KHUSHI RAM YADAV,HISAR vs. ACIT, HISAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1520/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 July 2016AY 2011-125 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, following its previous decisions, allowed exemption in respect of the arrears of gratuity. The assessee was extended the benefit of exemption under Section 10(10)(i).

What were the facts?

The assessee, an employee of a university, retired before May 24, 2010, and received arrears of gratuity. The AO denied exemption on this amount, arguing the limit was exhausted and the assessee was not a government employee eligible for higher exemption limits.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is eligible for exemption on arrears of gratuity, considering their retirement date and employment status with a university.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(10)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : SMC-I : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri V. Raja Kumar, Advocate
Hearing: 20.07.2016Pronounced: 20.07.2016

ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 23.12.2015 in relation to the assessment year 2011-12.

2.

The only issue pressed by the ld. AR in this appeal is against the denial of exemption in respect of the amount received by the assessee towards arrears of gratuity at Rs.3,00,000/-.

3.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee was an employee of Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar (hereinafter called CCSU) and retired from service before 24.05.2010. Return for the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration declaring total income of Rs.11,81,304/- was filed, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The AO initiated re- assessment proceedings on the premise that the assessee had wrongly claimed exemption u/s 10(10) in respect of the arrears of gratuity. He observed that gratuity was exempt up to the limit of Rs.3,00,000/-, which limit stood exhausted in the earlier year at the time of its original receipt. He further noticed that exemption limit was enhanced to Rs.10 lac for the persons retiring from service on or after 24.5.2010. Since the assessee retired before this cut-off date, the AO opined that the extended benefit of exemption was not available to the assessee. Since the assessee was an employee of CCSU, the AO held that such employees could not be termed as Government employees and, hence, the benefit u/s 10(10)(i) was not available to the assessee. Resultantly, he made addition towards the amount of arrears of gratuity received at Rs.3,00,000/-. The ld. CIT(A) echoed the view taken by the AO that the assessee was not a `holder of civil post under the State Government’ and hence not eligible for exemption u/s 10(10)(i). Further, the assessee was held to be not covered u/s 10(10)(ii) as he did not receive any gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. That is how, he held that the employees of the CCSU were covered u/s 10(10)(iii) of the Act, for which there is a limit on the exempt gratuity amount, which stood exhausted by the assessee in earlier year. Since the assessee was employed before 24.5.2010, the Notification issued by the CBDT enhancing the limit of Rs.10 lac on gratuity u/s 10(10)(iii) was held to be not applicable. The assessee is aggrieved against the confirmation of denial of exemption made by the ld. CIT(A).

4.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that the Delhi bench of the tribunal in Shri Ram Kanwar Rana vs. ITO, Ward-3, Hisar in has allowed exemption, inter alia, in respect of the arrears of gratuity and dismissed the grounds about the initiation of re- assessment. Similar view has been taken in the case of Raghubir Singh Panghal vs. ITO in ITA No.1308/Del/2016. Following the same, I extend the benefit of exemption to the instant assessee also in respect of arrears of gratuity u/s 10(10)(i). Other grounds including the initiation of reassessment proceedings were not pressed by the ld. AR. The same, therefore, stand dismissed as not pressed.

5.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.

The order pronounced in the open court on 20.07.2016.

More judgments on Section 10(10)

All 48 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(10) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →