GOPALBHAI BABUBHAI PARIKH vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4

By  this   writ   application   under   Article   226  of the   Constitution   of   India,   the   writ   applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: “(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order  or   direction   for  quashing   and  setting aside   the   impugned   order   dated   07.12.2017 passed   by   the   respondent   at   Annexure­E   and order   dated   01.06.2018   passed   by   the respondent at Annexure­G. (B) The Hon'ble Court may issue directions to   respondents   to   direct   the   concerned assessing officer to allow the said exemption u/s. 10 (10 C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for   an   amount   of   Rs.5   lakh   along   with statutory interest. (C) Award the cost of this petition.”

The  writ   applicant   was   serving   with   the  ICICI Bank   Ltd.   The   writ   applicant   opted   for   the scheme   of  early  retirement   as  declared   by  the ICICI   Bank   Ltd.   He   received   a   sum   of Rs.15,69,701/­   in   accordance   with   the   Early Retirement Option (ERO), 2003 Scheme framed by the Bank. He filed his return of income for the year   under   consideration   without   claiming benefit of the exemption under Section 10 (10 C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act, 1961”).

It is his case that, at the relevant point of (Civil   Appeal   No.4411/2010,   decided   on 28.09.2015. The said order reads thus: “The   appellant   /assessee   was   an   employee   of ICICI   Bank   He   sought   voluntary   retirement under the Early Retirement Option (ERO), 2003 Scheme.   Accepting   his   request   his   employer viz. ICICI Bank retired him from service and paid   a   sum   of   Rs.9,37,490/­   as   compensation under the aforesaid scheme. From this amount, a sum of Rs.3,00,051/­ was deducted as income tax   from   salary   and   ERO   components   for   the Assessment   Year   2004­05. The   assessee   filed his income tax return for the said Assessment Year and claimed exemption to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs under Section 10 (10 C) of the Income Tax Act for terminal benefits alongwith relief under section 89 (1) of the Income Tax Act for the ERO components and gratuity. On that basis the   refund   amount   claimed   was   Rs.1,95,602/­. This was not granted by the Assessing Officer and the appellant also failed in his attempt up to the High Court as vide impugned judgment dated 27.04..2009 dismissed the appeal of the appellant   holding   that   since   the   Scheme   in question Reason : ERO was not statutory Scheme or in accordance with the requirement of Rule 2BA   of   the   Income   Tax   Rules,   provisions   of Section 10 (10 C) of the Act would not apply. Learned counsel for the appellant has produced copies of various orders passed by this Court in   certain   appeals   arising   in   identical circumstances and holding that in such cases deduction under Section 10 (10 C) of the Act would   be   available   to   the   assessee.   The learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   respondent could   not   dispute   the   aforesaid   position granting relief to similarly situated persons. We,   accordingly,   set   aside   the   order   of   the High   Court   and   allow   the   present   appeal holding that the appellant shall be entitled to exemption under Section 10 (10 C) of the Income Tax Act and as a result, he will also be   entitled   to   the   refund   of   the   aforesaid amount.”

Thus, a similarly situated employee of the ICICI Bank Ltd. succeeded before the Supreme Court in seeking  a  declaration   that   he  was  entitled   to the   exemption   under   Section   10   (10   C)   of   the Act,   1961. It   appears   that,   relying   on   the dictum as laid by the Supreme Court, the writ applicant   preferred   an   application   dated 02.12.2017

Being   dissatisfied   with   the   decision   of   the Principal Commissioner not to grant the benefit of exemption under Section 10 (10 C) of the Act, 1961,   the   writ   applicant   is   here   before   this Court with the present writ application.

We have heard Mr. Darshan R. Patel, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant and Mr. Varun K. Patel, the learned Sr. Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent ­ Revenue.

Prima facie, it appears that two things weighed with the Principal Commissioner while declining to the grant of exemption, as prayed for, by the writ   applicant.   First,   distinguishing   the feature in the case of the appellant before the Supreme   Court   and   the   writ   applicant (hereinafter   referred   to   as   "the   Act"   for short), the Principal Commissioner took the view that the appellant before the Supreme Court had, in fact, claimed the exemption in his return of income under Section 10 (10 C) of the Act, 1961, whereas, in the case of the writ applicant, he had not claimed such deduction and secondly, the writ applicant was expected to prefer a revision application under Section 264 of the Act and not file a representation in that regard. Thus, on these   two   grounds,   the   claim   came   to   be declined.

We   are   of   the   view   that,   even   if,   the   writ applicant had not claimed the exemption in his return   of   income   for   the   year   under consideration,   he   can   always   claim   later   in point of time. So far as the second ground on which the claim came to be rejected, Mr. Darshan Patel,   invited   the  attention   of  this   Court   to the certain averments made in the Affidavit­in­ Rejoinder, more particularly, the averments made in paras 4 and 5 thereof. The same reads thus:

Thus,   the   writ   applicant   has   tried   to explain   as   above   that   it   was   an   inadvertent mistake  in   labeling  the   application  as   a  writ petition   rather   than   a   revision   petition.   We need   not   go   into   any   further   debate   in   this regard as the law has now been well settled by the   Supreme   Court   in   the   order   referred   to above.

In such circumstances,