आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’ (cid:16)ायपीठ, चे(cid:22)ई।

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय (cid:27)ी मनु कु मार िग(cid:30)र, (cid:16)ाियक सद! एवं

माननीय एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद! के सम)

BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI HON’BLE S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.765/Chny/2025 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2019-20 Subramanian Kathirsen, The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.4, Plot No.20, Vs. CHE-W-(512)(12), Sankul Meher Nagar, Chennai.

Garkheda Parisar, Maharashtra – 431 009.

[PAN: BQLPK 1834J]

(अपीलाथ(cid:7)/Appellant) ((cid:8)(cid:9)यथ(cid:7)/Respondent) अपीलाथF की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri Y. Sridhar, FCA HIथF की ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 01.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 02.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member):

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated

15.01.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC Delhi [in short 'the Ld. CIT(A)'] for assessment year 2019-20.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in understanding the provisions of Sec. 56(2)(xi) & 2(24) & has incorrectly interpreted the applicability of the provisions & has erred in applying Sec. 56(2)(xi) to the amounts received on premature cessation of appellant’s permanent job which was not received in any connection with the termination of his employment. The said amounts have been held to be Capital Receipt by various Tribunals & High Courts.

2. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the decision of AO treating the amounts of Rs. 27,31,026/- as Income from Other Source u/s. 56(2)(xi) & erred in denying the relief u/s 89 & has thereby erred on Facts & Law by confirming the Assessment as completed by the AO.

3. The Learned CIT(A) has erred by not considering the claim of the Appellant, of the said amounts being Capital Receipts, because the same was received only due to premature cessation of his employment & permanent loss of Source of Income. The CIT(A) has failed to attend & adjudicate the claim & has brought nothing on record to refute the claim of Capital Receipts.

4. The Learned CIT(A) has erred by not considering the jurisdictional & binding Judgement of Pune ITAT, Mumbai ITAT & other Judgment of various High Courts & of Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in not applying all the legal citations. The Learned CIT(A) was bound to consider the squarely applicable Judgements of Pune & Mumbai ITAT on the principles of binding precedence.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an Individual and have filed his Return of Income dt.23.08.2019 offering income of Rs.53,34,390/- for AY 2019-20. As per return of income, the assessee received income from salary from private limited company and loss from house property. The gross salary of the assessee during the year as declared by the assessee is Rs.60,86,946/-. The case was selected for scrutiny for the reason that assessee has claimed huge claim u/s.89(1) of the Act and also large refund claimed. The assessee is an employee in M/s PFIZER HEALTHCARE INDIA PVT LTD., Chennai, Tamilnadu for part of the year and later employee of M/s HIBROW HEALTHCARE PVT LTD, Kancheepuram, Tamilnadu. In the assessment order, AO disallowed tax relief u/s.89(1) of the Act of Rs.12,80,076/-.

4. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who decided as under:

“6. Decision: I have carefully considered the facts of case, contention of the appellant and order passed by LAO against which appeal has been preferred.

6.1 The basic facts of the case are that the appellant filed a return of income on 28.03.2019, declaring total income of Rs.53,34,390/-. In the said return of income, the appellant had shown the compensation received from his employer on severance of employment as income. The appellant further claimed a relief of Rs.12,80,076 /-u/s.89(1) on acc