RUMA BOSE,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 52(1), KOLKATA

ITA 2715/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 October 2026AY 2020-2111 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), noting that the assessee's case involved similar facts to those decided by co-ordinate benches of the ITAT, which had allowed the appeals. The Tribunal observed that the assessee, an employee of BSNL, availed VRS and received compensation, and the issue concerned the benefit under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The Tribunal found that the revenue could not provide any material to counter the judgments relied upon by the assessee. The Tribunal distinguished the revenue's relied-upon judgment (Delhi Development Authority vs. and others) as not applicable on the principle of parity of the same organization. The Tribunal emphasized that the Income Tax Act itself does not grant the right to collect tax on such compensation, and therefore, tax should not be collected on exempt income as per Section 10(10B). The Tribunal respectfully followed the judgments cited, including those from co-ordinate benches of the ITAT in cases like Harish Kumar vs. ITO and Jayeshkumr Tulsidas Sutaria Vs. ITO, which dealt with similar issues of condoning delay and accepting appeals for exemption under Section 10(10B) for BSNL VRS compensation. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, an employee of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), availed the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) in 2019 and received compensation, including Ex Gratia of Rs. 6,48,100/- in Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21. The assessee filed his return of income for AY 2020-21 declaring Rs. 13,29,600/-. The Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru processed the return under Section 143(1) and issued an intimation on 28.08.2021, assessing total income at Rs. 14,89,599/-. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 31.03.2026, with a delay of 1650 days. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay, citing insufficient cause and the assessee's negligent attitude, and did not decide on the merits of the case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal without condoning the significant delay in filing, thereby not adjudicating the merits of the claim for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the Ld. CIT(A) wrongly dismissed the appeal solely on the grounds of delay without considering sufficient cause. The assessee sought to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and allow the appeal on merits, relying on co-ordinate bench judgments that allowed similar claims. The assessee also contended that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is exempt under Section 10(10B). Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the assessee failed to provide any sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and did not furnish documentary evidence to support the delay. The revenue relied on the orders of the lower authorities and the Law of Limitation, pleading to uphold the CIT(A)'s order. The revenue also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority vs. and others 2024 INSC 456.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri Ravjit Kaur, AR
For Respondent: Shri Dipu Koley, Sr. DR
Hearing: 01.10.2026Pronounced: 08.10.2026

PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

These two appeals filed by the assessee against the orders passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] by the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] arising out of the assessment orders u/s 143(1) and 154 of the Act. On going through the grounds, I noticed that the issues raised by the assessee are common in nature except the quantum involved in the appeals and heard together. Therefore, I am passing a common order for these appeals. For the sake of convenience, I am first taking up appeal bearing ITA No. 2715/KOL/2026 for AY 2020-21 against the order p

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 →