MD ANOWAR HUSSAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

ITA 524/GTY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 October 2026AY 2020-202126 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, employed with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), opted for the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme and received compensation. Due to a lack of awareness regarding the exemption available under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and compliance with Rule 2BA, the assessee offered this compensation to tax in the return of income. Tax was deducted at source. No exemption was claimed in the original or revised return. The CPC issued an intimation under section 143(1) without granting exemption. Subsequently, upon learning of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench's decision in Harish Kumar vs. ITO, the assessee sought exemption. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, stating the grievance did not emanate from the order appealed against and that relief should have been claimed in a revised return, which was time-barred. The assessee is now in appeal before the ITAT.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the claim before the CIT(A) and that since the income was not taxable, the assessee was eligible for a refund of the TDS. The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee, respectfully following the judgment in Harish Kumar vs. ITO Ward 5(5), Chandigarh (ITA No. 42/CHD/2025, dated 30.05.2025). The ratio decidendi is that tax authorities should grant lawful reliefs even if not claimed in the return, especially when the assessee becomes aware of their eligibility later, and that compensation under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is exempt under Section 10(10B) subject to Rule 2BA compliance. All 41 appeals were allowed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee is entitled to claim exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme, even though it was not claimed in the original or revised return of income? Assessee's contention: The assessee argues that due to a lack of awareness of the legal provisions at the time of filing the return, the compensation was inadvertently offered to tax. Following the ITAT Chandigarh Bench's decision in Harish Kumar vs. ITO, which held similar compensation as exempt under Section 10(10B), the assessee seeks to claim this exemption. The assessee also relies on CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955, which obligates tax authorities to grant lawful reliefs even if not claimed. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the Revenue. However, the CIT(A)'s order suggests that the claim for exemption was not made in the return and that the time limit for filing a revised return had expired.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(10B),Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No. 512-547/GTY/2026 & other appeals Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA-GUWAHATI ‘e-COURT’, DB, KOLKATA [Hybrid Court Hearing] Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ) & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member

ITA Nos. 512 & 513/GTY/2026 Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 C/o. Padvekar Law Ward-1(2), Guwahati, Chambers, Aayakar Bhawan, 408, Maker Bhavan No. 3, Christian Basti, G.S. 21, New Marine Lines, Road, Guwahati- Mumbai-400020, 781005, Assam Maharashtra [PAN:AFUPD0282N] APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Shri Tazil R. Padvekar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri P.S. Thuingaleng, D.R. & ITA Nos. 514 & 515/GTY/2026 Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22

Takhellambam Joykumar Singh, Vs. Assistant Commissioner of C/o. Padvekar Law Income Tax, Chambers, Circle, Imphal, 408, Maker Bhavan No. 3, Aayakar Bhawan, Jail 21, New Marine Lines, Road, Old Lambulane, Mumbai-400020, Imphal-795001, Maharashtra Manipur [PAN:CIBPS3326J] APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Shri Tazil R. Padvekar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri P.S. Thuingaleng, D.R. 1

ITA No. 512-547/GTY/2026 & other appeals Asse

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 10(10B)

All 1,303 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(10B) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →