Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Reena Denis Disilva, Thane vs Assessee on 12 February, 2014
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
MUMBAI BENCH "D", MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 8718/Mum/2011
Assessment Year: 2008-09
Reena Denis Disilva ITO 4(4)
Franstel, Prabhu Ali, Thane
Near Maideo Wada, Parnaka,
Vs.
Vasai (W), Dist. Thane
401 201
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Permanent Account No. :-ABKPD 9293 K
Appellant by Shri Mandar Vaidya & Shri
:
Sunil C. Mone
Respondent by : Shri B.P.K. Panda
Date of hearing : 12.02.2014
Date of Pronouncement : 21.02.2014
ORDER
PER DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JM:
This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-2, Thane dated 29.08.2011 for the Assessment Year 2008-09.
2. In this appeal, the assessee has agitated the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the order of the AO in not allowing the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act.
3. The relevant facts are that the assessee, an individual, ex-SBI employee opted for SBI Exist Option Scheme, during the assessment year under consideration, while declaring a total income at Rs.418350/- had disclosed a receipt of Rs.680164 on account of ex gratia payment on being opted for VRS scheme introduced by the employer i.e. SBI. Accordingly, the assessee had claimed Rs.5 lakhs as exempt u/s 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act. In the assessment framed, the AO disallowed the claim of the assessee as the same did not qualify for exemption u/s 10(10C) of the 2 ITA No. 8718/Mum/2011 Reena Denis Disilva Assessment Year: 2008-09 Act. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the said disallowance/addition made by the AO as the exit option scheme of the SBI was not in accordance with the guidelines framed under rule 2BA of the Income Tax Rules. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal before us.
4. Having heard both the sides and perused the material on record it is pertinent to mention that the issue of allowability of the impugned deduction is covered by number of decisions in favour of the assessee. Some of the decisions are as follows:-
• "Bikram Jit Passi in ITA No. 925/Chd/2011 for A.Y. 2008-09 vide order dated 09.11.2011 • Pandya Vinodchandra Bhogilal 133 TTJ 2513, order dated 30.07.2010 • Vilas Sudam Sawant in ITA No.6016/M/2007 for A.Y. 2006-07, order dated 06.10.2008 • Maruti Somappa Gheji in ITA No. 578/PN/2010 for A.Y. 2007-08, order dated 28.09.2010 • Shri Rohitkumar Kantilal in ITA No. 969/Ahd/2010 for A.Y. 2008-
09, order dated 05.05.2011 • Asapu Babu Rao in ITA No. 516/Vizag/2010 for A.Y. 2007-08, order dated 05.01.2011 • Keeri Satya Veerbhadra Rao in ITA No. 491/Vizag/2010 for A.Y. 2007-08, order dated 24.01.2011 • Uma Subramanian in ITA No. 3120/Mum/2012 for A.Y. 2008-09, order dated 10.08.2012"
The ratios laid down in the above cases support the proposition that the provisions of section 10(10C) is to be interpreted liberally in the manner which is beneficial to retired employees and the assessee is not only entitled to exemption u/s 10 (10C) but also rebate u/s 89 of the Income Tax Act. In view of the fact that the decisions referred above are fully applicable to the facts of the present assessee, we decide the issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Accordingly, the assessee is entitled for the allowability of the claim u/s 10(10C).
5. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21st day of February 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SANJAY ARORA) (Dr. S.T.M. PAVALAN)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, Dated: 21.02.2014.
*Srivastava
3 ITA No. 8718/Mum/2011
Reena Denis Disilva
Assessment Year: 2008-09
Copy to: The Appellant
The Respondent
The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai
The CIT(A) Concerned, Mumbai
The DR "D" Bench
//True Copy//
By Order
Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.