TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tcome of the writ petition. In view of the decision of the CBDT as well as of this Court in M.V. Chinna Rao [ 2006 (10) TMI 519 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT] we have no hesitation in holding that petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of Section 89 - Consequently, the orde passed by the 1st respondent as well as the assessment order passed by the 2nd respondent to the extent of denial of benefit to the petitioner under Section 89 of the Act are hereby set aside and quashed. - WRIT PETITION No.17116 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 25-1-2023 - HON BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND HON BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI For the Petitioner : Mr. P. Venkata Rama Sarma, Learned Counsel For the Respondent : Mr. J.V. Prasad, Learned Sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 10(10C) of the Act. Admitting the balance amount of Rs.4,62,722.00 as part of his taxable salary, petitioner however treated this amount as salary received in advance and claimed relief under Section 89 of the Act. 6. It may be mentioned that on the ground of taxable income escaping assessment, 2nd respondent had issued notice under Section 148 of the Act. Following assessment proceedings, 2nd respondent passed the assessment order dated 09.10.2003. While allowing the claim of the petitioner to exemption under Section 10(10C) of the Act, the 2nd respondent referred to the second proviso to Sub-Section (10C) of Section 10 of the Act and thereafter posed the question as to whether having been granted relief under Section 10(10C) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under voluntary retirement scheme had been examined by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (briefly referred to hereinafter as CBDT ) whereafter CBDT took the view that under the existing law, relief under Section 89 of the Act would be available to an assessee on payment received under voluntary retirement scheme. Commissioner of Income Tax was informed that this issue need not be further contested before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the High Court. 10. From the materials on record, we find that this issue had cropped up in a bunch of income tax appeals and writ petitions filed before this Court being M.V. Chinna Rao v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (W.P.Nos.20173 of 2004 batch and I.T.T.A.Nos.47 of 2003 batch, decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment order has become final cannot be accepted in as much as on filing of the writ petition and admission thereof, the assessment order became subject to outcome of the writ petition. 13. In view of the decision of the CBDT as well as of this Court in M.V. Chinna Rao (supra), we have no hesitation in holding that petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of Section 89 of the Act. Consequently, the order dated 18.01.2006 passed by the 1st respondent as well as the assessment order dated 09.10.2003 passed by the 2nd respondent to the extent of denial of benefit to the petitioner under Section 89 of the Act are hereby set aside and quashed. 14. Since we have allowed the writ petition, necessary refund shall be made by the respondents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
