TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 751X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the voluntary retirement scheme - The mere fact that the relief has been spread over several years does not mean that the relief is not in respect of a particular assessment year, thus assessee is eligible to claim simultaneous benefit under section 10(10C) as well as section 89(1) in respect of the compensation received under the voluntary retirement scheme – Further, it is well settled that if two reasonable interpretations of taxing statutes are possible, the one in favour of the assessee should be accepted. In favour of assessee. Penalty u/s. 271(1)(C) - Held that:- As the addition on which the penalty has been levied itself is deleted, there is no question of levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(C). Against revenue. - I. T. A. No. 2785/AH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessee and, therefore, the Revenue is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds:- [1] On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- made on account of disallowance of claim of exemption u/s. 10(10C), of the I.T. Act. [2] On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 10(10C), when the scheme under which the amount was paid does not fulfill the criteria prescribed under rule 2BA of the Income-tax Rules). [3] On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is entit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d order of CIT (A) the Revenue is now in appeal before us. 8. Before us the learned D.R. relied on the order of Assessing Officer. On the other hand, the learned A. R. submitted that on identical facts, the Ahmedabad Bench in the case of shri Narendra J. Chokshi in I.T.A. No. 961/Adh/2010 (vide order dated 4.1.2013) has allowed the assessee's claim of exemption He placed on record the copy of the aforesaid decision. He further submitted that the facts of the case in appeal are identical to that of Sri, Narendra J. Chokshi and, therefore, decision in that case is equally applicable to Assessee's case and, therefore the Assessee also be granted deduction. He thus supported the order of CIT(A). 9. We have heard the rival submissions and pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0(10C) of the Act relying on the decision of the Hon. Bombay High Court in the case of Cit vs. Nagesh Devidas Kulkarni 291 ITR 407 (Bom) and Cit vs. Koodathi Kaliyatan Ambujaksan 219 CTR 80, decision of Hon. Madras High Court in the case of Cit vs. G.V. Venugopal 273 ITR 307 (Mad.), CIT vs. S. Sunder Others 284 ITR 687 CIT vs. J. Ramamani 286 ITR 616 and CIT vs. M. Abdulkarim 311 ITR 162 and Hon. Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Others vs. P Surendra Prabhu 279 ITR 402 and Kerala High Court in the case of State Bank of Travancore vs. CBDT 282 ITR 587. The Ld. A.O. disallowed the deduction to the assessee observing that all the decisions relied upon by the assessee are of non-jurisdictional High Courts and there is no direct judgm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elow the High Court. Therefore, following the decision of Hon. Madras High Court, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. Cit (A). It is confirmed and the ground of appeal of Revenue is dismissed. We also find that in the case of Smt. Shakuntalaben Nagikumar Shah in ITA No. 537/Ahd/2010 the co-ordinate Bench relying on the decision of SMC Bench in the case of Kanaiyalal Vadilal Bhavsar (Supra) and Smt. Shakutalaben Shah (supra) and this has not been controverted by Revenue by bringing any material on record, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus uphold his order. 10. Since the facts of the case are identical to that of Narendra J. Chokshi (supra) and since the co-ordinate Bench has p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of Assessing Officer, Assessee carried he matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) vide order dated 27-9-2012 deleted the penalty by holding as under:- "4.3 I have considered the observation of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order as well as the contention raised by the AR of the appellant in the written submission. The CIT(A) passed the order vide Appellate Order in Appeal No. CIT (A) /VLS/16/10-11 dated 28.7.2010 and deleted the quantum addition made the Assessing Officer in the assessment order on which the penalty is levied. Therefore, I cancel the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act, levying penalty amounting to Rs. 1,40, 662/-. Thus, the appellant succeeds in this ground of appeal." 16. Aggr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
