INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (AHMEDABAD BENCH)
MANOJKUMAR PARMAR AHMEDABAD – Appellant
Versus
ITO WARD 7(2)(1) AHMEDABAD AHMEDABAD – Respondent
ITA 480/AHD/2026[2020-21]
##PAGE1##
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
BEFORE DR.BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT
I.T.A. Nos.480-481/Ahd/2026
(Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22)
Manojkumar Parmar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer,
Multi Storeyed Building, Ward-7(2)(1),
Lal Darwaja, Ahmedabad.
Ahmedabad-380001.
Appellant Respondent
[PAN No.AABAT0757 D]
Appella(nt by : ) .. ( )
Respondent by:
Shri Vipul Gohil, AR
Date of Hearin Sghri Saresa Kartik Laxmanbhai, Sr.DR
Date of Pronouncement
15.04.2026
O R D E R 23.04.2026
PER: DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT:
The captioned two appeals have been filed by the Assessee
against the orders passed by the learned Addl/Jt. Commissioner of
Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Coimbatore vide orders both dated
24.12.2025 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.480/Ahd/2026 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. 481/Ahd/2026 for Assessment Year 2021-22.
##PAGE2##ITA Nos. 480-481/Ahd/2026
Asst.Years –2020-21 & 2021-22
- 2–
2IT. A NoT.4h8e 0A/sAshesds/e2e 0h2a6s tfaokre Ans tshees fsomlleonwti nYge agrr o2u0n2d0 o-2f 1appeal:-
1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal
without adjudicating the claim of exemption under Section 10(108) of the
Income-tax Act. 1961 on merits. The action of the Ld. CIT(A) in denying the
exemption on mere technical grounds is arbitrary, unjustified, and contrary
to the settled principle that substantive justice must prevail over procedural
technicalities.
2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in denying exemption
under Section 10(108) in respect of compensation received under the
Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2019 of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
(BSNL), though the scheme satisfies the conditions prescribed under Rule
2BA. The Appellant had specifically relied before the Ld. CIT(A) on Harish
Kumar v. ITO, ITA No. 42/CHD/2025, order dated 30.05.2025, wherein
identical compensation under BSNL VRS-2019 was held exempt under
Section 10(108); however, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider and follow the
same. The issue now stands consistently affirmed by the Hon'ble ITAT,
Ahmedabad in Jayeshkumar Tulsidas Sutaria v. ITO (order dated
17.02.2026) and Suman Nandlal Raval v. ITO (order dated 18.02.2026). The
impugned order is therefore contrary to settled judicial precedent and
liable to be set aside.
3. That the impugned finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the binding
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v.
CIT and National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT, as well as the judgment of
the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders
Pvt. Ltd., which categorically hold that appellate authorities are competent
to entertain additional legal grounds and grant relief even if such claim
was not made before the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A) has further
misapplied the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd.
v. CIT, without appreciating that the said decision restricts only the powers
of the Assessing Officer and does not curtail the jurisdiction of appellate
authorities to entertain a legal claim arising from facts already on record.
The impugned order is therefore illegal and liable to be set aside.
4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in refusing the exemption merely because it
was not claimed in the return of income, in complete disregard of CBDT
Circular No. 14 (XL-35) of 1955, which mandates that tax authorities must
grant all lawful reliefs due to an assessee even if not specifically claimed.
##PAGE3##ITA Nos. 480-481/Ahd/2026
Asst.Years –2020-21 & 2021-22
- 3–
The impugned order is thus contrary to binding CBDT instructions and
opposed to the principles of equity, justice, and good conscience, and is
liable to be quashed.
3. The Appellant was an employee of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
(BSNL), a Gover
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.