Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Chennai v. J.ramamani

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 03.03.2006 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice P.D.DINAKARANandThe Honourable Mr.Justice P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA Tax Case (Appeal) No.295 of 2006 Commissioner of Income-Tax,Chennai....AppellantVs.J.Ramamani...Respondent The above T.C.(Appeal) is preferred under Section 260A of theIncome-Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras ‘A’ Bench, dated 11.11.2005 made in ITANos.1814/Mds/2005 for the assessment year 2001-02 against ITAppeal.No.70/05-06 order dt:26.5.2005 for the assessment year 2001-2002 on the file of the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) IV Chennai-34 and PAN/GIR No.AACPR 5369M order dt:31.3.2005on the file of the Income Tax Officer, Salary Ward II (2), chennai-34. For Appellant: Mr.J.NarayanaswamyJ 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 in ITA.No. 1814/Mds/2004, dated11.11.2005. 2. The Revenue is the appellant. The assessment year involvedis 2001-2002. The case of the appellant is that theassessee/respondent herein, availed the benefit of the voluntaryretirement scheme and claimed exemption of the amount of compensationreceived, both under Section 10(10C) and Section 89(1) of the IncomeTax Act. 3.The Assessing Officer granted exemption as envisaged underSection 10(10C) of the Act, but denied the exemption under Section 89 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (1) of the Act, on the ground that once exemption under Section 10(10C) is allowed, Section 89(1) cannot be invoked. On appeal at theinstance of the assessee, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals),taking the view that it is possible to interpret the sections bothways, and where there is an ambiguity, the benefit should be given tothe tax payer, allowed the appeal, which was confirmed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, on appeal 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 ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in holding thatthe assessee is eligible to claim simultaneousbenefit under Section 10(10C) as well as Section89(1) in respect of the compensation receivedunder the voluntary retirement scheme ?" 5. It is fairly conceded by the learned counsel appearing forthe Revenue that the issue raised in the above question is squarelycovered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court inCommissioner of Income-tax Vs. G.V.Venugopal (273 ITR 307), whereinit is held as under:-"The second proviso to section 10(10C) onlyrefers to exemption claimed in any other year.Every assessment year is a self-contained unitand the mere fact that the relief under section89 had been spread over several years, did notmean that the relief was not in respect of aparticular assessment year. There was noprohibition to the twin benefits in respect ofthe amount received under the voluntaryretirement scheme. The relief contemplated undersection 89(1) is aimed to mitigate hardship thatmay be caused on account of the high incidence oftax due to progressive increase in tax rates.Payment under the voluntary retirement scheme iscovered by the word "salary" which has been givena very wide definition in section 17. Since theassessee was covered by section 89, he would getboth the benefits." 6. In view of the above settled proposition of law, we do notsee any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. Nocosts. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarmskTo1.The Assistant Registrar,Income Tax Appellate TribunalIII Floor, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai.90.2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -IV, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-600 034.3.The Income-tax Officer, Salary Ward II(2), Chennai-34.one cc to M/s. Pushya Sitaraman, Sr.SC.SR.No.10971T.C.(A) No.295 of 2006sky/2/5