ITA Nos. 5285, 5286 and 5287/M/2014, (Assessment Year: 2007-2008). Case: Bhalchandra Bamne and Ors. Vs Asst. CIT 26(1). ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal)

Case NumberITA Nos. 5285, 5286 and 5287/M/2014, (Assessment Year: 2007-2008)
CounselFor Appellant: Anil Sathe, C.A. and For Respondents: Asgharzain V.P., D.R.
JudgesB.R. Baskaran, Member (A) and Sanjay Garg, Member (J)
IssueIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections (10)(10C), 10(10C)
Judgement DateMarch 31, 2015
CourtITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal)

Order:

Sanjay Garg, Member (J), (ITAT Mumbai 'B' Bench)

  1. The above titled three appeals have been preferred by three different assessees. All the three appeals have been filed with the delay of 260 days. The assessees have filed separate applications for condonation of delay of citing identical reasons for delay in filing the present appeals.

  2. It has been explained that along with the present three assessees, the identical case of another assessee namely Mr. Pradeep Pandhare was also decided by the AO. The above said persons were employees with Colgate Palmolive India Ltd. And they took voluntarily retirement. They claimed exemption under section (10)(10C) of the Income Tax Act to the extent of Rs. 5 lakhs which was allowed and refund was issued. However, the cases were reopened by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) and the claim of the assessees was denied and impugned demand was raised.

  3. The assessees preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [(hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] which were dismissed. Thereafter the assessees were advised by their counsel that since the claim of all the assesses was identical, hence the decision in the appeal of one of the assessees will be followed in other cases. The present assessees, being retired employees and also taking into consideration the cost of litigation before the Tribunal, did not prefer the appeal before the Tribunal under the impression that whatever the decision of the Tribunal will be there in the case of the another assessee namely Mr. Pradeep Pandhare, who had already preferred the appeal before the Tribunal, that will automatically be applied to the cases of the assessees. However, when the assessees approached the chartered accountant with a request that the order of the Tribunal in the case of Mr. Pradeep Pandhare be also requested to be followed in the case of the assessees, then the concerned chartered accountant informed them that the same cannot be applied in their case unless the present assessees prefer separate appeals.

  4. It has been submitted that the assessees were under bonafide belief that the decision in the case of another colleague namely Mr. Pradeep Pandhare will be followed in the case of assessees and due to this, the delay has occurred in filing the present appeals.

  5. The submissions have been supported by the affidavit of the respective assessees. Considering the above submissions and also considering that the assessees, are retired senior citizens and they were under bonafide belief that the decision in the case of one of them will be applied in the cases of all, hence, could not prefer the appeals in time. Considering the reasoning given by the assessees, we condone the delay in preferring the present appeals.

  6. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT