TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1888
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....un/2026, 1383/Pun/2026, 1384/Pun/2026, 1385/Pun/2026, 1386/Pun/2026, 1387/Pun/2026, 1388/Pun/2026, 1389/Pun/2026, 1390/Pun/2026, 1391/Pun/2026, 1392/Pun/2026, 1393/Pun/2026, 1394/Pun/2026, 1395/Pun/2026, 1396/Pun/2026, 1397/Pun/2026, 1398/Pun/2026, 1399/Pun/2026, 1400/Pun/2026, 1401/Pun/2026, 1402/Pun/2026, 1403/Pun/2026, 1404/Pun/2026, 1405/Pun/2026, 1406/Pun/2026, 1407/Pun/2026, 1408/Pun/2026, 1409/Pun/2026, 1410/Pun/2026, 1411/Pun/2026, 1412/Pun/2026, 1413/Pun/2026, 1414/Pun/2026, 1415/Pun/2026, 1416/Pun/2026, 1417/Pun/2026, 1418/Pun/2026, 1419/Pun/2026, 1420/Pun/2026, 1421/Pun/2026, 1422/Pun/2026, 1423/Pun/2026, 1424/Pun/2026, 1434/Pun/2026, 1435/Pun/2026, 1436/Pun/2026, 1437/Pun/2026, 1438/Pun/2026, 1439/Pun/2026, 1440/Pun/2026, 1441/Pun/2026, 1442/Pun/2026, 1443/Pun/2026, 1444/Pun/2026, 1445/Pun/2026, 1446/Pun/2026, 1447/Pun/2026, 1448/Pun/2026, 1449/Pun/2026 Madhukar Ramchandra Nale, Sachin Krushnarao Bhujabal, Rajendra Bharatrao Shisode, Anita Vinayak Borgaonkar, Ketaki Dattatraya Parkhi, Satish Devidasrao Kakde Versus ITO, Circle 12, Pune And Dhondiram Panurang Patil, Vijaykumar Maruti Bhudake Versus ITO, Ward 1, Ichalkarnji And Ulhas Bhanudas Sutane Versus ITO, Ward 1,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll the assessee(s) in the instant appeals are that they are employed with BSNL which is under administrative control of Department of Telecommunications, Govt. of India. In order to revive BSNL, the Union Cabinet in its meeting dated 23.10.2019 approved the revival plan of BSNL and Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Mumbai (MTNL) vide Office Memorandum dated 29.10.2019 issued by Department of Telecommunications. As part of the revival package the Government decided to reduce the work force through BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019 to the employees of aged 50 years and above and on such retirement Ex-gratia compensation has been paid. The amount so received by the instant employees is stated to have been offered to tax after claiming exemption u/s.10(10C) of the Act Rs.5.00 lakh and have paid the due taxes on the remaining amount of compensation over and above Rs.5.00 lakhs (in cases where such compensation exceeds Rs.5.00 lakhs). Admittedly, in this bunch of appeals the claim that the entire amount of compensation received from BSNL being Capital receipt is not liable to tax as per the provisions of section 10(10B) of the Act has been made for the first time before Ld. Commiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (2012) 23 taxmann.com 23 (Bombay) 7. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the orders of ld. CIT(A) and submitted that firstly the assessee(s) have not made this claim in the regular returns of income and themselves paid due taxes and such claim ought to have been made through revised return. He also submitted that the sum received from BSNL is on account of Voluntary Retirement Scheme and for such amount received under the VRS, 2019, the assessee(s) are only eligible for the exemption to the extent of Rs.5.00 lakh as provided u/s.10(10C) of the Act. 7.1 Further, ld. DR has filed written submissions and the same are reproduced herein below: 3. The Revenue submits that the recent Tribunal orders, originating in Harish Kumar v. ITO [2025] 175 taxmann.com 379 (Chandigarh - Trib.) by Chandigarh Bench and followed by the Mumbai, Pune and Ahmedabad Benches, are founded upon an erroneous extension of the logic of Section 10(10B) to the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS), 2019. It is a fundamental misapplication of the "Closure Doctrine" established in the Hindustan Photo Film Workers' Welfare Centre (CITU) v. Govt. of India [2017] 79 tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, shall be deemed to be compensation received at the time of his re-trenchment if- (i) the service of the workman has been interrupted by such transfer; or (ii) the terms and conditions of service applicable to the workman after such transfer are in any way less favourable to the workman than those applicable to him immediately before the transfer; or (iii) the new employer is, under the terms of such transfer or otherwise, legally not liable to pay to the workman, in the event of his retrenchment, compensation on the basis that his service has been continuous and has not been interrupted by the transfer; 80(c) the expressions "employer" and "workman" shall have the same meanings as in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947);]" 6. The appellants consistently rely on HPF case. However, HPF and BSNL represent two opposite poles of corporate existence. In HPF, the Hon'ble Madras High Court was dealing with a company that had officially ceased operations. Para 6 of the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court is reproduced herewith: 6. "The Government of India decided to close down the company... For specific purpo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani vs DCIT [2017] 398 ITR 250 (Bombay) has condoned the delay of 2984days, which was on account of professional advice of a CA. 9. The identical issue of BSNL employees is decided by ITAT Pune in favour of assessee in ITA Nos.290 and 293/PUN/2026,ITA Nos.294 and 295/PUN/2026. ITAT Pune has relied on the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Jayeskumar Sutaria vs ITO,ITAT has extensively reproduced the decision and finally allowed the appeal of the assessee. The relevant paragraph of the said order is reproduced here under : Quote, "15. Further, I find the Coordinate Bench, Ahmedabad in the case of Jayeshkumar Tulsidas Sutaria Vs. ITO (supra) following the decision of Coordinate Bench, Chandigarh in the case of Harish Kumar vs. ITO Ward- 5(5), Chandigarh -ITA No. 42/CHD/2025 order dated 30.05.2025 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by observing as under : "3. The assessee was employed with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), a Government of India enterprise. BSNL notified the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) 2019 on 04.11.2019, which was duly approved and implemented by the employer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ordinate delay of 1,396 days i.e almost four years in filing this appeal. Being bereft of any sufficient cause as envisaged in section 249(3) of the Act, the appeal cannot be admitted. Since the appeal is not maintainable, there is no need to adjudicate on the merits therein. 5. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us. 6. We have gone through the records and considering the merits of the case, we condoned the delay and proceed to adjudicate the issue. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to lack of awareness of the legal provisions at the time of filing the return of income, the assessee inadvertently offered the compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 to tax. Subsequently, based on the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Chandigarh Bench in Harish Kumar vs. ITO Ward 5(5), Chandigarh (ITA No. 42/CHD/2025 dated 30.05.2025), wherein compensation under the same BSNL VRS-2019 scheme was held to be exempt under section 10(10B), the assessee now seeks exemption of such compensation. We find that the assessee filed the claim before the Ld. CIT(A) and since the income of the assessee is not taxable, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the refund (if any) entitled to the assessee(s) after due verification of such revised computation of income. Impugned findings of ld. CIT(A) are set aside and the common issue raised in the Grounds of appeal by respective assessee(s) stands allowed." Unquote. 10. Before us the Ld.AR also filed copies of the Orders of CIT(A) who have condoned the delay in identical facts and allowed the appeal of the assessee who were BSNL employees. 11. In following cases the CIT(A) has condoned the delay and allowed those BSNL employees Appeal on identical facts. It was submitted by Ld.AR that in these cases the Department has not filed any appeal. Ld. DR has not rebutted it. Thus, it is observed that CIT(A)'s have been taking different stand on identical issues. Consistency in judicial decisions is very important. Sr. No Date Assessee Name Particulars Page No. 1 27/11/2025 Bhuvaneshwar Pandit Tambat Order under of section 250 Act 1-24 2 28/11/2025 Shripathi Rao Padubidri Govinda Order under of section 250 Act 25-33 3 12/12/2025 Ajay Pandurang Patil Order under of section 250 Act 34-51 4 12/12/2025 Ghanashyam Vitthal Dhond....