IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.2387 & 2388/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22)

The Income Tax Officer, Jayeshkumar Tulsidas Sutaria, Vs. Ward 7(2)(1), B-1-11 Shradha Bldg., Ahmed abad.

Motera, Sabarmati S.O, Ahmedabad-380005.

App ellant Respondent [PAN :AIHPS0132 N]

Appellant by :

( ) .. ( )

Respondent by:

Shri Vipul Gohil, AR Date of Hearing Sh ri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr. DR Date of Pronouncement

13.01.2026 O R D E R

17.02.2026 PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

The captioned two appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, vide orders dated 14.10.2025, for the Assessment Years 2020-21 and 2021-22. Since the issues involved in both the appeals are common and identical, we extract the grounds of appeal raised in ITA No.2387/Ahd/2025 for mutatis mutandis Assessment Year 2020-21 for the purpose of adjudication. The decision rendered in the said appeal shall apply to the other appeal bearing ITA No. 2388/Ahd/2025 for Assessment Year 2021-22.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in holding that the appellant's grievance does not emanate from the Intimation u/s 143(1) and in directing the appellant to seek condonation and file a revised return, Ignoring the settled legal position that appellate authorities are fully empowered to entertain and adjudicate a new claim even if not made in the return of income. The refusal to consider the exemption u/s 10(108) is contrary to the binding decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (1991 taxmann.com 30 (SC)/(1991) 57 ELT 176 (SC)|04-09-1990), NTPC Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd, which categorically hold that filing a revised return is not mandatory for making a new claim. The finding of the CIT(A) is therefore illegal, perverse and liable to be set aside

2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal as "not maintainable" on the incorrect assumption that the issue does not arise from the intimation u/s 143(1), without appreciating that the said Intimation has assessed VIRS compensation without granting exemption u/s 10(100). This has resulted in an adverse tax consequence, thereby giving rise to a valid, appealable grievance under section 246A. The conclusion of the CIT(A) is contrary to facts and law.

3. The Ird. CIT(A) has erred in refusing to adjudicate the exemption claim u/s 10(108) on merits, thereby violating section 250(6) mandating a reasoned and speaking order on each ground of appeal. The impugned order is non- speaking, arbitrary, contrary to statutory requirements, and deserves to be quashed.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) has committed a serious error in law by directing the appellant to approach the PCIT for condonation and filing of a revised return, thereby unlawfully bypassing and abandoning his own statutory appellate jurisdiction. The powers vested in the CIT(A) under section 251 are wide and Include the authority to entertain and allow a fresh legal claim. in contrast, the PCIT acting under section 119(2)(b) cannot adjudicate or grant exemption u/s 10(108). The impugned direction amounts to abdication of duty, rendering the order bad in law.

5. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the appellant received compensation under the duly approved "BSNL VRS-2019" scheme, which fully satisfies the conditions prescribed under Rule 2BA and is eligible for exemption u/s 10(108). The CIT(A) ignored relevant judicial precedents, including the recent decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Chandigarh in Harish Kumar vs. ITO (ITA No. 42/CHD/2025, dated 30.05.2025), wherein identical BSNL VRS-2019 benefits were held eligible for exemption. The order is therefore contrary to law and merits