IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR.BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT (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.

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.

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 Government of India undertaking. BSNL introduced the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019 (VRS-2019), which was duly approved on 0