9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 753X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed. Hence dismissed as not pressed. 5. G.No.6 is consequential. Charging of interest u/s 234D of the Act . Order pronounced in open court. Detailed order will follow." Now the detailed order is as follows : 3. In this appeal the assessee has taken the following grounds :- "1. That on the facts an in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner or Income-tax (Appeals) - XIV,Ko1kata (hereinafter referred to as the "Ld. C.I.T.(A)") failed to appreciate that the initiation proceedings under Section 147 of' the I.T. Act, 1961 as well as the issue and service of Notice dated 26.07.2005 under Section 148 of' the said Act in the instant case are completely arbitrary, erroneous and had in law and hence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A) was wholly unjustified to confirm the disallowance of assessee's claim for relief of Rs.28029/- under Section 89(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 as made by the Ld. Assessing Officer in the instant case although the granting of such relief was mandatory in the instant case. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. C.I.T.(A) did not consider the Ground of Appeal No. 4 submitted before him by the assessee objecting to the levy and demand of interest under Section 234 D of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the instant case and for that the impugned Order of the Ld. C.I.T.(A) is erroneous, arbitrary and bad in law in the instant case. 4. At the time of hearing the ld.Counsel appearing on behalf of assessee did not press Ground Nos. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) can be allowed to the assessee provided the voluntary separation scheme of the employer substantially satisfies the conditions provided in Rule 2BA. This shows that even Hon'ble ITAT is of the view that the conditions under Rule 2BA cannot be ignored Here in the case of the assessee we find that a very important condition mentioned in clause (vi) of Rule 2BA is not satisfied. As mentioned above the amount received by the assessee on voluntary separation (Rs.20,77,903/- ) is more than salary at the time of retirement multiplied by the balance month of service left (Rs.18,47,976/-). I am of the opinion that this is a very important condition as it is very objective and quantifiable. If this condition is not satisfied we cannot say that prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f leave u/s 10(10AA) of the IT Act and ground no.5 raised by assessee is relating to disallowance of relief of Rs.28,029/- u/s 89(1) of the IT Act. 10.1. The brief facts of both the issues are that while doing the scrutiny assessment the AO has disallowed an amount of Rs.1,54,611/- u/s 10(10AA) of the IT Act and an amount of Rs.28,029/- in respect of relief u/s 89(1) of the IT Act by observing as under :- "In the course of hearing Shri Nandy has furnished a revised computation sheet claiming deduction of Rs.1,54,611/- u/s 10(10AA) on Leave encashment and relief of Rs.28,029/- u/s 89(1) of the Act. No deduction has been allowed by the said bank u/s 10(10AA) in the ITS certificate. The assessee has not shown any calculation for arriving at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the A.O. on 30.10.2006. In my view since these claims were not made by the assessee in the original return therefore, these could not be allowed through a revised computation filed subsequently. As per the provisions of section 139(4) if the assessee detects any omission or commission in the return filed u/s 139(1) then he can rectify the same by furnishing a revised return before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year. In the case of the assessee for assessment year 2003-04 the time limit for filing revised return was available upto 31.03.2005. However, since the revised computation was flied on 30.10.2006 it could not be considered as valid. Therefore, I feel that the claims of deduction of Rs.1,54,611/- u/s 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mployee should be in the nature of 'Cash equivalent of leave salary'. But as per the statement of ABN AMRO bank the assessee was given 'Sick Leave encashment'. As claim of the assessee is not well-founded, the claim u/s 10(10AA) is rejected. Regarding relief u/s 89(1) the assessee has not furnished any of the copies of Returns for the earlier years as evidence in support of this claim. Hence this claim the assessee is not allowable for want of evidence." The ld. CIT(A) has also confirmed the same by observing that the time limit for filing revised return was available upto 31.03.2005 and since the revised computation was filed on 30.10.2006 it could not be considered as valid. Under these facts, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
