Court No. - 37 Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 86 of 2008 Petitioner :- The Commissioner Of Income Tax Ii Kanpur And Another Respondent :- Shri Ashok Kumar Bhatia Petitioner Counsel :- A.N. Mahajan Hon'ble Rajes Kumar,J.
Hon’ble Bharati Sapru,J.
Heard Shri A.N.Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellant.
This is an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act filed by the
Revenue raising the following substantial questions of law:
(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in
holding that the scheme for voluntary Retirement framed by the Reserve Bank of India is in
accordance with the provisions contained u/s 10(10-C) of the Act and the guidelines framed in
rule 2-BA of the rules ?
(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the tribunal is justified in law in
holding that the amount of compensation received by the assessee on Voluntary Retirement
from the Reserve Bank of India under “Optional Early Retirement Scheme” is exempt u/s 10
(10-C) of the Act to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/-?
(3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in
treating the amount received at the time of voluntary Retirement from service could be regarded
as salary within the meaning of Section 17(3) (i) of the Act as such benefit u/s 89 (1) would be
available to the assessee ?
(4) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in
misinterpreting the provisions as contained u/s 10(10-C) of the Act and Rule 2-BA while
extending the benefit of Section 10 (10-C) to the assessee ?
Shri A.N.Mahajan, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the issue in the
present appeal is covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in the
case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Harendra Nath Tripathi reported in
2009(14)MTC 418 (All. L.B.) wherein it has been held that there is no
prohibition to the twin benefits in respect of the amount received under the
voluntary retirement scheme. The relief contemplated under Section 89 of the
Act is aimed to mitigate the hardship that may be caused on account of the
high incidence of tax due to progressive increase in tax rates and thus held
that the benefits under Section 10(10-C) and 89 could be granted to the
assessees. Accordingly, the view taken by the Tribunal has been upheld and
appeal filed by the Revenue has been dismissed.
Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, the questions are answered in
favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The order of the Tribunal is
upheld.
The Special Leave Appeal arising from the order of the Karnataka High Court
involving the similar dispute has been dismissed by the Apex Court on
2.2.2009.
The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.7.2010
S.P.