COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. G. CHANDRA
LAWS(MAD)-2008-9-504
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on
September 24,2008
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Appellant
VERSUS
G. Chandra
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
COMMISSIONER OF GIFT TAX GUJARAT VS. EXECUTORS AND TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATF OF LATE SHRI AMBALAL SARABHAT AHMEDABAD [REFERRED TO]COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX VS. S ANNAMALAI [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. CAMCO COLOUR CO [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL AGENCIES [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. ZOEB Y. TOPIWALA [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. DIGVIJAY SINGH [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J. -
(1.)THE Revenue filed the appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961, against the common order of the Tribunal, Madras, dt.
(2.)THE facts of the case are as follows :
(3.)THE assessment year is 2004 -05. The assessee, who was an employee of the RBI, retired from service under the
"Optional Early Retirement Scheme" floated by the RBI. The assessee, in his return of income, has claimed exemption under s. 10(10C), out of the compensation received under the above Scheme. On a perusal of Form No. 16 submitted by the assessee along with the return, it was found that the RBI has not deducted the exemption claimed under s. 10(10C) on the compensation received under "Optional Early Retirement Scheme", but it has duly deducted tax, treating this compensation as fully taxable and remitted to the Government account. The assessee made a claim under s. 10(10C) independently outside Form No. 16, in computation sheet attached to the return and claim a refund. The AO after getting a clarificatory letter from the RBI in which it is stated that the Scheme of Optional Early Retirement Scheme does not fulfil the conditions laid down under r. 2BA and hence, the ex gratia paid under the Scheme does not qualify for exemption under s. 10(10C), rejected the claim of the assessee. Against that order the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO and dismissed the appeal. Against that order the assessee preferred a second appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed by the Revenue by formulating the following common question of law : "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under s. 10(10C), when the scheme under which the amount was paid does not fulfil the criteria prescribed under r. 2BA of the IT Rules -
Heard the learned counsel for the Revenue and perused the order of the Tribunal. . In this case, if the tax effect is worked out, it will come less than Rs. 2 lakhs, i.e., the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals before the High Court and it does not also fall within the exceptions provided for filing appeal before the High Court, even where the tax effect is less than Rs. 2,00,000 under Circular F. No. 279/126/1998 -IT, dt. to less than Rs. 2 lakhs.
(2.)THE facts of the case are as follows :
(3.)THE assessment year is 2004 -05. The assessee, who was an employee of the RBI, retired from service under the
"Optional Early Retirement Scheme" floated by the RBI. The assessee, in his return of income, has claimed exemption under s. 10(10C), out of the compensation received under the above Scheme. On a perusal of Form No. 16 submitted by the assessee along with the return, it was found that the RBI has not deducted the exemption claimed under s. 10(10C) on the compensation received under "Optional Early Retirement Scheme", but it has duly deducted tax, treating this compensation as fully taxable and remitted to the Government account. The assessee made a claim under s. 10(10C) independently outside Form No. 16, in computation sheet attached to the return and claim a refund. The AO after getting a clarificatory letter from the RBI in which it is stated that the Scheme of Optional Early Retirement Scheme does not fulfil the conditions laid down under r. 2BA and hence, the ex gratia paid under the Scheme does not qualify for exemption under s. 10(10C), rejected the claim of the assessee. Against that order the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO and dismissed the appeal. Against that order the assessee preferred a second appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed by the Revenue by formulating the following common question of law : "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under s. 10(10C), when the scheme under which the amount was paid does not fulfil the criteria prescribed under r. 2BA of the IT Rules -
Heard the learned counsel for the Revenue and perused the order of the Tribunal. . In this case, if the tax effect is worked out, it will come less than Rs. 2 lakhs, i.e., the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals before the High Court and it does not also fall within the exceptions provided for filing appeal before the High Court, even where the tax effect is less than Rs. 2,00,000 under Circular F. No. 279/126/1998 -IT, dt. to less than Rs. 2 lakhs.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.