High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Indore Bench
Shantilal Bagora & Ors. vs. State Bank Of Indore & Ors.
Section 89(1), Art. 226
A.M. Sapre, J.
W.P. No. 1362 of 2001
11th February, 2002
Counsel Appeared
P.M. Choudhary, for petitioner : B.L. Pavecha with Smt. Pathak & Patankar, for Respondents
JUDGMENT
A.M. SAPRE, J. :
The petitioners are ex-employees of the State Bank of Indore-respondent No. 1 herein (hereinafter referred to as “bank”). All these petitioners who were working in various posts in respondent No. 1bank have taken voluntary retirement, pursuant to voluntary retirement scheme introduced by the bank. It is the case of the petitioners that strictly in terms of s. 192(2A) of the IT Act, 1961, r/w r. 21AA of the IT Rules, 1962, each petitioner furnished particulars in the prescribed forms (Form No. 10E) to the bank to enable the bank to make appropriate deduction of tax while computing the amount payable to each petitioner and also allowed each petitioner to take benefit contained in s. 89(1) ibid. The petitioners complained that when they received the certificates (annexure 8 collectively) from the bank, it was notified in these certificates that no benefit of s. 89(1) of the Act was given to the petitioners. It is this action of the bank which has given rise to filing of this writ and seeking quashing of the impugned certificates (annexure 8) collectively issued to each petitioner declining to grant them the benefit of s. 89(1) ibid.
The bank as well as the IT Department have filed their return. Heard Shri P.M. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri B.L. Pavecha, senior counsel, assisted by Smt. Pathak, for respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and Shri Patankar, for respondent No. 4.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, I find no merit in the writ for grant of relief.
In my opinion, in a case of this nature, s. 89(1) of the Act itself has provided a statutory remedy for the petitioner (as an assessee) to make an application to his AO claiming such relief which according to him he is/they are entitled to claim under s. 89(1) and on satisfying the assessing authority, they become entitled to get relief. Once an application to that effect is made by the assessee, then it is for the AO to examine the case of each assessee in the light of what he has stated in the application and then to find out whether he is entitled to claim the benefit of s. 89(1) ibid. In case the AO feels that the assessee is entitled to get the benefit then in that event, it is the duty of the AO to grant such relief as prescribed under the Act.
The writ Court cannot examine the factual aspect of each assessee as to whether he is entitled to get this benefit or not—it being a matter of factual adjudication. It is for this reason, this task is entrusted to the AO in the section itself. I, therefore, decline to examine the issue raised by these petitioners and while dismissing the writ grant liberty to each petitioner to make an application before the AO under s. 89(1) of the Act, setting out therein all necessary particulars required for claiming benefits under s. 89(1) ibid and tender proof in support thereof. If such an application is made, the same shall be disposed of by the concerned AO expeditiously but after affording an opportunity to each petitioner and all those concerned. C.C. within a week.
Decision in favour of RespondentÂ
[Citation : 255 ITR 60]
