Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Smt Pushpa Wason

PDF · subscribers
ITA/168/2016HC Madhya Pradesh22 January 2018Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE P.K. JAISWAL2 pages
For Petitioner: Veena Mandlik
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises in this case. The Court relied on the settled law as laid down by the Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Appasaheb Baburao Kamble and the Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Vijay G. Patil. These judgments established that an assessee in service for more than ten years who exercises the option of voluntary retirement under an 'exit option scheme' and claims an ex-gratia/compensation amount is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10-C) of the Income Tax Act. Since the issue was similar and the law on the subject was well-settled, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the ITAT's order. The appeal filed by the department was accordingly dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated May 24, 2016, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Indore Bench. The ITAT had affirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), dated December 31, 2015. The appellate authority had granted exemption to the respondent assessee, Smt. Pushpa Wason, under Section 10(10-C) of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2007-08. The assessee had claimed an ex-gratia/compensation amount received under an 'exit option scheme' after being in service for over ten years.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a substantial question of law arises for consideration regarding the grant of exemption under Section 10(10-C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the assessee who opted for voluntary retirement under an 'exit option scheme' after more than ten years of service. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the ITAT's affirmation of the CIT(A)'s order implies the assessee's position was that the exemption under Section 10(10-C) was correctly granted. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, appealed the ITAT's order, implicitly arguing that the exemption granted under Section 10(10-C) was erroneous and that a substantial question of law arises from the ITAT's decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 10(10-C)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

I.T.A. No.168/2016 1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE I.T.A. No.168/2016 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Pushpa Wason Indore, dated 22.01.2018 Ms. Veena Mandlik, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ashish Goyal, Advocate for the respondent. Heard on the question of admission. This appeal has been filed by the department under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 24.05.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore in I.T.A No.207/Ind/2016 for the Assessment year 2007-08, whereby the learned Tribunal affirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 31.12.2015, by which, the learned appellate authority granted exemption to the respondent under Section 10(10-C) of the Income Tax Act. The learned Tribunal after considering the law laid down by the judgment of Karnataka High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Appasaheb Baburao Kamble, [2015] 58 Taxmann.com 183 and Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vijay G. Patil, [2015] 235 Taxmann 36, has affirmed the order and held that law in question is well settled by holding that the respondent/assessee was in service for a period of more than ten years, and thereafter, he had exercised the option of voluntary retirement under the ‘exit option scheme’ and claimed ex-gratia/compensation amount, as determined under Section 10(10-C) of the Income Tax Act. On due consideration of law laid down in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Appasaheb Baburao I.T.A. No.168/2016 2 Kamble (supra) as well as CIT Vs. Vijay G. Patil (supra), we are of the view that as the similar issue has been decided and the law on the subject is well settled, no substantial question of law is arising in this case. The appeal filed by the department is accordingly dismissed. Certified copy as per rules. (P.K. Jaiswal)

(Virender Singh) Judge

Judge Ravi Ravi Prakash Digitally signed by Ravi Prakash DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh, ou=Administration, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=8c41d94e3639781a0083754cf33213a20de4d0ca6c70fb2 b3437951134024cc4, cn=Ravi Prakash Date: 2018.01.27 13:11:08 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →