Chennai v. E.n.ravi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 25.07.2006 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice P.D.DINAKARANandThe Honourable Mr.Justice P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA Tax Case (Appeal) No.2129 of 2006 Commissioner of Income-Tax,Chennai. Chennai....Appellant Vs.E.N.Ravi...Respondent The above T.C.(Appeal) is preferred under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Madras ‘A’ (SMC) Bench, dated 6.1.2006 made in ITA No.1067/Mds/2004 forthe assessment year 2001-02 against the Appellate order dated 11.02.2004in I.T. Appeal No.285/03-04 on the file of The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) - IV, Chennai-34 against the Assessment order dated 15.9.2003 inPAN/GIR.No.AASPR 6866L/89-R on the file of Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Salary Circle-II, Chennai-34. For Appellant: Mrs.Pushya SitaramanJ U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was made by P.D.DINAKARAN, J.) The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of theIncome-tax Appellate Tribunal made in ITA.No.1067/Mds/2004, dated 6.1.2006. 2. The Revenue is the appellant. The assessment year involved is2001-2002. The case of the appellant is that the assessee/respondentherein, availed the benefit of the voluntary retirement scheme and claimedexemption of the amount of compensation received, both under Section 10(10C) and Section 89(1) of the Income Tax Act. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The Assessing Officer granted exemption as envisaged underSection 10(10C) of the Act, but denied the exemption under Section 89(1)of the Act, on the ground that once exemption under Section 10(10C) isallowed, Section 89(1) cannot be invoked. On appeal at the instance ofthe assessee, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), taking the viewthat it is possible to interpret the sections both ways, and where thereis an ambiguity, the benefit should be given to the tax payer, allowed theappeal, which was confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, onappeal by the Revenue. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue has preferred this appealraising the following substantial question of law : "Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in holding that theassessee is eligible to claim simultaneous benefitunder Section 10(10C) as well as Section 89(1) inrespect of the compensation received under thevoluntary retirement scheme?" 5. It is fairly conceded by the learned counsel appearing for theRevenue that the issue raised in the above question is squarely coveredagainst the Revenue by the decision of this Court in Commissioner ofIncome-tax Vs. G.V.Venugopal (273 ITR 307), wherein it is held as under:- "The second proviso to section 10(10C) only refers toexemption claimed in any other year. Every assessmentyear is a self-contained unit and the mere fact thatthe relief under section 89 had been spread overseveral years, did not mean that the relief was not inrespect of a particular assessment year. There was noprohibition to the twin benefits in respect of theamount received under the voluntary retirement scheme.The relief contemplated under section 89(1) is aimed tomitigate hardship that may be caused on account of thehigh incidence of tax due to progressive increase intax rates. Payment under the voluntary retirementscheme is covered by the word "salary" which has beengiven a very wide definition in section 17. Since theassessee was covered by section 89, he would get boththe benefits." 6. In view of the above settled proposition of law, we do not seeany merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs. sra Sd/Asst.RegistrarAsst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1.The Assistant Registrar,Income Tax Appellate TribunalSMC Bench "A", Chennai.Income Tax Appellate TribunalSMC Bench "A", Chennai. 6. In view of the above settled proposition of law, we do not seeany merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs. sra Sd/Asst.RegistrarAsst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1.The Assistant Registrar,Income Tax Appellate TribunalSMC Bench "A", Chennai.Income Tax Appellate TribunalSMC Bench "A", Chennai. 2. The Assistant Registrar, Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal,Rajaji Bhavan, III Floor,Besant Nagar, Chennai-90. Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal,Rajaji Bhavan, III Floor,Besant Nagar, Chennai-90. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) - IV, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,Chennai-34.(Appeals) - IV, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,Chennai-34. 4. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Salary Circle II, Chennai.Salary Circle II, Chennai. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai.Chennai. 1 cc To Mrs.Pushya Sitaraman, Advocate, SR.32794. GM(CO)RVL 18.08.2006RVL 18.08.2006 T.C.(A) No.2129 of 2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/