TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1179
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Ward 1, Malegaon And Rohini Sanjay Naik Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Aurangabad And Rajendra Pandit Thakuar, Pitambar Laxman Shimpi Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Jalgaon And Ramchandra Trimbakrao Kale Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Aurangabad DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Assessee : Shri Tanzil Padvekar (Virtual) For the Revenue : Sailee Dhole - JCIT (Virtual) ORDER PER BENCH : The captioned appeals at the instance of respective assessee(s) pertaining to A. Yrs. 2020-21 and 2021-22 are directed against the separate orders framed by Addl/JCIT(A)-, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 arising out of respective Intimation orders passed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Since common issues have been raised in the above appeals we proceed to adjudicate these appeals by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The common issue raised in these bunch of appeals is that whether the amount received from Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) on account of the forced retirement through the BNSL Voluntary Retirement ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....admitted by the Tribunal and relief has been granted. Reliance placed on the decision of Coordinate Bench, Ahmedabad in the case of Jayesh Kumar Tulsidas Sutaria Vs. ITO (2026) 183 taxmann.com 587 (Ahmedabad-Trib.) 6. So far as the claim that the alleged sum received in the form of Retrenchment Compensation from BSNL under the forced retirement is a Capital receipt not chargeable to tax and exemption available u/s. 10(10B) of the Act has been decided in favour of the assessee(s), ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance in the following decisions : 1. Harish Kumar Vs. ITO (2025) 175 taxmann.com 379 (Chandigarh-Trib.) 2. Dayal Singh Vs. ITO - ITA 519/ CHD/2024 3. Suresh Pal Chauhan vs. ITO (2023) 154 taxmann.com 529 (Chandigarh-Trib.) 4. Hindustan Photo Film Workers Welfare Centre Vs. Govt. of India (2017) 79 taxmann.com 298 (Madras) 5. CIT (TDS) Vs. Hindustan Photo Film Workers Welfare Centre (2021 129 taxmann.com 356 (Madras) 6. Union of India Vs. M/s. Hindustan Photo Film Workers Welfare Centre and others _ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.37247/2017 7. Shree Rajeshwar Sharma Vs. ITO - ITA No.870/CHD/201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted by the employer. The assessee opted for the scheme and accordingly received compensation under the VRS, as per the terms laid down by BSNL. It is submitted that the assessee had not been paid regular salary for several months prior to opting for the scheme and was under severe financial and professional uncertainty. In view of these circumstances, the assessee opted for the scheme as a measure of financial security. The compensation received by the assessee was in the nature of compensation under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme. The compensation amount received under the scheme was offered to tax in the return of income due to lack of awareness regarding the exemption available under section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The employer had also deducted tax at source on the said amount. No exemption was claimed in the original or revised return of income. The CPC, Bengaluru issued an intimation under section 143(1) for the said year without granting any exemption, and no rectification or appeal was initiated at that time. It was only upon learning about the recent judgment of the Hon'ble ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Harish Kumar vs. ITO Ward 5(5), Chandigarh (ITA No. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee is not taxable, the assessee is eligible for the refund of the TDS. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed." 16. The contention of ld. DR that only a 'workman' as defined under the Act is eligible for benefit u/s. 10(10B) of the Act has no force as the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Hindustan Photo Film Workers Welfare Centre vs. Govt. of India (2018) 400 ITR 299 (Madras) has held that benefit u/s. 10(10B) would be applicable to all employees covered by the scheme. 17. In light of the above decisions which are squarely applicable on the facts of instant cases and the consistent view taken by the Coordinate Benches, I am of the considered view that the alleged sum is in the nature of Retrenchment Compensation received by the assessee(s) in appeal, under the forced retirement scheme as per the standing orders dated 29.10.2019 issued by the Union Cabinet for the revival plan of BSNL/MTNL and such compensation falls under the provisions of section 10(10B) of the Act and not u/s. 10(10C) of the Act and therefore the alleged sum is in the nature of Capital receipt exempt from tax. In order to get relief as....