9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in the cost of living has made it very difficult for them to survive and meet their financial obligations and the Government thought it fit to offer this package to enable the employees to come out of the financial crises. If such was the sanction made by the Central Government, it undoubtedly would qualify the parameters laid down under sub-section (10B) of Section 10 of the Income Tax Act as the monetary benefit which will accrue to the employees is in the nature of a compensation, which is pursuant to a decision taken by the Government of India specifically for the employees of HMT. CIT(A) has rightly held that the facts of the present case are pari-materia with that of Hindustan Photo Films [ 2017 (6) TMI 1396 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] which has been decided and the matter therein has attained finality in view of dismissal of the SLP by the Hon ble Supreme Court [ 2018 (2) TMI 2118 - SC ORDER] - Therefore, we are of the considered view that in the instant case, the whole of the amount of voluntary retirement compensation would be exempted from income tax in terms of the second proviso to Section 10(10B) of the Act. Thus the assessee is held eligible for exemption u/s 10(10B) on wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he time of hearing of appeal. 4. During the course of hearing, the ld AR submitted that the assessee was an employee of M/s H.M.T. Ltd, Tractor Division, Pinjore and received the following monetary benefits given under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme on closure of H.MT. LTD, Tractor Division during the Financial Year 2016-17 relevant to impugned Assessment Year 2017-18: Salary Rs 5,16,318 Voluntary Retirement compensation Rs 36,07,576 Gratuity Rs 10,00,000 Leave encashment Rs 3,61,386 4.1 It was submitted that the assessee filed his original return of income on 15.07.2017 which was subsequently revised on 05.12.2017 declaring total income at Rs. 37,78,890/- after claiming exemption u/s 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act at Rs. 5,00,000/-against VRS Compensation besides claiming exemption against Gratuity and Leave Encashment u/s 10 of the Income Tax Act as per Form 16 issued by HMT LTD. The assessee also claimed tax rebate u/s 89 of the Income Tax at Rs. 3,11,129/- on Gratuity amount and VRS Compensation. 4.2 It was submitted that the assessment was thereafter completed u/s 143(3) on 31.10.2019 allowing exemption u/s 10(10C) for Rs.5 lacs and rejecting the claim u/s 89 holding that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpugned order held that since the assessee opted for VRS, he is entitled to exemption under section 10(10C) of the Act and not under section 10(10B) of the Act. 4.4 It was further submitted that exemption u/s 10(10B) has been allowed on identical facts to other employees of HMT-Tractor Division and HMT-Watches Unit by the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi vide order dated 18/08/2021 in case of Shri Raj Kumar Singh (Appeal No. CIT(A), Panchkula, 10064/2020-21), vide order dated 31/03/2021 in case of Shri Kedar Singh Mewari (Appeal No. CIT(A), Haldwani, 10206/2019-20), and various other cases and the relevant appellate orders are placed at pages 68-71 and 72-77 of the paper book. It was submitted that the Revenue has not challenged the orders so passed by the ld CIT(A), NFAC and therefore, in the instant case, where the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has not followed the said decisions, it leads to a situation where the different appellate authority holding the same charge of ld CIT(A) are taking different stand in the matter. It was submitted that following the principle of consistency, necessary relief may be provided to the assessee. 4.5 It was further submitted that on identical facts, the ITAT Jai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lear that employee not opting for VRS would be retrenched under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the Tractor Division is proposed to be closed down. Thus the appellant was left with no other alternative but to accept the employer's offer for compulsory VRS. Section 10(10C) applies only when an employee voluntarily retires from his services and VRS scheme is framed with a view of revival of the undertaking. Thus, the compensation received by the employee was on account of forced retrenchment on special VRS Package and not because of voluntary retirement and such compensation is exempt u/s 10(10B) of the Act. It was accordingly submitted that necessary relief be provided to the assessee by allowing the exemption u/s 10(10B) of the Act. 4.7 In Ground No. 3 and 4, it was submitted that tax relief u/s 89 was claimed on Gratuity amount and VRS Compensation which was denied by the AO as well as by the Ld. CIT(Appeals). It was fairly submitted that the assessee is not entitled to relief u/s 89 on the amount of VRS compensation if assessee claims exemption u/s 10(10C) as per proviso to section 89 w.e.f. 01.04.2010 but there is no such restriction in claiming tax relief u/s 89 on amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any other Act or rules order or notifications issued there under or under any standing orders or under any award contractor service or otherwise, at the time of retrenchment. Whereas the Sec. 10(10C) lays down the exemption for any amount received or receivable by an employee on his voluntary retirement or termination of his service in accordance with any scheme or schemes of voluntary retirement or in the case of public sector company referred to in sub-clause (i) a scheme of voluntary separation, to the extent such amount does not exceed five lakh rupees. 5.3 It was submitted that Section 89 of the Act provides that where an assessee is in receipt of salary being paid in arrears or in advance for more than 12 months due to which his total income is assessed at a higher rate, then the AO shall grant such relief as may be prescribed. The proviso placed under sec. 89 lays down that where exemption under the VRS/VSS scheme referred under 10(10C) is claimed/allowed, the relief under Sec. 89 shall not be granted. 5.4 It was submitted that the assessee opted for VRS/VSS scheme offered by the company and was in receipt of ex-gratia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt calculated in accordance with the provisions of clause (b) of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947); or (ii) such amount, not being less than fifty thousand rupees, as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf, whichever is less: Provided further that the preceding proviso shall not apply in respect of any compensation received by a workman in accordance with any scheme which the Central Government may, having regard to the need for extending special protection to the workmen in the under- taking to which such scheme applies and other relevant circum- stances, approve in this behalf. Explanation. For the purposes of this clause- (a) compensation received by a workman at the time of the closing down of the undertaking in which he is employed shall be deemed to be compensation received at the time of his retrenchment; (b) compensation received by a workman, at the time of the transfer (whether by agreement or by operation of law) of the ownership or management of the undertaking in which he is employed from the employer in relation to that undertaking to a new employer. shall be deemed to be compensation re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mption has been allowed to an employee under this clause for any assessment year, no exemption thereunder shall be allowed to him in relation to any other assessment year: Provided also that where any relief has been allowed to an assessee under section 89 for any assessment year in respect of any amount received or receivable on his voluntary retirement or termination of service or voluntary separation, no exemption under this clause shall be allowed to him in relation to such, or any other, assessment year. 9. The relevant guidelines for the purposes of Section 10(10C) are contained in Rule 2BA which read as under: 2BA. Guidelines for the purposes of section 10(10C) The amount received' by an employee of- (i) a public sector company; or (ii) any other company; or (iii) an authority established under a Central, State or Provincial Act; or (iv) a local authority; or (v) a co-operative society; or (vi) a University established or incorporated by or under a Central, State or Provincial Act and an institution declared to be a University under section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (3 of 1956); or (vii) an Indian Institute of Technology within the meaning of clause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of closing down of the undertaking in which he is employed shall be deemed to be compensation received at the time of his retrenchment. It has been provided that such compensation could be determined and paid to the workman either under the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 or under any other Act or Rules, orders or notifications issued there under or under any standing orders or under any award, contract of service or otherwise. Thus, the determination and payment of compensation doesn t necessarily be as per the Industrial Disputes Act and it could be under any other Act, rules, orders, instructions, award, etc. Further, it has been specifically provided that there could be a scheme which the Central Government may approve in this behalf having regard to the need for extending special protection to the workmen in the undertaking to which such scheme applies and other relevant circumstances and the workman receives the compensation in accordance with the scheme so approved. Further, depending upon whether the compensation is determined as per the Industrial Disputes Act or otherwise, the quantum of compensation so determined and received by the workman shall not exceed five lakh r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y income falling within any of the clauses mentioned therein shall not be included. For the purpose of this case, sub-section (10B) (10C) of Section 10 would be relevant, which are quoted herein below:- Incomes which do not form part of Total Income Incomes not included in total income. 10. In computing the total income of a previous year of any person, any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included. S.10(10B) any compensation received by a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), or under any other Act or Rules, orders or notifications issued thereunder or under any standing orders or under any award, contract of service or otherwise, [at the time of his retrenchment: Provided that the amount exempt under this clause shall not exceed:- (i) an amount calculated in accordance with the provisions of clause (b) of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947); or (ii) such amount, not being less than Rs. Five lakhs, as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf, Whichever is less: Provided further that the preceding proviso shall not apply in respect of any compensation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emption has been allowed to an employee under this clause for any assessment year, no exemption thereunder shall be allowed to him in relation to any other assessment year:]. 29. The case of the revenue is that the package given to the workmen is a VRS package and it would fall within Section 10(10C)(viii) and accordingly, taxable if the receipt exceeds the exempted limit. The case of the petitioner is that the severance package received by them would fall within Section 10(10B) and shall not be included as income in computing total income of the employees. The contention of the revenue that TDS proceeding is independent of the other provisions of the Act cannot be disputed, but however, what the revenue seeks to a state is that it is for the Assessing Officer to examine as to whether the receipts in the hands of the employee is a compensation for a closure or a package received as a Voluntary Retirement settlement. 30. Admittedly, the instant case, is not a case of a single assessee, but a large section of employees of HPF Ltd., a Government of India company. If it is clear from the plain language adopted in the scheme as regards the nature of benefit which is extended to the empl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pursuant to the decision taken by the Central Government to offer special protection to the employees of HPF, the same stands exempted from deduction to income tax. 33. W.P.No. 18608 of 2015; the petitioner in this Writ Petition is an association of officers working in HPF and the relief sought for by them is also identical. The yardstick applicable to workmen as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot be made applicable to the officers. Therefore, under normal circumstances whatever reasoning assigned by this Court in the preceding paragraphs would apply to the employees in the workmen category. Nevertheless, the Central Government does not make any distinction in its press information, dated 28.02.2014, nor do the impugned proceedings/circular, as it has extended the special benefit to all the employees of HPF. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, whatever is the interpretation given by this Court while testing the prayer made in the Writ Petitions filed by the workers would equally apply to this Writ Petition filed by the officers association. 34. In the result, the Writ Petitions are partly allowed on the following lines:- (i) The declaratory relief sought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quarters within a period of one month from the date on which they received the monetary benefits. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 14. In the aforesaid case, it was held by the Hon ble Madras High Court that the Government of India did not authorise the HPF to bring out a VRS package, but what was approved was a non-plan budgetary support, which is in the nature of a grant given by the Central Government to the second respondent for a specific purpose and a specific reason. The purpose is to rehabilitate the employees of HPF and the reason being that the employees have been receiving the pay scales as of 1987, the increase in the cost of living has made it very difficult for them to survive and meet their financial obligations and the Government thought fit to offer this package to enable the employees to come out of the financial crises. If such was the sanction made by the Central Government, it undoubtedly would qualify the parameters laid down under sub-section (10B) of Section 10 of the Income Tax Act. This is so because the monetary benefit which will accrue to the employees is in the nature of a compensation, which is pursuant to a decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Haryana in 1971 to manufacture HMT Tractors. Performance of the company started to decline in the '90s, in the post liberalisation economic environment with rising costs, stiff competition from international players and availability of imported goods at cheaper rates. Several efforts were made in past to arrest the declining trend but it could not succeed to turn around. HMTL's profit making tractor business was affected due to poor off-take, under-utilisation of capacity and working capital constraints, etc. It was observed that continuation in Tractor Business with its insignificant market share in the sector may not be a financially viable and sustainable option for HMT Ltd., and hence it would be prudent to close the tractor business, make an exit from this segment and focus on the core sector of machine tools. 3 The Tractor Division has been incurring losses continuously and is unable to pay the salaries and other statutory dues of its employees. The employees of Tractor Division based at Pinjore have not been paid salary since July, 2014 and other statutory dues are also pending since Nov. 2013. The statutory dues (Terminal benefits, PF, Gratuity, Leave encashment et ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heme 82) they opt for VR/VS as detailed In the enclosure. Once the VR/VS application is duly accepted and the employee relieved, the employee-employer relationship stands severed. 2. The VRS/VSS ex-gratia shall be calculated on the Salary (2007 notional basic pay DA) mentioned under the Scheme(s) on the basis of 30 days a month. Only 2007 notional basic pay and DA will be considered for computation of VRS/VSS ex-gratia. 3 The eligibility period for computing the completed years of service will be reckoned as, upto the date of release of the applicant, for the purpose of calculation of VRS/VSS ex- gratia. Any part of completed years of service or leftover service (considering the superannuation age as 60 years) shall be calculated on pro-rata basis for the purpose of computing the VRS/VSS ex-gratia. 4. For the purpose of Earned leave encashment, the limit of accumulation of Earned Leave as on date of relieving of the employees will be subject to a maximum of 180 days (up to PS-IV Grade), 240 days (for grades PS-V to PS-VIII) and 300 days for (PS-IX and above). 5. The eligible VRS/VSS Ex-gratia, Gratuity and Earned Leave Encashment will be calculated based on the sum of Basic Pay not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or Division and transfer of land to Government entities Sir, I am directed to say that Cabinet in its meeting held on 27.10.2016 considered a Note dated 23.09.2016 and Supplementary Note dated 01.10.2016 and on the above subject and approved the following- (i) Closure of operations at HMT Tractor Division with offer of attractive and improved VRS/VSS package to allow ex-gratia and terminal benefits based on 2007 notional pay scales, In relaxation of DPE guidelines disallowing pay revision in sick/loss making CPSES, as against the current pay scales of 1997, to all the employees of Tractor Division. Employees not opting for VRS would be retrenched under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the Tractor Division is proposed to be closed down. (ii) Infusion of funds of Rs 716.72 Cr as interest free loan for the said VRS/VSS with ex-gratia and terminal benefits based on 2007 notional pay scales for all employees of the Tractor Division (Rs 335,00 Cr), clearing of employee related liabilities (Rs. 271.05 Cr) of HMTL and settlement of other liabilities (Rs 112.67 Cr) In respect of HMT Tractor Division. (i) Restructuring of Balance Sheet of HMTL by reduction of paid-up capital to the exten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... option for strategic sale of the HMT Tractor Factory, Pinjore to national or International parties may be explored in consultation with DIPAM. In case, the productive resources/ assets of HMT Tractor Limited at Pinjore fall to elicit response of MSME Industries under medium and long term lease, falling which alternative option of strategic sale of the HMT Pinjore factory, Pinjore to national and International parties will be explored, In case, even this does not fructify then the company shall follow DPE guidelines dated 7th September, 2016. (v) Transfer/sals of Identified land parcels of HMT to various Govt. entitles as under, a) Ex post facto approval for formal transfer of 0.74 acre land in Bangalore to M/s Raman Research Institute, an autonomous Institution under the Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of India. b) Approval for accepting Transferable Development Rights (TDR) from the civic agency Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palika(BBMP) in lieu of 80,000 sft.. land taken over for road widening In Bangalore. c) Prior approval for the transfer/sale of 3 acres of land, sought by National Investigation Agency (NIA) and 1.047 acre by Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Developm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ensation received at the time of VRS Appellant by way of revised return claimed that the said compensation is exempt under Second proviso and first explanation of Section 10(108) of Act. For this appellant placed reliance on the case of Hindustan Photo Film Workers Vs. The Government of India WP No. 18566 of 2015 dated 17.03.2017. AO on the other hand held that facts of the above case are different than the present case and disallowed claim of the appellant made u/s 10(10B) of the Act on following findings that (1) sum received by the appellant on account of VRSNSS was not of the nature of compensation on termination of employment or compensation on closure of industry ie HMTL-TD. This amount is receipt on account of voluntary retirement, (ii) appellant was not retrenched in accordance with provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947(1 D Act) or under any other Act or award in terms of section 10(108). The order under Industrial Dispute Act 1947 in the case HMT Ltd was passed on 14.2.2017 whereas the appellant accepted the VRS/VSS introduced on 4.11.2016. The appellant had not received payment pursuant to award under I.D.Act, 1947, hence the appellant is also not covered by the expl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ractor Division was established in Pinjore, Haryana in 1971 to manufacture HMT Tractors Performance of the company started to decline in the '90s, in the post liberalization economic environment with rising costs, stiff competition from international players and availability of imported goods at cheaper rates. Several efforts were made in past to arrest the declining trend but it could not succeed to turn around HMTL's profit making tractor business was affected due to poor off-take, under-utilization of capacity and working capital constraints, etc. It was observed that continuation in Tractor Business with its insignificant market share in the sector may not be a financially viable and sustainable option for HMTL and hence it would be prudent to close the tractor business, make an exit from this segment and focus on the core sector of machine tools. It is further stated that the Tractor Division has been incurring losses continuously and is unable to pay the salaries and other statutory dues of its employees. The employees of Tractor Division based at Pinjore have not been paid salary since July, 2014 and other statutory dues are also pending since Nov. 2013. The statutor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but what would be relevant is purpose for which the package has been sanctioned. There is no option available to the employees as the company has been closed down and therefore, the quantum which is sought to be given to the employees should be construed as compensation for closure. The package dated 28.02.2014, sanctioned for employees of HPF, is special package exclusively dedicated and designed for the employees of HPF. The VRS Scheme for the employees of HMTL-TD is also exclusive and specific package for the Tractor Division, Pinjore The earmarked money under budgetary support to HMTL for payment of outstanding salary / wages and other employee related dues and also for closure of HMT Tractor Division by offering attractive VRS/VSS at 2007 notional pay scales. Thus funds have been earmarked for a specific purpose. As per facts and circumstances described in detail in the Press release under the head Background , the employees can hardly resist to take a stand against the said package This view is further strengthened, if we peruse that in financial year 2016- 17, 850 employees of HMTL-TD took VRS and 150 employees who did not offer for VRS were retrenched in January 2018. Henc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rightly held that the purpose behind this scheme in no uncertain terms is to rehabilitate the employees of HMTL-TD as the increase in the cost of living has made it very difficult for them to survive and meet their financial obligations and the Government thought it fit to offer this package to enable the employees to come out of the financial crises. If such was the sanction made by the Central Government, it undoubtedly would qualify the parameters laid down under sub-section (10B) of Section 10 of the Income Tax Act as the monetary benefit which will accrue to the employees is in the nature of a compensation, which is pursuant to a decision taken by the Government of India specifically for the employees of HMT. The ld CIT(A) has rightly held that the facts of the present case are pari-materia with that of Hindustan Photo Films (Supra) which has been decided by the Hon ble Madras High Court and the matter therein has attained finality in view of dismissal of the SLP by the Hon ble Supreme Court. Therefore, in light of the same, we are of the considered view that in the instant case, the whole of the amount of voluntary retirement compensation would be exempted from income tax in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... puty Manager, Finance, with HMT watches Ltd, Ranibagh. On 06/01/2016, the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs, chaired by the Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi, gave its approval for offering VRS package to mitigate the hardships being faced by the employees of HMT Watches Ltd. This was announced through a press release by the Government of India. According to this scheme of compensation, the appellant received an amount of Rs. 24,06,050/- as the compensation amount during the Assessment Year 2017-18. 4.3 The Assessing Officer observed that the appellant's case would neither fall under section 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act nor under section 10(108) of the Act. The Assessing Officer observed that the compensation scheme was not in conformity with the prescribed guidelines as mentioned in section 10(10C) of the Act, read with the Rule 2BA of the IT Rules, 1962. Further, the Assessing Officer observed that no material was brought on record by the appellant that such a scheme was notified by the Central Government in the official Gazette for the purpose of granting exemption from taxation under section 10(10B) of the Act. 4.4 Appellant pleaded that the compensation received at t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urpose of granting exemption from taxation under the said proviso. The Observation of the Assessing Officer is not in accordance with the law. There is no such condition laid in the said proviso that the scheme should be notified in the official Gazette. The Assessing Officer is not correct in forcibly including a condition, which is not mentioned in the Act. The proviso says that in accordance with any scheme which the Central government may approve . In the appellant's case, the Central Government has approved the scheme, as observed in the press release dated 06/01/2016. Thus, the appellant becomes eligible for the exemption provided under section 10(10B) of the Act. Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of [2017] 79 taxmann.com 298 (Madras) HIGH COURT OF MADRAS, Hindustan Photo Film Workers' Welfare Centre (CITU) v. Government of India, New Delhi. 4.8 The Hon'ble High Court, observed as under: 30. Admittedly, the instant case, is not a case of a single assessee, but a large section of employees of HPF Ltd., a Government of India company. If it is clear from the plain language adopted in the scheme as regards the nature of benefit which is extended to the em ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n pursuant to the decision taken by the Central Government to offer special protection to the employees of HPF, the same stands exempted from deduction to income tax. 4.9 In view of the above, the appellant's plea that the compensation received subsequent to the closure of the employer company, based on the decision of the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs, Government of India, is eligible for exemption under section 10(10 B) of the Act, is accepted. The addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 23,13,096/- is deleted. Appeal on this ground is allowed. 23. We are therefore intrigued by the fact that where the ld CIT(A) in other cases under identical fact pattern are consistently holding that the employees who have received similar compensation from HMT are eligible for exemption u/s 10(10B) of the Act and these cases are brought to the notice of the ld CIT(A) in the instant case, the ld CIT(A) has failed to take cognizance of these decisions. It is not even a case where the aforesaid decisions so rendered in other cases have been challenged by the Revenue or any distinguishing facts and circumstances are available on record and/or pointed out by the ld CIT(A). Therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied to the assessee, Shri Kishori Lal Batra in respect of VRS compensation of Rs 17,03,817/- received on closure of HMT Ltd (Tractor Division) and relief u/s 89 has been denied in respect of net gratuity of Rs 2,04,824/-. 30. In this regard, our reference was drawn to the Press release dt 27/10/2016 wherein the Government of India in its Cabinet Meeting held on 27/10/2016 approved the Budgetary support to HMT Ltd for payment of outstanding salary, introduction of VRS/VSS and closure of operations of the Tractor Division. Further reference was drawn to the Office Order dt. 04/11/2016 regarding the VRS /VSS scheme announced by HMT Ltd. for all the permanent employees who were on the rolls of the Tractor Division and it was submitted that there was no option left with employees but to accept the VRS scheme which was offered by the HMT. 31. Further, reference was drawn to the decision of Hon ble Madras High Court in case of Hindustan Photo Film (supra) wherein the compensation received under the similar scheme were held exempt under section 10(10B) of the Act. It was submitted that the said decision was reconfirmed by the Division Bench and the Government of India thereafter filed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled to appreciate. In this regard, it was submitted that besides the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Company Limited (supra) the assessee wishes to rely on the recent decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Wipro Finance Ltd. Vs. CIT [2022] 443 ITR 250 and our reference was drawn to the Para 10 and 11 of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court and the contents there of read as under: 10. The learned ASG appearing for the department had faintly argued that since the appellant in its return had taken a conscious explicit plea with regard to the part of the claim being ascribable to capital expenditure and partly to revenue expenditure, it was not open for the appellant to plead for the first time before the ITAT that the entire claim must be treated as revenue expenditure. Further, it was not open to the ITAT to entertain such fresh claim for the first time. This submission needs to be stated to be rejected. In the first place, the ITAT was conscious about the fact that this claim was set up by the appellant for the first time before it, and was clearly inconsistent and contrary to the stand taken in the return filed by the appellant fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the claim of the assessee under similar facts and circumstances who have retired from HMT Ltd. and were in receipt of the retrenchment compensation, the assessee is at loss to understand why the different treatment has been meted out to him. It was submitted that it is a classic case of injustice and discrimination which has been meted out to the assessee. It is also a case of unjust enrichment on the part of the Tax Department and the Revenue be directed to refund the excess taxes along with interest due thereon. 37. The DR fairly submitted that facts and circumstances are identical and similar contentions as advanced above may be considered. Further, she has relied on the order of the lower authorities. 38. Heard both the parties and considered the material available on record. In view of the settled legal position, the additional claim being a legal claim even though not raised in the return of income or during the assessment proceedings, the same can be raised during the appellate proceedings, the said claim is hereby admitted. Further, we find that the facts and circumstances of the case are exactly identical as in ITA No. 83/CHD/2023 and both the parties have fairly admitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- and similar contentions as raised above may be considered. It was submitted that in the instant case, the aforesaid additional claim was made before the ld CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings and being a legal claim, the same deserve to be admitted in view of the settled legal position. 45. The DR fairly submitted that facts and circumstances are identical and similar contentions as advanced above may be considered. Further, she has relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 46. Given the identical facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the settled legal position, the additional claim being a legal claim which can be raised during the appellate proceedings, the said claim is hereby admitted and our findings and directions as contained in ITA No. 83/Chd/2023 shall apply mutatis mutandis to this matter. 47. The appeal filed by the assessee is accordingly allowed. 48. Before parting, it would not be out of place to mention that coupled with the fact the exemption u/s 10(10B) has been allowed by the ld CIT(A) in various other similar cases across jurisdictions as we have noted above, claim of exemption has been allowed by the AO in case of employees of HMT even a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
