The Commissioner Of Income Tax Tiruchirapalli � 1 v. P. Madhavan

DATED : 18.3.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN ANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.P.S. JANARTHANA RAJA TAX CASE (A) NO.116 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income TaxTiruchirapalli � 1. ... Appellant Vs. P. Madhavan ... Respondent Appeal filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "C" Bench, Chennai, dated 21stApril, 2006 passed in I.T.A.No.1258/Mds/2004.For Petitioner : Mr. J. Narayanasamy J U D G M E N T(Judgment of the Court was delivered byP.P.S.Janarthana Raja, J.) The above Tax Case Appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, "C" Bench, Chennai, dated 21st April, 2006 passed in I.T.A.No.1258/Mds/2004 by raising the following Question of Law." Whether the amount paid to employees under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme is entitled fordeduction ? " 2. The assessee was an employee of the State Bank of India. The relevant assessment year is2001-2002 and the corresponding accounting year ended on 31.3.2001. The assessee has filed areturn of income on 16.7.2001 claiming exemption under Section 10(10C) and also relief underSection 89(1) of the Income Tax Act (in short "the Act"). During the relevant assessment year, theassessee retired from service under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme offered by the said Bank. Onretirement, the assessee received from the employer Bank several dues including ex-gratia. The saidex-gratia had been worked out by the employer at 60 days salary for each completed year of serviceor salary for the number of months of service left, whichever was less. Out of the ex-gratia thusreceived, the assessee claimed exemption of Rs.5 lakhs as per the provisions of Section 10(10C) ofthe Act and the balance ex-gratia was admitted as income. However, while computing the taxpayable, the assessee claimed relief under Section 89(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer rejectedthe claim for the relief under Section 89(1) of the Act. Aggrieved by that order, the assesseepreferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by that order, the Revenue filed an appealbefore the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue appeal and confirmedthe order of the CIT(A). Aggrieved by that order, the Revenue preferred the present appeal. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue/ appellant fairly submitted that the issueinvolved in this appeal is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case ifCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. G.V. VENUGOPAL, reported in 273 ITR 307, wherein thiscourt allowed the claim of the assessee and rejected the contention of the revenue. 4. In these circumstances, we of the view that the Tribunal is right in following the judgment of thiscourt and dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. Therefore, we do not find any error or illegalityin the order of the Tribunal and no question of law, much less substantial question of law arises forconsideration. Accordingly, the Tax Case Appeal is dismissed. No costs. kb/raa