TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 570X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 2,48,561/-. The assessee is an individual and taken voluntary retirement from State Bank of India. The assessee claimed exemption u/s 10(10C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') of ₹ 5 lakhs. However, during assessment proceedings, the assessee offered an amount of ₹ 5 lakhs to tax by claiming that he does not want to claim deduction u/s 10(10C) of the Act subject to no penalty. The Assessing officer made addition of ₹ 5 lakhs to the return of income. The Assessing officer passed the order u/s 143(3) on 30.11.2009. The assessee however, preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) against this addition on 1.12.2011. Thus the appeal of the assessee was time barred before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) noted that assessment order dated 30.11.2009 admittedly have been served upon the assessee on 22.12.2009 which makes the time of filing the appeal as 21.1.2010. However, the appeal is filed on 1.12.2009 with a delay of about 680 days. 3. The assessee submitted application for condonation of delay which is reproduced in the impugned order in which the assessee briefly explained that assessee has made claim of exemption u/s 10(10C) of the Act in the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r sections 10(10C) and 10(10AA) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer did not allow the claim of the assessee for the reasons stated in the assessment order dated 13.12.2010 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter before the learned CIT (Appeals) and the learned CIT (Appeals) vide his order dated 14.9.2012 dismissed the appeal of the assessee mainly on the ground that there was a delay of about 11 months in filing the appeal. The learned CIT (Appeals) refused to condone the delay of about 11 months in filing the appeal. However, the learned CIT (Appeals) has not given any findings on the merits of the case and hence, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. I have heard Shri M.R. Sharma, learned counsel for assessee and Shri R.K.Gupta, learned D.R for the Revenue at length and also perused the materials available on record. It is apparent from the records that the assessment order in this case was passed by the Assessing Officer on 13.12.2010 and the relevant notice of demand and the assessment order was served on the assessee on 28.12.2010. However ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herein the Tribunal held as under: 3. I.T.A. Nos. 461, 462, 463, 464 and 469 are filed late, by 324, 325, 325, 324 and 329 days respectively. Anapplication for condonation of delay has been filed. The mason given by them is that they were advised by their consultants not to file appeal against the order of CIT(A) who is highest authority 'in the department. The employees were constantly in search of the exact legal position regarding the taxability of the retirement benefit. It was a/so explained to them that TDS was deducted at source by RBI on these payments and therefore employees were under the bonafide belief that the retirement benefits are taxable under l.T. Act, 1961. However on 28/3/2007, Bombay Tribunal had in 222 appeals of the RBI employees held that they are entitled to benefit u/s 10(1 OC) and also u/s 89(1). Following that decision, the employees have filed the appeal. The delay Is therefore attributable to the incorrect legal advice. Appeal is filed after knowing an order of the Bombay Tribunal in favour of the employees. On this basis, these employees have prayed for condonation of delay. 4. On this issue we have heard Learned D. R. who has' su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave been filed and there is no delay thereafter. In view of this and in order to impart justice to these employees, we do not find hesitation in condoning the delay and admit the appeals. Their explanation is satisfactory and is accepted. 7. As a result, the appeals are admitted for decision on merits. 7. In the above case, the employees did not file appeals before the Tribunal on the ground that the RBI had deducted tax and their counsel had advised against filing of the appeals. But after receipt of the order of the I.T.A.T. (Bombay Bench) in favour of the assesses, the appeals were filed and there was no delay thereafter. In such circumstances, the Tribunal held that in order to impart justice to the employees/assesses the delay deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. In the instant case also, the assessee was advised not to file appeal before the learned CIT (Appeals). However, the assessee came to know about the decision of the I.T.A.T., Division Bench, Chandigarh in the case of Shri Bikram Jit Passi (supra) and thereafter immediately the assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (Appeals). The facts of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
