatory statements issued from time to time. Similarly, rule 2BA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which was inserted by IT (Sixteenth Amendment) Rules, 1962, was amended from time to time. All these go to show that this was intended to make voluntary retirement more attractive and beneficial to the employee opting for voluntary retirement. Therefore, this has to be interpreted in a manner beneficial to the optee for voluntary retirement, if there is any ambiguity. Sums paid on voluntary retirement to the extent of rupees five lakhs are exempted from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. M.Chelladurai & Ors. (2009) 317 ITR 370(Mad) : (2009) 176 Taxman 31, he has not taken into account the decisions of other High Courts including the jurisdictional High Court. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court under the identical facts held the assessee, i.e., the retired employee, to be entitled to deduction under section 10(10C). Similar view is taken by Hon'ble Bombay as well as Karnataka High Courts. The decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court is binding upon us and moreover if two views are possible, while interpreting the provision, a view which is favourable to the assessee has to be adopted. Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the abovereferred case of SAIL DSP VR Employees Association 1998 v. Union of India (supra) has also held that the provisions of section 10(10C) are to be interpreted liberally in a manner which is beneficial to retired employees in view of the above. I respectfully following the decisions of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, Bombay High Court and Karnataka High Court agree with the learned JM and hold that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 10(10C) to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
