TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 234
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee is an employee of State Bank of India. He filed his return of Income on 7-5-2005 declaring total income of Rs. 2,19,736/- after claiming deduction u/s. 10(10C) of Rs.5 lakhs. Return of income was processed on 29-2-2008 and refund of Rs.1,74,050/- was granted to the assessee. Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) and the income was determined at Rs.7,19,740/- by disallowing the claim of deduction u/s.10(10C). Aggrieved by the action of the A.O. the assessee carried the matter before the CIT (A). 4. CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. It is against the aforesaid order of CIT (A), Revenue is now in appeal before us. 5. In the appeal before us the grounds of appeal reads as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f exemption u/s. 10(10C) and added the same to the income. Aggrieved by the action of the A.O., assessee carried the matter before the CIT (A). 8. CIT (A) after considering the submissions made by the assessee and after relying on the various judgments including the decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Smt. Jayanarayanan & Others vs. ACIT allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding as under:- " I have considered the facts of the case, A.O's findings and observation in the assessment order and detailed submission made by the appellant along with various decisions of ITATs, High Courts and Apex Court. The ITAT Ahmedabad Bench I the case of Smt. Jaya Narayanan & Others vs. ACIT Circle-15, Ahmedabad in ITA N0.1209/Ahd/2007 and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1209/Ahd/2007 in the case of Smt. Jaya Narayanan & Others. He also relied on certain other decisions. The Ld. D. R. on the other hand relied on the order of A.O. 11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The factual matrix of the case is that assessee was an employee of State Bank of India and had opted for voluntary retirement under Exist Option Scheme on 31-1-2007 and claimed the ex-gratia as exempt u/s. 10(10C) and claimed deduction of Rs.5 lakhs. 12. Before us the assessee in its written submissions has also placed on record the copy of the decision in the case of ITO vs. Shri Kanaiyalal Vadilal Bhavsar, ITA No.3276/Ahd/2009 wherein on identical facts coordinate Bench allowed the appeal of the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....axing statutes. Hence, if the assessee is entitled to two benefits o the plain language of statute, he has to be granted both those benefits. The second proviso to S. 10(10C) only refers to exemption claimed in any other assessment year. It is well settled that every assessment year is a self-contained unit. The assessment year in question in the present case is 2001-02 and the exemption claimed is in respect of this assessment year, although the exemption granted under Sec. 89(1) has been spread over several assessment years. The mere fact that the relief has been spread over several years does not mean that the relief is not in respect of a particular assessment year. The Tribunal has rightly pointed out that in the I.T. Act, there are se....