KIRTIDA RAJESHKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The Lit. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal without appreciating that the delay occurred solely due to the Appellants bonafide ignorance regarding the availability of exemption under Section 10(108) and lack of legal knowledge These circumstances constitute a reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 249(3) of the Income-tax Act. 1961. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to apply the Asst.Year –2021-22 - 2– Circular No. 14 of 1955 and upheld by various judicial precedents including decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal at the threshold without appreciating that the Appellants case is factually identical to Harish Kumar vs. ITO. (ITA No. 42/CHD/2025), where compensation received under the same BSNL VRS-2019 was held fully exempt under Section 10(108) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the merits despite the existence of a legitimate, legally sustainable, and directly applicable claim under Section 10(108).

The Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order without granting reasonable opportunity of hearing and without issuing statutory notice under Section 250 of the Act during appellate proceedings. The order is thus vitiated for breach of natural justice and is bad in law.

The assessee is a retired employee of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) received compensation under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019 which is in full compliance with the conditions prescribed under Rule 2BA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, and is thus eligible for exemption under Section 10(108) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, due to lack of awareness of the legal provisions at the time of filing the income tax return, the Appellant inadvertently offered the said compensation to tax. Subsequently, based on the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in the case of Harish Kumar vs. ITO Ward 5(5), Chandigarh (ITA No. 42/CHD/2025 dated 30.05.2025), where compensation received under Asst.Year –2021-22 - 3– the same BSNL VRS-2019 was held to be exempt under Section 10(108), the assessee now seeks exemption of such compensation. The Appellant, therefore, prays that the compensation received under the VRS be directed to be treated as exempt, and the consequential refund be granted.

Heard the argument of both the parties and perused the material available on record.

At the outset, both the parties fairly submitted that the issue raised by the assessee in the present appeal stands covered by the order of the Tribunal in the case of Jayeshkumar Tulsidas Sutaria Vs. ITO for A.Ys 2020-21 & 2021-22 in ITA Nos.2387 & 2388/Ahd/2025 dated 17.02.2026. For the sake of ready reference, the operative portion of said order is reproduced as under:

In the absence of any change in factual matrix and legal proposition brought to our notice, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed. Asst.Year –2021-22 - 4–

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

""यथ" / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु"(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,