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

ITA 529/GTY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 October 2026AY 2021-202226 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. The assessee offered this compensation to tax in their return of income for Assessment Years 2020-21 and 2021-22 due to a lack of awareness regarding the exemption available under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 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 learned about the eligibility for exemption under Section 10(10B) based on a previous ITAT Chandigarh Bench decision in *Harish Kumar vs. ITO*. 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 the 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 found that the assessee filed the claim before the Ld. CIT(A) and that since the income is not taxable, the assessee is eligible for a refund of the TDS. The Tribunal respectfully followed the judgment cited in *Harish Kumar vs. ITO* (supra) and allowed the appeals of the assessee. The reasoning was based on the principle that tax authorities are obligated to grant all lawful reliefs, even if not claimed by the assessee, as supported by CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955, and that the compensation received under the specific VRS scheme was indeed eligible for exemption. The Tribunal allowed the appeals of all 41 assessees in the batch.

What were the issues?

1. Whether 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, even though it was not claimed in the original return of income, in light of CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955 and the decision in *Harish Kumar vs. ITO*. 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. Relying on the ITAT Chandigarh Bench decision in *Harish Kumar vs. ITO* (ITA No. 42/CHD/2025, dated 30.05.2025), which held compensation under the same BSNL VRS-2019 scheme as exempt under Section 10(10B), the assessee sought the exemption. 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 arguments made by the Revenue before the Tribunal.

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 →