TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1421
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-2019 (BSN-LVRS-2019). The ex-gratia compensation under the scheme was payable to the assessee in two financial years, viz F.Y. 2019-20 and 2020-21, for Rs. 14,16,806/- and Rs. 31,09,730/- respectively. 2.1 In the return filed for the year under consideration, i.e. F.Y. 2020-21, the assessee offered the entire amount of Rs. 31,09,730/- to tax without claiming exemption, following the tax treatment of the same in the Form-16 issued by the employer, BSNL. The return was processed by the CPC accepting the returned income. 2.2 Subsequently, the assessee came to know that several benches of the Tribunal, including Ahmedabad Bench in Jayeshkumar Tulsidas Sutaria v. ITO (order dated 17.02.2025) and Indore Bench in Narendra Kumar Mishra v. ITO (order dated 27.02.2025) and Chandigarh Bench in Harish Kumar v. ITO (order dated 30.05.2025), have examined the nature and implementation of the same Scheme and taxability of the compensation received thereunder. Accordingly, it was held that the compensation received under the scheme is eligible for exemption under section 10(10B) of the Act. 2.3 Hence, the assessee filed a rectification application before the AO on 6th March 2026 requesti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee do not constitute a mistake apparent from the record. The claims now sought to be allowed involve fresh adjudication and interpretation of law, which is beyond the limited jurisdiction of rectification proceedings. In view of the above discussion, it is stated that there is no need to interfere in the rectification order passed u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act,1961. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The learned AR before us submitted that the deduction to be claimed u/s 10(10B) of the Act was considered by the various Tribunals and all the Tribunals took a view that the retrenchment compensation received by the employees of the BSNL are eligible for deduction u/s. 10(10B) of the Act. The Ld. AR further submitted that if the appeals are not allowed on technicalities, it would amount to unjust enrichment to the revenue since the levies are made against the provisions of the Act and therefore prayed to allow the appeals. The Ld. AR also submitted and prayed to take a uniform view since the assessee also belonged to the same category of employees employed by BSNL. The Ld. AR submitted that, on the ground of eq....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....PC did not make any adjustments in the intimation made u/s. 143(1) and limitation. Against the Ld. CIT(A) finding for A.Y. 2020-21, the assessee preferred an appeal before this Tribunal in ITA No. 1664/Bang/2016. The appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2020-21 was heard together with the appeal of several other employees of BSNL claiming identical exemption under section 10(10B) of the Act on receipt of retrenchment compensation as well as deduction under section 10(10AA)(i) of the Act on receipt of leave encashment. The assessee's appeal in ITA No. 1664/Bang/2026, along with the appeal of the other employees of BSNL, was decided by the coordinate bench of this Tribunal on 22nd July 2026, allowing the assessee's appeal. As the issue involved in the present assessment year under appeal before us, as well as for A.Y. 2020-21, is identical and arising from the same receipt of retrenchment compensation. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the finding of the coordinate bench vide order dated 22nd July 2026 shall be applied to the current appeal also. The finding of the Tribunal vide order dated 22nd July 2026 for the reference is extracted as under: 11. In all the appeals....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ordinate Benches across the country in the case of BSNL employees on identical facts and circumstances, delay has been condoned by the ld. CIT(A) itself ranging from 900 to 2000 days. The assessee has produced the list of 72 cases where the delay is condoned by the ld. CIT(A). Further in case of 144 appeals, the Coordinate Benches have condoned the delay in the case of BSNL employees on identical facts and circumstances. Thus on the parity itself, the appeal of the assessee should have been admitted by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, I reverse the order of the ld. CIT(A) in not condoning the delay." 14. We have also considered the reasoning given by the Ld.CIT(A)s in some of the appeals that the assessee's had not claimed such deductions in their return of income and also not filed any revised return or application u/s. 154 before the AO and therefore the appeals are not maintainable. It is not the case of the revenue that the assessee's are not entitled for such deduction but on technical grounds, the revenue had denied the deductions. Further, the Ld.CIT(A) had also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 284 ITR 323 in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es between the employees of State Bank of India and government employees. In that context, the Hon'ble Patna High Court had held that there is no discrimination and therefore it is not ultra virus to the Constitution of India. Therefore, the said principles could not be applied to the facts of the present case. 16. Therefore, both the issues are covered by the earlier orders of the Coordinated Benches of this Tribunal and against which no further proceedings were taken up by the revenue and therefore the said orders have become final and in that circumstances, we are also taking the same view. Insofar as the delay in filing the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A), we have taken note of the fact that the Ld.CIT(A)s had condoned the delay in filing the appeals of 72 assessee's on identical facts in which the delays are ranging from 900 to 2000 days. We have also taken note of another fact that the Coordinated Benches had condoned the similar delays in the 144 appeals filed by the employees on similar facts and circumstances. In view of the above said facts, we are of the view that the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and entertained the appeals and decided the appeals on ....