2014 (1) TMI 288

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed 6.10.2008. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in not accepting judgment of Pune Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Maruti S. Gheji SBI EOS employee ITA No. 578/PN/2010 dated 28.9.2010 and in the case of Haribhau Sali SBI EOS employee ITA No. 1429/PN/2009/07-08 dated 25.3.2011. The claim u/s 10(10C) should be allowed on this ground alone. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in not accepting judgment of Ahamadabad Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Pandya Vinod SBI EOS employee ITA No. 1492/AHD/2010 dated 30.7.2010 and in the case of Bikramjit Passi SBI EOS employee ITA No. 925/CHD/2011 dated 9.11.2011. The claim u/s 10(10C) should be allowed on this ground alone. 4. The Ld. Commissioner of I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... during the hearing. 2. The assessee in this case is an individual and is an ex employee of State Bank of India. During the year under consideration he opted for Exit Option Scheme of SBI. Originally the assessee filed its return at an income of Rs. 7,83,520/-. Subsequently by way of revised return, exemption of Rs. 5,00,000/- was claimed under the provisions of section 10(10C). According to the AO the VRS floated by the Bank was not as per the prescribed guidelines laid down in Rule 2BA of the Income Tax Rules. Therefore, the AO did not allow exemption of Rs. 5,00,000/-. 3. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A) who has also upheld the action of the AO. Aggrieved by the decision of CIT(A), the assessee has filed the aforementio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d 06.10.2008 Maruti Somappa Gheji in ITA No. 578/PN/2010 for AY 2007-08, order dated 28.09.2010 Shri Rohitkumar Kantilal in hA 969/Ahd/2010 for AY 2008- 09, order dated 05.05.2011 Asapu Babu Rao in ITA No.516/Vizag/2010 for AY 2007- 08, order dated 05.01.2011 Keerti SaWa Veerabhadra Rao in ITA No.491/Vizag/2010 for AY 2007-08, order dated 24.01.2011 Uma Subramanian in 1TA No. 3120/Mumf2OlZ for AY 2008-09, order dated 10.08.2012 The decisions referred hereinabove are fully applicable to the facts of the present case. For the sake of convenience, we would like to reproduce the relevant operative part of the decision rendered by the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Pandya Vinodchandra Bhogilal vs. ITO (2010 45 DTR 105, wher....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d to be approved by the Chief CIT but thereafter such requirement has been dispensed with and, therefore, it is only for the employer to frame the scheme for VRS or for earlier exit option. If AO had any doubt about the scheme he could 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 r. 2BA. In any case, the judgment of Third Member in Dy. CIT vs. Krishna Gopal saha (supra) is dearly 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 Krishna Gopal Saha's case (supra) as under: "....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....larly, r.25A of the IT Rules, 1962, which was inserted by IT (Sixteenth Amendment) Rules, 1962, was amended from time to time. All these go to show that this was intended to make voluntary retirement more attractive and beneficial to the employee opting for voluntary retirement Therefore, this has to be interpreted in a manner beneficial for 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 S.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 H....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. P.Surendra Prabhu ('supra,I wherein their Lordships held as under:- 'That the assessee, employee of the respondent bank was not only entitled to the benefit of exemption under GBP 10(1CC) of the Ad- to the extent prescribed in the pro vision itself but for any amount over arid above the prescribed limit; under the aforesaid provision, the assessee was also entitled to relief under S. 89(1) of the Act r/w s.21A. 7. From the above it is evident that while the learned AN! relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. M.Chelladurai & Ors (2008) 5 DTR (Mad) 201, he has not taken into account the decisions of other High Court under identical facts held the assessee, L e., t....