TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 83
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reasons in support of an affidavit. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, I find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee raised 10 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer being the ex-gratia received from assessee's employer. 4. Brief facts relating to the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed revised return of income on 01.09.2020 declaring total income of Rs.. 7,45,580/- and claimed Rs.. 35,47,920/- as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unal in the case of Ashok Raghunathrao Kulkarni v. ITO, wherein, by following various case law, the Tribunal has observed as under: 23. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed by both the sides. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case rejected the claim of relief u/s. 89 of the Act of Rs. 18,74,899/- on income of Rs. 57,12,674/- treating the same as income u/s. 17(3) of the Act. We find the CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer, reasons of which are already reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. The CIT(A) / NFAC also rejected the al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u/s. 89 from taxation in his ITR u/s. 139(1) of the Act. ........ 14. The submissions made by the assessee have been examined. As the assessee has submitted corroborative and binding judicial pronouncements in support of his claim that the amount of Rs. 30,49,176/- received by him from his employer at the time of cessation of his employment due to closure of the manufacturing unit was a capital receipt, not subject to tax. The assessee has also placed reliance on various case laws, in support of his above claim, and court has held as under "The amounts received were due to loss of employment & not recurring in nature & are not paid in lieu of any salary hence it does not come under the preview of sec. 17(3)(i) as amount of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bserved as under: "4. The amount in question was received by the assessee from his employer. It was received by him in connection with the termination of his service. But the question still remains whether it was compensation. Since it was received by the assessee in connection with the termination of his employment, the term "compensation" would be referable to that event. In other words, it is to be seen whether the amount was paid as compensation for the termination or in lieu of the termination of the employment. 5. The letter issued by the employer dated July 3, 1969, stated that the amount was being paid ex gratia. There is nothing to indicate that the assessee was entitled to continue in the employment of the compan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment." 27. We find the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Avirook Sen (supra) at para 12 of the order has observed as under: "12. As the payment of ex-gratia compensation was voluntary in nature without there being any obligation on the part of employer to pay further amount to assessee in terms of any service rule. it would not amount to compensation in terms of section 17(3)(i) of the Act. The impugned addition was rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). The aforesaid point is accordingly determined against the revenue department. The appeal is accordingly not sustainable as we don't find any error of law or fact in the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A). The department appeal is liable to be dismissed." ....