Sri Vissamsetty Ramakrishna vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 4

Heard Mr.M, Naga Deepak, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. Kamasani Sudhakar Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Ta:<. Department, for the respondents.

Vide the impugned order, the respondent No.1 rejected the application f,rled by the petitioner urider Section 119(2)(b) of the Act seeking condonation of delay to file revised ITRs for the Assessment Y ears 2O2O -2 I an<l 2O2 | -22. 4. It is the cas,3 of petitioner that ex gratia cornpensation received under the BSNl-\,'oluntary Retirement Scheme - 2Ol9 is one which is in the nature of retrenchment compensation which is fully exempt under second proviso to Section 1O(10)(b) of the Act; that various Coordinate Benches of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at Chandigarh, Ahmedabad, Pune, Mumbai, Indore and Bangalore, in identically placed BSNL retirees, gralted relief under second proviso to Section - 1O(10)(b) of the Act; that due to ignorance of law at the time of filing of the original income case returns, the petitioner-assessee requested for relief of condonation of delay to file revised ITRs for the Assessment Years 2020-27 and 2O2l-22, and to claim refund out of the tax deducted at source.

It is this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner which stood rejected vide the impugned order.

When we look into the averments made in respect of identical claims being allowed by the Benches of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at Chandigarh, Ahmedabad, Pune, Mumbai, Indore and Bangalore, in identically placed BSNL retirees, this Court is of the considered view that when similar fact was brought to the notice of the respondent- Department, the respondents ought to have appreciated the bona fides of the petitioner and the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act seeking condonation of delay to file revised ITRs for the Assessment Years 2O2O-21 and 2O2l-22, ought to have been considered by the respondent-Department with a more pragmatic and liberal approach, by appreciating the genuine hardship that the petitioner had been put to or would be put to, in case if the application seeking for condonation is not allowed.

To make things worse for the respondent-Department, learned counsel for the pelitioner has produced before the Court another order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad 'SMC'Bench, at Hyderabad, dated O3.O7.2026, wherein in a batch of appeals the lead matter being LT.A.Nos.9O3 and 904/HYDl2026, wherein similar view had been rr:iterated by the Bench. In the said judgment, it 1 LT.A. N os.1608& 16 Og/CHN ( 12026, dated 27.05.2026 '? LT.A.Nos.1342 and 7427lS\NGl2026, dated 29.05.2026

The petitioner herein is permitted to file / submit revised Income Tax returns. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 is directed to consider the case of petitioner on merits.

With these observations, the Writ Petition stands allowed' No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR NOTE: That the sentences read in para No'9."The ."tt"i J"a" remitted to respondent No'1". and."the ;;;;;iil io .espondent No'i" in the order dated ii.i-s.ldio, wi]'ro.rs+ga ot 2o26 are corrected and ".""a"a as 'The matter stands remitted to r"ip.iO""t-No'2' and 'the direction to respondent Hoi; respectively, as per the orders of the Hon'ble "ourt art"a 03.09:2026 in lA.No'2 0t 2026' ror 4e^$S-