M.LODHA, J. - (1.) THE Revenue has preferred this appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961, aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, Jaipur
(2.) THE short question that has been raised in this appeal is as to whether the relief under s. 89 of the IT Act, 1961, is admissible to the assessee on the voluntary retirement scheme amount in excess of the exemption under s. 10(10C) of the IT Act, 1961 ?
(3.) IT is not in dispute that the assessee, who was an employee of UCO Bank ("the employer"), took the voluntary retirement in the financial year 2001 -02 under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2001 (for short "VRS") and received an amount of Rs. 11,40,881 from the employer at the time of voluntary retirement. The assessee in his return filed for the asst. yr. 2002 -03 included the amount received on voluntary retirement in his taxable income from salary and after claiming an exemption of Rs. 5 lakhs in terms of s. 10(10C) of the IT Act, 1961 ("the said Act"), also claimed relief on excess amount of Rs. 5 lakhs under s. 89 of the said Act. It appears that the case of the assessee was reopened under s. 148 and after getting the response from the assessee, the AO disallowed the relief claimed under s. 89 vide order dt. of the assessee and allowed him the relief under s. 89. The Revenue felt aggrieved by the decision of the CIT(A) and filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal heard the appeal with other connected matters and found no illegality in the order of the CIT(A). It is this order, which is the subject -matter of challenge in this appeal. The counsel for the Revenue invited our attention to r. 21A(e) and sub -r. (6) of the IT Rules and contended that the payment received by the assessee on voluntary retirement being covered by cl. (e) and there being specific order by the Board in exercise of the power conferred under sub -r. (6) declining relief under s. 89, the assessee was not entitled to the relief under s. 89 of the IT Act. He would submit that the judgment of the Madras High Court delivered in the case of CIT vs. M. Raman (1999) 152 CTR (Mad) 497 : (2000) 245 ITR 856 (Mad) cannot be applied in the present situation as the statutory provision of s. 10(10C) of the IT Act was not in existence at the time when the said judgment was delivered.;