TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1335
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....os. 1624, 1625, 1675, 1694, 1695 & 1697/Bang/2026) For the Revenue : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Dept. ORDER PER BENCH These are the appeals filed by the various assessee challenging the separate orders of the NFAC, Delhi in respect of the A.Ys. 2020-21 and 2021-22. For the sake of easy reference, the details of the appeals as well as the issues involved are tabulated below: S. No. Appeal No. A.Y. Date of order of NFAC Reasons Issues involved 1. ITA No. 1624/Bang/2026 2020-21 16-03-2026 Dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as non- maintainability of the appeal. Retrenchment compensation 2. ITA No. 1625/Bang/2026 2021-22 16-03-2026 Dismissed on the ground of maintainability since the CPC did not make any adjustments in the intimation made u/s. 143(1) and limitation Retrenchment compensation. 3. ITA No. 1646/Bang/2026 2020-21 28-02-2026 Dismissed on the ground of limitation Retrenchment compensation & Leave encashment 4. ITA No. 1662/Bang/2026 2020-21 26-02-2026 Dismissed on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... following the Goetze India Ltd. reported in 284 ITR 323 had dismissed the appeal. The CIT(A) also accepted the order issued by the CPC as correct. Retrenchment compensation 13. ITA No. 1697/Bang/2026 2021-22 23-02-2026 Dismissed on the ground of limitation Retrenchment compensation 2. The facts involved in all the appeals are similar to each other and in some appeals, one more issue was raised. For the sake of convenience, the common facts are narrated hereunder. Insofar as the other issues involved in some appeals, they will be decided independently. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee are individuals and employees of the BSNL who were opted to retire under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019. The Scheme was formulated for restructuring as well as to reduce the cost faced in view of the losses suffered by BSNL. The assessee are aged about 50 years and not conversant with the new technological systems being adopted by BSNL and therefore the organization had formulated the VRS, 2019. Even though the Scheme was named as Voluntary Retirement Scheme, in sum and substance, it is a retrenchment scheme designed to co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... limitation as well as on the ground of maintainability, thereby confirmed the denial of exemption u/s. 10(10B) as well as the exemption u/s. 10(10AA) of the Act. In the appeal in ITA No. 1624/Bang/2026, the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the claim of the retrenchment compensation on the ground of limitation as well as on the ground of maintainability that there is no mistake in the intimation made u/s. 143(1) of the Act. In the appeal in ITA Nos. 1646, 1665, 1675 & 1697/Bang/2026, the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals on the ground of limitation. In the appeals in ITA Nos. 1662, 1666 & 1692/Bang/2026, the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on the ground that there is no mistake in the intimation made u/s. 143(1) of the Act. In the appeal in ITA No. 1663/Bang/2026, the Ld. CIT(A) had denied the retrenchment compensation on the ground that the assessee is not a workman and denied the leave encashment by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Patna High Court. The Ld. CIT(A) further held that the assessee can file a revised return and got the delay condoned from the authorities and thereafter they can claim the deduction u/s. 10(10B) of the Act. In the appeal in ITA Nos. 1625 & 166....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The respective Ld.ARs also submitted that some of the Ld.CIT(A)s had condoned the delay in filing the appeals even though there were delays and prayed to take a uniform view since the assessees are all belonged to the same category of employees employed by the BSNL. The respective Ld.ARs also submitted that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would not apply to the appellate authorities and in fact, the same is applicable to the AOs. The respective Ld.ARs further submitted that on the ground of equity, the assessee are also entitled for the benefits similar to the several assessees got from the Ld.CIT(A)s / ITATs. The respective Ld.ARs further submitted that the issue has to be looked into based on the provisions and simply it cannot be rejected by citing the technicalities. The respective Ld.ARs further submitted that in all the cases, the assessees had claimed the deduction u/s. 10(10C) of the Act thereby the deduction has been granted for Rs. 5 Lakhs whereas they are entitled for deduction of the entire amount u/s. 10(10B) of the Act and therefore it is not the case of the revenue that the assessee had not claimed the deduction in their return of income. The respecti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee were not granted the benefit u/s. 10(10B) of the Act since the assessee themselves voluntarily filed their return of income and claimed the deduction only u/s. 10(10C) of the Act. The said return was processed and the return was accepted as such. Now the assessee had claimed the deduction under the correct provision 10(10B) of the Act based on the order of the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal and the said claims were rejected by the Ld. CIT(A)s on the ground of delay and maintainability. In some cases, the Ld. CIT(A)s hold that there is no mistake in the intimation made u/s. 143(1) and therefore, the proper course of action to be taken by the assessee are that they have to file a revised return by claiming the deduction and got the delay condoned from the authorities. In some cases, the Ld. CIT(A)s had rejected the appeals on the ground that the new plea cannot be raised for the first time before them. 12. We have considered the facts and also the order of the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in which the Tribunal had granted the deduction u/s. 10(10B) of the Act on the retrenchment compensation received by the BSNL employees pursuant to the Voluntary Retirement S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aintainability. We have also gone through the above cited judgment and we do not find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had restricted the powers of the appellate authorities. In fact, the judgment had restricted the power of the AO and therefore the above said judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. Further, the assessee had mistakenly claimed the deduction in the original return of income and therefore there is no question of saying that the assessee cannot raise the issue for the first time before the Ld.CIT(A). Further, the department had accepted that the benefit should be granted in respect of the employees of BSNL and therefore the plea that they are not workman to get the benefit is not correct. Therefore, the orders of the Ld.CIT(A)s are liable to be interfered. 15. Similarly, the other issue of exemption claimed on the leave encashment was also addressed by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the above referred judgment by holding that the retired employees from BSNL under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019 are entitled for the leave encashment tax exemption as they are deemed to be Central Government employees. We have also considered t....