TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... framed by employer is not in accordance with rule 2BA. In favour of assessee - ITA No. 925/CHD/2011 - - - Dated:- 9-11-2011 - SHRI H.L. KARWA, AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, JJ. Assessee by: Shri Tej Mohan Singh Department by: Smt. Jai Shree Sharma ORDER Per Mehar Singh, AM The present appeal fi led by the assessee is directed against the order, dated 14.07.2011 of the ld. CIT(A) Panchkula passed u/s 250(6) of the Income-tax Act,1961 (in short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ) 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in upholding the withdrawal of exemption of Rs.5,00,000/- claimed under Section 10(10C) of the Act which is arbitrary and unjustified. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts of the appeal. The ld. 'AR' placed reliance, on the decision, in the case of Pandya Vinod Chandra Bhogilae V ITO (2010) 045 DTR 105 ITAT, Ahmedabad, to state that the fact-situation of the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision. Having considered the decision, we found that the same is applicable to the facts of the present cases. The relevant and operative part of the decision is reproduced hereunder: 2. Thus the only issue involved in this appeal is about allowability of exempt ion under sect ion 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The facts of the case are that assessee is a Deputy Manager in SBI and has taken VRS on 31-5-2006 under exit option scheme introduced by the bank of India with effect from 7-5- 2005. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have enquired from the employer. So far as the assessee employee is concerned, he cannot be penalized and tax will be levied on him on the assumption that the scheme framed by employer is not in accordance with rule 2BA. In any case, the judgment of Third Member in Dy. CIT v. Krishna Gopal Saha (supra) is clearly applicable and we do not find any reason to take a different view. For the sake of convenience we refer to following para from the Third Member judgment in Dy. CIT v. Krishna Gopal Sahas case (supra) as under: 5. At the time of hearing before me, none appeared on behalf of the assessee-respondent. I have, therefore, heard the learned department Representative and perused the material placed before me. I find that the issue has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at tractive and beneficial to the employee opting for voluntary retirement. Therefore, this has to be interpreted in a manner beneficial to the optee for voluntary retirement, if there is any ambiguity. Sums paid on voluntary retirement to the extent of rupees five lakhs are exempted from being charged to tax by reason of section 10(10C). Even if the payment is stretched over a period of years, the same would not become chargeable to tax in any subsequent assessment year. From the above it is evident that their Lordships of the jurisdictional High Court held that an employee, who takes voluntary retirement, is entitled to deduction under section 10(10C) even if the payment is stretched over a period of years. They have also held that pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... employee of the respondent bank was not only entitled to the benefit of exemption under section 10(10C) of the Act to the extent prescribed in the provision itself but for any amount over and above the prescribed limit; under the aforesaid provision, the assessee was also entitled to relief under sect ion 89(1) of the Act read with rule 21A. 6. From the above i t is evident that while the learned AM relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. M. Chelladurai Ors. (2009) 317 ITR 370(Mad): (2009), he has not taken into account the decisions of other High Courts including the jurisdictional High Court. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court under the identical facts held the assessee, i.e., the retired employe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
