Vinod Kumar Madan Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
The ITAT Delhi disposed of the assessee’s twin appeals for AYs 2020-21 and 2021-22 against proceedings under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a retired BSNL employee, had received compensation under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019 and claimed exemption under Section 10(10B). The CIT(A)/NFAC had refused to condone the delay in filing the appeals against the CPC’s Section 143(1) proceedings. The Tribunal, noting that the proceedings were processed online and communication gaps could not be ruled out, relied on Collector, Land & Acquisition v. MST Katiji & Others and condoned the delay.
On merits, the Tribunal considered the issue of whether compensation received under BSNL VRS 2019 qualifies for exemption under Section 10(10B), rather than the Rs.5 lakh exemption under Section 10(10C). It reproduced the reasoning of ITAT Pune in Prathibha Jagadish v. ITO, which treated BSNL VRS 2019 compensation as retrenchment compensation and a capital receipt exempt under Section 10(10B). The Tribunal also noted decisions of ITAT Ahmedabad, Chandigarh and Pune and the Madras High Court concerning Section 10(10B).
The Revenue contended that BSNL VRS was voluntary retirement and that Section 10(10B) concerns retrenchment, while the cited provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act distinguish voluntary retirement from retrenchment. The Tribunal, however, stated that it was bound by the decisions of ITAT Pune on identical facts and respectfully followed the Pune, Ahmedabad and Chandigarh Tribunal decisions. It held the assessee eligible for Section 10(10B) exemption. The twin appeals were accordingly allowed.
