2015 (11) TMI 868

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....justified in law in upholding the claim of the assessee for exemption under section 10(10C) by erroneously relying on the decision given in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Koodathi Kallyatan Ambujakshan (reported in 219 CTR 80) given in the context of Exit Option Scheme for R. B. I. employees wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court had examined the scheme, and found it to be complaint with all the conditions laid down in rule 2BA of I.T. Rules, 1962 whereas, in the instant case the Exit Option Scheme of S.B.I. employees do not fulfill all the conditions laid down in Rule 2BA r.w.s. 10(10C) of the I.T. Act, 1961? (b) Whether or not, partial satisfaction of Rule 2BA of the I.T. Rules 1962 would entitle an assessee to relief under section 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nathan v. CIT [2010] 326 ITR 49. Besides, reliance was also placed upon the decisions of the Tribunal, inter alia, upon one Petric I. Britto v. ITO [IT Appeal No. 4413 (Mum.) of 2006 wherein it has been held that even when the voluntarily separation scheme is not in conformity in the requirement of Rule 2 AB of the Income Tax Rules 1962, yet assessee was entitled to its benefit. 6. On further appeal, the Tribunal by the impugned order upheld the order of the CIT(A) after making a reference to the CBDT circular dated 8th October, 2009 and placing reliance upon its decisions in a case of a ex-employee of State Bank of India in ITO v. Javerilal D. Chhajed [IT Appeal No. 326 (PN) of 2010) rendered on 8th November, 2011 and dismissed the Reve....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....evenue to challenge a subsequent order. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal [2001] 247 ITR 219 has held that the Revenue must be consistent and it cannot differentiate between different assessees. This was in the context of a High Court order. The same principle should apply in case of jurisdictional Tribunal order. We are of the view that it is not open to the Revenue to pick and chose the Assessee's against whom they would filed appeal in this Court. The law should be uniformly applied, its application cannot change, depending upon the person affected. 9. We had in fact indicated in our order in CIT v. Veena G. Shroff [IT Appeal No.71 of 2013) rendered on 27th January, 2015 that whenever there is a decisi....