ARIJIT ROY PRODHANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

ITA 528/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 exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the compensation was offered 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. The assessee later became aware of the exemption eligibility through a judgment of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in a similar case. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal, stating that the grievance did not emanate from the order appealed against and that the assessee should have claimed relief in a revised return or sought condonation of delay. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeals 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, on the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the claim before the CIT(A) and, since the income was not taxable, the assessee was eligible for a refund of the TDS. The Tribunal found that the assessee's case had similar facts to the judgment relied upon by the assessee (Harish Kumar vs. ITO, ITA No. 42/CHD/2025, dated 30.05.2025) and respectfully followed that decision. Therefore, the appeals of the assessee were allowed. The Tribunal directed that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is exempt under Section 10(10B), subject to compliance with Rule 2BA, and the assessee is entitled to a refund of the TDS paid on this amount.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on 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 argued that due to a lack of awareness of 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, the assessee sought exemption under Section 10(10B). The assessee also relied 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 any specific contentions from the Revenue. However, the CIT(A)'s order implies that the Revenue's position was that the exemption could not be granted as it was not claimed in the return and the time 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 →