The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Thiruchirappalli-I Appellant In All Appeals v. >

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN and The Commissioner of Income Tax,Thiruchirappalli-IAppellant in all appealsv. Tax Case Appeals in T.C.(A) Nos.892 to 895 of 2008 are filedunder section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order dated16.12.2005 in ITA Nos.835, 834, 841 and 837/Mds/2004 respectivelyon the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Benchfor the assessment year 2001-02 against the order dt 14.1.2004 ofthe commissioner of Income Tax (A) in ITA.Nos. 217/03-04,204/03-04ITA.No.220/03-04, ITA.No.216/03-04 respectively against theassessment order dt. 26.3.2003 for the Assessment year 2001-2002 inG.I.No.8724-C/2001-02,G.I.No.8780-A/2001-02,G.I.8746-B/2001-02,G.I.No.8733-C/2001-02 respectively. (Judgment of the Court was delivered byK.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J.) The Tax Case Appeals are filed against the common order dated16.12.2005 in ITA Nos.835, 834, 841 and 837/Mds/2004 respectivelyon the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Benchby raising the following common substantial question of law: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "Whether the amount paid to employees under theVoluntary Retirement Scheme is entitled fordeduction?" 2. As the relief sought for is one and the same, except theassessees in each of the appeals, these appeals are taken togetherand are disposed of by this common order. Tax case (Appeal)No.892 of 2008 is taken as a typical case, the facts of which areas follows: The assessee was an employee of the Bank of India. During theprevious year relevant to the assessment year 2001-2002 theassessee retired from service under the Voluntary Retirement Schemeoffered by the said Bank. On retirement, the assessee receivedseveral dues including ex-gratia from the employer Bank. The ex-gratia had been worked out by the employer at 60 days salary foreach completed year of service, or salary for the number of monthsof service left whichever was less. Out of the ex-gratia received,the assessee claimed exemption of Rs.5,00,000/- under section 10(10C) of the Act. Balance ex-gratia was admitted as income.However, while working out the tax payable on such income, theassessee claimed relief under Section 89(1). The assessing officerrejected the claim of the assesssee for the relief under Section 89(1) of the Act and passed the Assessment Order granting exemptionunder Section 10(10C) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, an appealis preferred by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals), who allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, therevenue preferred appeal before the Income-tax Appellate tribunal,which dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue following thedecision reported in 273 ITR 307 in the case of CIT Vs.G.V.Venugopal. The correctness of the said order is canvassed bythe appellant in this present appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the revenue submits that theissue involved in these appeal is covered by a decision of thisCourt in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V.S G.V.VENUGOPALreported in (2005) 273 ITR 307. 4. This Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V.SG.V.VENUGOPAL reported in (2005) 273 ITR 307 while dismissing theappeal, held as follows: 3. Learned counsel appearing for the revenue submits that theissue involved in these appeal is covered by a decision of thisCourt in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V.S G.V.VENUGOPALreported in (2005) 273 ITR 307. 4. This Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V.SG.V.VENUGOPAL reported in (2005) 273 ITR 307 while dismissing theappeal, held as follows: "....the second proviso to section 10(10C) onlyrefers to exemption claimed in any other year. Everyassessment year is a self-contained unit and the merefact that the relief under section 89 had been spreadover several years, did not mean that the relief was notin respect of a particular assessment year. There was noprohibition to the twin benefits in respect of theamount received under the voluntary retirement scheme.The relief contemplated under section 89(1) is aimed tomitigate hardship that may be caused on account of thehigh incidence of tax due to progressive increase in taxrates. Payment under the voluntary retirement scheme iscovered by the word "salary" which has been given ahttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/very wide definition in section 17. Since the assessee 5. Therefore, following the above said judgment, these appealsare dismissed as the question of law now raised is already decidedagainst the revenue. sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1.The Commissioner of Income Tax,Tiruchirappalli-12. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Circle-1,Kumbakonam.3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)No.41 Williams Road,Cantonment,Tiruchirappalli 620 001.4. The Assistant Registrar,Income Tax Appellants Tribunal,Basant Nagar,Chennai 600 090.+4 ccs To Mr.N.Muralikumaran, Advocate, SR.35007 5o 35010.T C (A).Nos.892 to 895of 2008la [co]gkg/16.7