Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC “B” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV
O R D E R This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of the CIT(Appeals) dated 05.12.105 for the assessment year 2004-05 inter alia on the following grounds:- “
1. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing the order in the manner which he did.
2. The Id CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as reliance placed by Appellant in the case of Devdas Rama V CIT reported in 88 CCH 019 Mumbai High Court which was squarely applicable to facts of the Appellant case.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) ought to have accepted the explanation of the Appellant and allowed exemption under Section 10(10C) and deduction under Section 80C of the Act as claimed by the Appellant in full.
4. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that there was a scheme for voluntary retirement by the Company which satisfied the conditions under Section 10(10C) of the Act read with Rule 2(BA) and thus the Appellant was entitled to exemption under Section 10(10C) as claimed.
5. On the facts, the learned assessing officer ought to have appreciated that under similar circumstances, the exemption was allowed in the case of voluntary retirement given to the employees of RBI by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Koodathil Kallyatan Ambujakshan reported in 219 CTR (Born) 80, which judgment had been accepted by the Board and thus binding and consequently the learned assessing officer ought to have allowed the exemption under Section 10(10C) of the Act.
6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned assessing officer ought to have allowed the relief under Section 10(10C) and deduction under Section 80C of the Act as claimed in full and ought to have allowed the refund as prayed for by the Appellant.
For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed.”
In the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that the CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal having not admitted the appeal on account of delay in filing of the appeal. It was further contended that the CIT(Appeals) has not adjudicated the issue on merits and dismissed the appeal being barred by limitation.
Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee has furnished the evidence explaining the reasons for delay in filing of the appeal. The reasons stated for the delay was on account of heart attack suffered by the assessee. The ld. counsel for the assessee before me contended that the CIT(Appeals) ought to have condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for hearing.
The ld. DR placed reliance upon the order of the CIT(Appeals).
Having carefully examined the order of the CIT(Appeals), I find that the assessee has explained the reasons for the delay in filing of the appeal. Evidence in support thereof was also filed, but the CIT(Appeals) did not adjudicate the appeal and dismissed the appeal being barred by limitation. Having carefully examined the facts of the case, I am of the view that the delay in filing the appeal was properly explained and the CIT(Appeals) ought to have condoned the delay. I therefore condone the delay and direct the CIT(Appeals) to adjudicate the appeal on merits, by passing a speaking order.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open court on this 4th day of July, 2016.