Sivakami Narayanan v. The Income Tax Officer,Salary Ward-I(2),Coimbatore

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 17.10.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH W.P.Nos.15239, 15240 & 15241 of 2011MP.Nos.1, 1 & 1 of 2011 S.Balakrishnan ...Petitioner in W.P.No.15239 of 2011 *Sivakami Narayanan ...Petitioner in W.P.No.15240 & 15241 of 2011 --Vs-- The Income Tax Officer,Salary Ward-I(2),Coimbatore ... Respondent in W.P.No.15239 of 2011 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax 63, Race Course Road Coimbatore-18 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-II Coimbatore .... Respondents in W.P.No.15240 & 15241 of 2011 **** Prayer in W.P.No.15239 of 2011: Writ Petition filed underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writor order of direction or any other Writ in the nature Writof Certiorari, calling for the records of the respondent inP.A.No:AEKPB 2584 G dated 30.11.2006 and quash the same.Prayer in W.P.No.15240 of 2011: Writ Petition filed underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writor order of direction or any other Writ in the nature Writof Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the2[nd] respondent in P.A.No:ASAPS 8633 H dated 17.01.2008 quashthe same and further direct the 2[nd] respondent to grant theexemptions contemplated under Section 10(10C) of the IncomeTax Act for the income received under the ICICI Bank EarlyRetirement Option (ERO) scheme. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Prayer in W.P.No.15241 of 2011: Writ Petition filed underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writor order of direction or any other Writ in the nature Writof Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1[st] respondentin ASAPS 8633 H dated 12.12.2008 quash the same and furtherdirect the respondents to grant the exemption contemplatedunder Section 10 (10C) of the Income Tax Act for the incomereceived under the ICICI Bank Early Retirement Scheme. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Soundararajan For Respondents : Mr.A.P.Srinivas Senior Standing Counsel O R D E R The order of assessment impugned in W.P.No.15240 of2011 has been challenged by way of a revision under Section264 of the Income Tax Act, 1964 (in short 'Act'), which hasbeen dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax on12.12.2008. Since the order of the Commissioner has beenimpugned in WP.No.15241 of 2011, nothing survives inWP.No.15240 of 2011 and the same is dismissed asinfructuous. 2. W.P.Nos.15239 and 15241 of 2011 have been filed byemployees of ICICI Bank Ltd. (Bank). During the financialyear 2004-05, the petitioners have retired availing aVoluntary Retirement Scheme floated by the Bank. Thesubject matter of the assessments related to an exemptionin terms of Section 10(10-C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961( in short 'Act'), sought by the petitioners and denied bythe Assessing Officers vide the impugned order. 3. This issue has been settled by a Division Bench ofthe Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Ranganathan andOthers Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [(2010) 326 ITR 49],in the context of an identical retirement scheme floated bythe Reserve Bank of India. 4. Learned Revenue Counsel points out that the returnsof income filed by the petitioners did not contain a claimin terms of Section 10 (10C) of the Act. However, the veryfact that the order of assessment was challenged, eitherby way of writ petition or before the Commissioner ofIncome Tax in revision indicates that the petitioners didconsider themselves entitled to such claim. This argumentis thus rejected. 5. Thus and in the light of the judgment of theSupreme Court in Chandra Ranganathan (supra), these writpetitions are liable to be allowed and I do so.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(insp cell) *corrected as per order ofthis Court dated 23.01.2020and made in WMP.NO.670/2020in WP.NO.15241/2011 4. Learned Revenue Counsel points out that the returnsof income filed by the petitioners did not contain a claimin terms of Section 10 (10C) of the Act. However, the veryfact that the order of assessment was challenged, eitherby way of writ petition or before the Commissioner ofIncome Tax in revision indicates that the petitioners didconsider themselves entitled to such claim. This argumentis thus rejected. 5. Thus and in the light of the judgment of theSupreme Court in Chandra Ranganathan (supra), these writpetitions are liable to be allowed and I do so.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(insp cell) *corrected as per order ofthis Court dated 23.01.2020and made in WMP.NO.670/2020in WP.NO.15241/2011 -s/d-Assistant Registrar(insp cell)dt 22/11/2020 //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarskaTo1.The Income Tax Officer, Salary Ward-I(2),to be substituted Coimbatore2.The Commissioner of Income Tax For the order already 63, Race Course Road despatched on 02.01.20 Coimbatore-183.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-II, Coimbatore+2ccs to Mr.K.Soundararajan , Advocate SR.No. 56993+3ccs to Mr.A.P.Srinivas , Advocate SR.No. 87151 to 87153+1cc to Mr.K.Krishnamoorthy, Advocate SR.No. 4897W.P.Nos.15239, 15240 & 15241 of 2011MP.Nos.1, 1 & 1 of 2011 spd (CO)A.SK(25/11/2019)A.SK(12/12/2019)A.SK(27/01/2020)