University Employee to be treated as Govt Employee for Tax Benefits

By Editor4 Income Tax Judiciary June 9, 2017 1 comment

TaxGuru Citation: 2017 taxguru.in 643
Case Name: Sh. Dev Raj Sood Vs Income Tax Officer (ITAT Delhi)
Appeal Number: Only available for paid members
Date of Judgement/Order: Only available for paid members
Related Assessment Year: 2010- 11
Courts: All ITAT, ITAT Delhi

Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.

Already Upgraded? Log in.

These two appeals by the assessees are directed against the separate orders each dated 23.12.2015 of ld. CIT(A), Hisar.

2. Common issues are involved in these appeals which were heard together so these are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

3. In ITA No. 905/Del/2017 for the assessment year 2010- 11, following grounds have been raised by the assessee:

“1. That the notice issued U/s 148 and assessment order passed U/s 147/143(3) and the additions/ dis allowances made are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction.

2. That the reason to believe was never framed by the AO and notice issued is without any tangible material, which is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction and without application of mind by the assessing officer.

3. That no proper statutory approval has been taken by the Assessing officer U/s 151 of the I.T. Act, 1961, as required. If any approval is taken then the approval is in very mechanical manner without application of mind by the statutory authority hence the proceedings initiated U/s 147/148 is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction.

4. That, the assessing officer/CIT(A) erred in completing the assessment proceedings U/s 147 r.w.s. 148, without supplying the reasons recorded to the assessee appellant, which is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction.

5. That the additions/ dis allowances made are illegal, unjust, highly excessive and are not based on any material on record by the Assessing Officer. The total income of the Appellant has been wrongly and illegally computed by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 16,08,211/- as against income declared at Rs. 2,24,500/-.

6. The assessing officer erred in making the addition of Rs. 6,50,000.00 on account of the arrear of Gratuity received during the year on the retirement of the assessee appellant U/s 10(10)(iii) of the Act due to the revision in Civil Service Rules of State of Haryana. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the AO.