Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2021 (1) TMI 414

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... declared that amounts received by an employee under a VRS Scheme were entitled to deduction under Section 10 (10C) (viii) and relief under Section 89 (1) of the Income Tax Act, simultaneously. That being the position the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner becomes one without jurisdiction. Therefore, when the proceedings are found to be without jurisdiction the existence of an alternative remedy is not a bar for granting relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It becomes our duty to grant relief when we are convinced that the proceedings are without jurisdiction. We accordingly set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Applying the principle in Calcutta Discount Company (supra), we quash Exts.P1, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd also under Section 89 (1) of the Act in respect of amounts received as part of VRS. Though it is stated that intimations under Sections 143(1)/154 were issued to the appellant, they are not on record in this Court. The appellant approached the 2nd respondent under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act seeking revision of the orders/intimations through which relief under Section 89(1) was denied to him. This application under Section 264 was rejected by Ext.P1 order dated 31-01-2005. While matter stood thus, on 08-12-2005, a Division Bench of this court in the decision reported as State Bank of India v. Central Board of Direct Taxes; 2006 (1) KLT 258 held that amounts received by employees under a Voluntary Retirement Scheme are entitled to r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ld that the remedy open to the appellant was to prefer an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act and disposed of the writ petition permitting the appellant to file such an appeal and further ordered that if the appeal is filed within a period of 3 weeks from the date of the judgment, the same shall be treated as an appeal filed in time. The appeal, if filed, was directed to be heard and disposed of on merits. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge the appellant has filed the present appeal. 4. We have heard Sri. Leejoy Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. Jose Joseph, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department. 5. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ia to quash the impugned proceedings when the appellant had an effective alternative remedy. He would however fairly concede that the legal position following the judgment of this Court in State Bank of India is that the for the relevant year, the appellant was entitled to claim deduction under Section 10 (10C) (viii) and relief under Section 89 (1) of the Income Tax Act in respect of amounts received in terms of a Voluntary Retirement Scheme. 7. Having considered the rival contentions, we are of the opinion that in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant need not have been relegated to an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act. The appellant admittedly took voluntary .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... not however always a sufficient reason for refusing a party quick relief by a writ or order prohibiting an authority acting without jurisdiction from continuing such action. 28. In the present case the Company contends that the conditions precedent for the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 34 were not satisfied and come to the court at the earliest opportunity. There is nothing in its conduct which would justify the refusal of proper relief under Article 226. When the Constitution confers on the High Courts the power to give relief it becomes the duty of the courts to give such relief in fit cases and the courts would be failing to perform their duty if relief is refused without adequate reasons. In the present case we can fin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates