NARAYANA SWAMY RAJESH,PALAKKAD vs. CENTRALISED PROCESSING CENTRE,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that relief under Section 89 cannot be granted for amounts received on termination of service, as per the proviso to Section 89. Therefore, the assessee's appeal was without merit.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed relief under Section 89 for compensation received on termination of service. The return was processed denying this relief, and a subsequent petition under Section 154 did not resolve the issue. The CIT(A) confirmed the denial, citing reconciliation issues.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee is eligible for relief under Section 89 for compensation received on termination of service, considering the proviso to the section.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao
O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 10.11.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21.
The assessee is an individual deriving income under the head ‘Salary’. The return of income for AY 2020-21 was filed on 01.10.2020 declaring income of Rs. 7,74,070/-. The assessee also claimed relief us 89 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) of Rs. 45,937/- in respect of compensation received towards termination of services from the employer by filing Form 10E on 30.09.2020. The return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act vide intimation dated 01.02.2021 denying relief us 89 of the Act. After receipt of the intimation, a petition u/s. 154 was filed on Narayana Swamy Rajesh 31.03.2022 with a revised Form 10E by correcting the arithmetical errors. Against the said petition, an order u/s. 154 was issued without amending the intimation.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer (AO) by holding that the amount of gross salary mentioned in the Form was not reconciled with the amount mentioned in the return of income.
Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. When the appeal was called on, nobody attended despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, after hearing the learned Sr. DR I proceeded to dispose of the appeal as under.
The solitary issue that arises is whether the CPC was justified in rejecting the relief u/s. 89 of the Act. Undisputedly the relief u/s. 89 was claimed on the compensation received towards termination of services from the employer. Without delving into the reasoning adopted by the AO as well as the CIT(A), while denying the relief u/s. 89, from the facts f the case it is clear that the relief u/s. 89 was claimed in respect of the compensation received on termination of service from the employer. The proviso to section 89 provides that no relief u/s. 89 shall be granted in respect of any amount received on termination of service, which reads as under: - “Provided that no such relief shall be granted in respect of any amount received or receivable by an assessee on his voluntary retirement or termination of his service, in accordance with any scheme or schemes of voluntary retirement or in the case of a public sector company referred to in sub-clause (i) of clause (10C) of section 10, a scheme of voluntary separation, if an exemption in respect of any amount received or receivable on such voluntary retirement or termination of his service or voluntary separation has been claimed by the assessee under clause (10C) of section 10 in respect of such, or any other, assessment year.” Therefore I do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the assessee.
More judgments on Section 89
- Nirmala Kaushik, Delhi vs Income Tax Assessment Unit, DelhiITA 5301/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed5 Aug 2026AY 2019-20
- Suresh Yashwant Awar, Igatpuri vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 2660/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed12 Jun 2026AY 2016-17
- Ram Dattatray Kaldate, Aurangabad vs Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), AurangabadITA 2177/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Jun 2026AY 2019-20
- Prakash Sukhdeo Sonawane, Aurangabad vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), AurangabadITA 2180/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed8 Jun 2026AY 2019-20
- Sunil Kumar Srivastava, Auraiya vs ACIT Circle-1, AgraITA 162/AGR/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed5 Jun 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Permender Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Swarnapai Chemicals (Opc) Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026