2016 (6) TMI 645

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f income for Assessment Year 200809, has been rejected. This, the Petitioner submits causes grave injustice and hardship, as the Petitioner's claim for exemption under Section 10 (10C) of the Act in respect of the amount received on voluntarily retirement from the State Bank of India (SBI), is not being examined. 2 The undisputed facts are as under: (a) The Petitioner had during the Assessment Year 200809, opted for the voluntarily retirement scheme (VRS) under Exit Option Scheme of the SBI. (b) On 31st July, 2008, the Petitioner filed her return of income, claiming that to the extent of Rs. 5,00,000/received by her on a retirement from the SBI under the Exit Option Scheme, is exempted under Section 10(10C) of the Act. (c) On 24t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... assessee and also the report of the Assessing Officer, though the assessee is facing genuine hardship, even though various decisions have been made in favour of the assessee by various ITAT & High Court Orders, since no specific instruction is issued by the CBDT in the case of SBI employees, the application filed by the assessee u/s. 119(2)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is hereby rejected." 5 It would, therefore, be noticed that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax in the impugned order was satisfied that the Petitioner would face genuine hardship if the revised application is not entertained. However, same has been rejected on the ground that the CBDT has not issued specific instructions, directing the Department to extend the period of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... same has been allowed. In support, he places reliance upon the order dated 21st March, 2006 in the case of one - Mrs. Hemangi A. Deodhar, in respect of Assessment Year 200809 by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 34, Mumbai. It is submitted that on the same lines, relief be made available to the Petitioner. We find that above order dated 21st March, 2016 specifically prohibiting the grant of any interest while condoning the delay. The same would also apply to the present facts as in this case in the return of income originally filed exemption under Section 10 (10C) of the Act was claimed but disallowed by intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act. The Petitioner had accepted the same. Thus, it would be appropriate that no interest be gr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X