The Commissioner Of Income Tax Tamilnadu Viii, Madras v. Shri.k.jaykumar

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN The Honourable Mr.Justice M.M.SUNDRESH TAX CASE (APPEAL) NO.978 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income TaxTamilnadu VIII, Madras. ...Appellant Vs...Respondent Shri.K.Jaykumar, No.8/56, Murali NagarMinjur, Chennai-203. APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against theorder of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai 'D' Bench dated7.9.2007 made in ITA No.468/Mds/2006 for the assessment year 2004-2005 against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)IX in ITA No.438/2005-2006 dt.14.11.2005 in PAN/GIR No. /J-12409 of Income Tax Officer,Ward-I(2) Kanchipuram. For Appellant : Mr.J.NareshkumarFor Respondent : Mr.C.V.Rajan J U D G M E N T JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED BY K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN,J At the instance of the Revenue, this appeal has been filed andadmitted on the following substantial questions of law :"i.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was rightin law in holding that the assessee is eligible for thebenefit of Section 10(10(c)) without even going into thedetails of the Early Retirement Option Scheme to see ifit fulfills the criteria laid down for VoluntaryRetirement Scheme ? https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ii.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was rightin holding that the assessee is entitled to deductionunder Section 10(10(c)) when the scheme under which theamount was paid does not fulfill the criteria prescribedunder Rule 2BA of the Income Tax Rules ? Andiii. Whether the CBDT Notification in instructionNo.5/ 2008 dated 15.5.2008 will apply to this case, whichhas been filed before 15.5.2008 ?" 2.It is submitted across the bar that the first twoquestions of law are covered by the decision of the Supreme Courtmade in Civil Appeal Nos.6997 to 7002 of 2009 dated 21.10.2009arising out of SLP(C).Nos.15805 to 15810 of 2008, in and by which,the Supreme Court granted the relief in favour of the assessee.Recording the submission of the learned counsel on either side andfollowing the said decision of the Supreme Court dated 21.10.2009,the first two questions of law are answered in the affirmative andagainst the Revenue. 3.The third question of law has been considered by thisCourt in its order dated 14.8.2008 in TC(A) No.1223 of 2008 and inthe case of CIT Vs. Associated Electrical Agencies (reported in(2007) 295 ITR 496), in which one of us is a party, whereinfollowing the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case ofCIT Vs P.S.T.S.Thiruvirathnam and Sons (reported in (2003) 261 ITR406), the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CITVs Rajasthan Patrika Limited (reported in (2002) 258 ITR 300) andthe decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of RaniPaliwal Vs. CIT (reported in (2004) 268 ITR 220), this Court heldthat the monetary limit fixed by the Central Board of Direct TaxesCircular points out that the Revenue, unless or otherwise exemptionstated therein, has been put against the assessee. Following thesame, the third question of law is answered in favour of theassessee and against the Revenue. To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai D Bench,Chennai-90. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals,Chennai -34. 3.The Income Tax Officer,Ward I(2), Kanchipuram. +1cc to Mr.R.Sivaraman, Advocate Sr 70868 RSKA(CO)km/11.1. TC(A)NO.978 OF 2008