9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Officer in: i) initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and completing assessment u/s 147/143(3) of the Act at an income of Rs. 2067650/-against the returned income in a sum of Rs. 968600/-; ii) initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of change of opinion without there being any reason to believe that income has escaped assessment; iii) passing order u/s 147/143(3) of the Act without disposing of the objection to reopening by speaking order; iv) making an addition of Rs. 6,50,000/- and Rs. 4,49,050/- on account of gratuity and Leave encashment received from the State Government after retirement by restricting the exemption claimed u/s 10(10)(i) and 10(10AA)(i) of the Act to Rs. 3,50,000/-." 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Gratuity 650000.00 Addition on account of Leave encashment 449050.00 Total Income assessed 2067650.00 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the assessee was an employee of Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, which is not a State Govt. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment was framed u/s 143(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961. No notice u/s 143(2) for assessment was issued within six months from the end of the assessment year. Thereafter, notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 03-10-2013 without service of copy of reasons initiated before proceedings u/s 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee was an employee of Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, a State University, established under 'The Haryana and Punjab Agricultural Universities Act, 1970' and notified under University Grants Commission. The Tribunal in case of Ram Kanwar Rana (supra) held that the exemption u/s 10(10)(i) and 10(10AA)(i) of the Act are available to the assessee in respect of the arrears of gratuity and dismissed the grounds about the initiation of the re-assessment. Similar view has been taken in several decisions including Raghubir Singh Panghal vs. ITO in ITA No. 1308/Del/2016. As in the present case also the assessee is found to be an employee holding a civil post under a State, therefore, the provisions of Section 10(10)(i) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
