Rameshbhai Chhotabhai Vankar Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
BSNL VRS Compensation Fully Exempt Under Section 10(10B) Despite No Claim in Original Return: Ahmedabad ITAT
Summary: The appeal was filed by Rameshbhai Chhotabhai Vankar against the order dated 17.04.2026 passed by the Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jodhpur under section 250 for AY 2021-22. The assessee, a salaried employee of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), had opted for BSNL’s Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019 and received ₹21,90,631 as compensation. The amount was disclosed in the return and tax was paid; no exemption was claimed in the original or revised return, and tax was also deducted at source. The CPC, Bengaluru processed the return under section 143(1) without granting exemption. The assessee later became aware of the ITAT Chandigarh decision in Harish Kumar v. ITO and then appealed before the CIT(A), seeking exemption under section 10(10B). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as time-barred and also declined to entertain the new exemption claim.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee challenged the refusal to condone a delay stated in the grounds to be approximately 1,580 days. It contended that the delay was bona fide, arising from lack of awareness of the correct legal position and absence of proper professional guidance, and that subsequent judicial pronouncements concerning BSNL VRS-2019 had clarified the position and prompted the assessee to pursue the remedy. The assessee relied on authorities concerning liberal construction of “sufficient cause”, including Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy. It also submitted that appellate authorities possess power to entertain lawful claims arising from facts already on record, relying on Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT, NTPC Ltd. v. CIT and CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd., and argued that Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT only restricted the Assessing Officer.
