TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in not accepting judgment of Pune Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Maruti S. Gheji SBI EOS employee ITA No. 578/PN/2010 dated 28.9.2010 and in the case of Haribhau Sali SBI EOS employee ITA No. 1429/PN/2009/07-08 dated 25.3.2011. The claim u/s 10(10C) should be allowed on this ground alone. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in not accepting judgment of Ahamadabad Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Pandya Vinod SBI EOS employee ITA No. 1492/AHD/2010 dated 30.7.2010 and in the case of Bikramjit Passi SBI EOS employee ITA No. 925/CHD/2011 dated 9.11.2011. The claim u/s 10(10C) should be allowed on this ground alone. 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in not considering the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in SLP (Civil) No. 7717 of 1990 wherein it is clearly laid down that the orders of the higher appellate authorities are to be followed unreservedly by the lower authorities. The claim u/s 10(10C) should be allowed on this ground alone. 5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in ignoring the Bombay High Court decision in case of RBI OE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 65/Mum/2011 in the case of Shri Prabhakar T Chavan Vs. ACIT Cir 4, Thane v) ITA No. 8766/Mum/2011 in the case of Mrs. Manasi W Kulakarni Vs. ITO 1(2) Thane vi) ITA No. 8825/Mum/2011 in the case of Mrs. Natal Augustine D'mello Vs. ITO 1(2) Thane (Copy of the aforementioned order was placed on record and was also given to the Ld. DR.) 5. The issue in the aforementioned appeals was decided in favour of the assessee with the following observations:- 3. We have heard the parties and carefully perused the facts of the case. We find that the issue involved in these appeals is squarely covered in favour of the assessee's and against the revenue by the following decisions. Bikram Jit Passi in ITA No.925/Chd/2011 for A.Y. 2008-09 vide order dated 09.11.2011 Pandya Vinodchandra Bhogilal 133 TU 2513, order dated 30.07.2O10 Vilas Sudam Sawant in ITA No.6016/M/2007 for AY 2006- 07, order dated 06.10.2008 Maruti Somappa Gheji in ITA No. 578/PN/2010 for AY 2007-08, order dated 28.09.2010 Shri Rohitkumar Kantilal in hA 969/Ahd/2010 for AY 2008- 09, order dated 05.05.2011 Asapu Babu Rao in ITA No.516/Vizag/2010 for AY 2007- 08, order dated 05.01.2011 Keerti SaWa Veerabhadra R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordance with r. 2BA. In any case, the judgment of Third Member in Dy. CIT vs. Krishna Gopal saha (supra) is dearly applicable and we do not find any reason to take a different view For the sake of convenience we refer to following para from the Third Member judgment in Krishna Gopal Saha's case (supra) as under: "5. At the time of hearing before me, none appeared on behalf of the assessee-respondent. I have therefore, heard the learned Departmental Representative and perused the material placed before me. I find that the issue has been considered by the Hon 'Ole Jurisdictional High Court in the case of SAIL DSP VP Employees Association 1998 vs, Union of India (supra) in which their Lordships held as under "Sec. 10(1OC) of the IT Act, 1961, uses the expression 'any amount received by an employee.., at the time of his .voluntary retirement in accordance with any scheme or schemes of voluntary retirement'. if a plain literal interpretation of statutory provision produced a manifestly absurd and unjust result, which the legislature could not have intended, the Court is supposed to modify the language used by the legislature even to do some violence to it so as to achieve the obviou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Nagesh Devidas Kulkami (supra) held as under 'The assessee is entitled to the exemption under s.10(1OC) of the Act and also rebate under S. 89 of the Act in respect of the amount received in excess of Rs.5,00,000 on account of voluntary retirement' Thus their Lordships have held that the assessee, who opts for voluntary retirement, is not only entitled to exemption under s. 10(10C) but also rebate under S.89 of the IT Act. Similar view is taken by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. P.Surendra Prabhu ('supra,I wherein their Lordships held as under:- 'That the assessee, employee of the respondent bank was not only entitled to the benefit of exemption under 10(1CC) of the Ad- to the extent prescribed in the pro vision itself but for any amount over arid above the prescribed limit; under the aforesaid provision, the assessee was also entitled to relief under S. 89(1) of the Act r/w s.21A. 7. From the above it is evident that while the learned AN! relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. M.Chelladurai Ors (2008) 5 DTR (Mad) 201, he has not taken into account the decisions of other High Court under identical facts hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
