आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’बी’ (cid:586)ायपीठ, चे(cid:580)ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B SMC’ BENCH, CHENNAI (cid:373)ी एस.एस. िव(cid:695)ने(cid:361) रिव, (cid:586)ाियक सद(cid:735) के सम(cid:407)

Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1622/Chny/2025 िनधा(cid:330)रण वष(cid:330)/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Kalyanasundaram Ranjithkumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 2/46A, Keela padugai PO, Non Corporate Ward 22(6), Thiruvarur 610 109. Tambaram.

[PAN:AIMPR1914L]

(अपीलाथ(cid:334)/Appellant) ((cid:366)(cid:529)थ(cid:334)/Respondent) अपीलाथ(cid:334) की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Girish Kumar, Advocate (cid:366)(cid:529)थ(cid:334) की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 01.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 04.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 06.11.2023 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2019-20.

2. This appeal is filed with a delay of 489 days. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay stating the reasons in support of an affidavit. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, I find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication.

3. The assessee raised 10 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer being the ex-gratia received from assessee’s employer.

4. Brief facts relating to the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed revised return of income on 01.09.2020 declaring total income of ₹.7,45,580/- and claimed ₹.35,47,920/- as exempt income under section 10 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] as ex-gratia not forming part of the employment contract. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed the said exemption claimed by the assessee on the ground that the ex-gratia received by the assessee is not covered by the instances stated in CBDT circular No. 573 dated 21.08.1990. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer.

5. The ld. AR Shri Girish Kumar, Advocate, besides relying upon various case law, referred to the order of Pune Bench in the case of Ashok Raghunathrao Kulkarni v. ITO in ITA No. 117/PUN/2024 dated

12.08.2024 and submits that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and prayed to follow the same.

6. The ld. DR Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A).

7. Having heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The assessee is a salaried employee in Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. and received full and final settlement during the financial year 2018-19 on account of closure of unit. The assessee has claimed exemption of ₹.35,47,920/- as exempt income under section 10 of the Act as ex-gratia not forming part of employment contract. However, by referring to the CBDT circular No. 573 dated 21.08.1990, the Assessing Officer disallowed the exemption of ex-gratia amount claimed by the assessee. Similar issue on identical fact was subject matter in appeal before the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ashok Raghunathrao Kulkarni v. ITO, wherein, by following various case law, the Tribunal has observed as under:

23. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed by both the sides. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case rejected the claim of relief u/s 89 of the Act of Rs.18,74,899/- on income of Rs.57,12,674/- treating the same as income u/s 17(3) of the Act. We find the CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Off