WAS DELIVERED BY K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN,J At the instance of the Revenue, this appeal has been filed and admitted on the following substantial questions of law : "i. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is eligible for the benefit of Section 10(10(c)) without even going into the details of the Early Retirement Option Scheme to see if it fulfills the criteria laid down for Voluntary Retirement Scheme ?
ii. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 10(10(c)) when the scheme under which the amount was paid does not fulfill the criteria prescribed under Rule 2BA of the Income Tax Rules ? And iii. Whether the CBDT Notification in instruction No.5/ 2008 dated 15.5.2008 will apply to this case, which has been filed before 15.5.2008 ?"
2. It is submitted across the bar that the first two questions of law are covered by the decision of the Supreme Court made in Civil Appeal Nos.6997 to 7002 of 2009 dated 21.10.2009 arising 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 and following the said decision of the Supreme Court dated 21.10.2009, the first two questions of law are answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue.
3. The third question of law has been considered by this Court in its order dated 14.8.2008 in TC(A) No.1223 of 2008 and in the case of CIT Vs. Associated Electrical Agencies (reported in (2007) 295 ITR 496), in which one of us is a party, wherein following the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of CIT Vs P.S.T.S.Thiruvirathnam and Sons (reported in (2003) 261 ITR 406), the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs Rajasthan Patrika Limited (reported in (2002) 258 ITR 300) and the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Rani Paliwal Vs. CIT (reported in (2004) 268 ITR 220), this Court held that the monetary limit fixed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular points out that the Revenue, unless or otherwise exemption stated therein, has been put against the assessee. Following the same, the third question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
(K.R.P.J.) (M.M.S.J.) 21.12.2009 Index : Yes Internet : Yes To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai D Bench.
RS K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN,J AND M.M.SUNDRESH,J RS TC(A)NO.978 OF 2008 21.12.2009