SRI SUBHASISH BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 52(1), KOLKATA

ITA 2848/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 October 2026AY 2020-202112 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal solely on the grounds of delay and lack of sufficient cause for condonation, without examining the merits of the exemption claim. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's case was similar to that decided by a Coordinate Bench of the ITAT Chandigarh in the case of Harish Kumar vs. ITO, where compensation under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme was held to be exempt under Section 10(10B). The Tribunal also referred to a series of other judgments from various coordinate benches that supported the assessee's claim for exemption on similar facts. Therefore, respectfully following these judgments, the Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for the exemption under Section 10(10B) and consequently entitled to a refund of the TDS deducted. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and allowed the appeals.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an employee of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), opted for the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) in 2019. The compensation received under this scheme, amounting to Rs. 14,38,422/- for AY 2020-21 and Rs. 131,57,176/- for AY 2021-22, was offered to tax in the return of income due to a lack of awareness regarding exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The employer had also deducted TDS on this amount. The Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) processed the return under Section 143(1) without granting any exemption. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) after a significant delay of 1648 days, citing a recent ITAT Chandigarh judgment that clarified the exemption eligibility for the BSNL VRS-2019 compensation. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay, stating that the grounds of appeal did not emanate from the order appealed against and that the assessee should have filed a revised return or sought condonation from the PCIT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal on the grounds of delay and lack of sufficient cause for condonation, without adjudicating on the merits of the claim for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 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 received under the BSNL VRS-2019 was inadvertently offered to tax. Upon learning about the eligibility for exemption under Section 10(10B) through a recent ITAT Chandigarh judgment (Harish Kumar vs. ITO), the assessee sought this exemption. The assessee contended that since the income is not taxable, they are eligible for a refund of TDS and pleaded for the order of the Ld. CIT(A) to be set aside. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the assessee failed to offer any explanation or supporting documents to the Assessing Officer or the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the grounds of appeal. The assessee also did not file any documentary evidence to support the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for not furnishing a satisfactory explanation within the stipulated period and for not showing any 'sufficient cause' for the delay as per Section 249(3) of the Act read with Section 5 of The Limitation Act. The revenue pleaded to uphold the orders of the revenue authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(10B),Section 249(2),Section 249(3),Section 5,Section 143(1),Section 154,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA

SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Years : 2020-2021 Ward – 52(1), Uttarpara Krishna Apartment, Bamboo Villa, Ward Uttarpara, Hooghly - 712258 52(1), Kolkata, - 700014 [PAN: AEQPM0832C] APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Shri Ajay Jain, CA Revenue by : Shri Sandip Mandal Jr., Sr. DR Assessment Year : 2020-2021 Parganas, South 24 Parganas - Kolkata - 700023 700152 [PAN: AAYPN3083G] APPELLANT RESPONDENT

ITA No. 2848 & 2849 /KOL/2026 Assessment Year : 2020-2021 & 2021-22 Vs. Income Tax Officer, 106A, Acharya Prafulla Ward No. 52(1), Chandra Road, First Floor, Income Tax Office, Kolkata, Ram Mohan, S.O. Bamboo Villa, 169 AJC Bose Road, Entally, [PAN: ADMPB4130D] Kolkata - 700014 APPELLANT RESPONDENT

ITA No. 2850 & 2851 /KOL/2026 Assessment Year : 2020-2021 & 2021-22 D9, Lake View Park, Flat No. D- Ward No. 52(1), 1 (1st Floor), Bonhooghly, Income Tax Office, Kolkata - 7001

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 1,316 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(10B) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →