Allahabad High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii vs Shri Ravindra Pal Singh Chauhan on 14 July, 2010
Author: Rajes Kumar
Bench: Rajes Kumar, Bharati Sapru
Court No. - 37 Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 58 of 2008 Petitioner :- Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii Respondent :- Shri Ravindra Pal Singh Chauhan Petitioner Counsel :- R.K. Upadhyaya, Sc Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.
This is an appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act filed by the Revenue raising the following substantial questions of law.
1. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble I.T.A.T. was justified in condoning the delay for filing appeal before it without appreciating the fact that the reasons taken by the assessee were not sufficient for condoning the delay.?"
2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble I.T.A.T.was justified in reversing the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income tax (A) confirming the action of the Assessing Officer regarding disallowance of exemption U/s.10(10C) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that the employer itself has not given any exemption U/s.10(10C)of the Income tax Act, 1961 to its employees.?"
Counsel for the parties agreed that the issues involved in present appeal is squarely covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Harendra Nath Tripathi reported in 2009(14)MTC 418 (All.L.B.) wherein it has been held that there is no prohibition to the twin benefits in respect of the amount received under the voluntary retirement scheme. The relief contemplated under Section 89 of the Act is aimed to mitigate the hardship that may be caused on account of the high incidence of tax due to progressive increase in tax rates and thus held that the benefits under Section 10(10C) and 89 could be granted to the assessees. Accordingly, the view taken by the Tribunal has been upheld and appeal filed by the Revenue has been dismissed.
Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, the appeal filed by the Board of Revenue is dismissed. Dated :14.7.10 L.F./19