Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
O R D E R Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member
This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), interalia, on the following grounds:
The order of the CIT-A is opposed to the Law and Facts of the case.
2. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that for deduction U/s 10(10C), the conditions in the rule 2 BA of the IT Act is not applicable.
3. The CIT(A) erred in not following the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court and the Apex court decision relied on by the appellant.
4. The CIT (A) erred in distinguishing the decision of the Apex Court relied by the Appellant by concluding that 'the court has now here observed that Rule 2 BA is irrelevant for considering exemption U/s 10(10C) of the Act" even though the H'ble Apex Court has held the Appellant is eligible for deduction U/s 10(10C) which was denied by the H'ble Madras High Court which heard that the scheme is not a statutory scheme or in accordance with the requirement of rule 2BA of the IT Act. 5. For these and other ground that may be added during the course of hearing the appeal, may be kindly be allowed and justice rendered.
This appeal came up for hearing on 16.01.2018 but none appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite having knowledge about the date fixed. The assessee however filed the written submissions along with the relevant documents on record, in support of his contentions.
Since the assessee did not appear despite having knowledge of date fixed, we heard the Revenue. Having carefully examined the orders of the lower authorities, in the light of rival submission, we find that CIT(A) has examined the provisions of section 10(10C) r.w.r.2 BA of the Income Tax Rules. The CIT(A) has also distinguished the case laws referred by the assessee, in his order. Before the Tribunal, assessee has placed reliance upon the same case laws and we find that in that case the employer was the bank and the voluntary retirement was taken by the assessee under certain retirement schemes. But in the instant case, the assessee has taken early retirement from the services of the company. No scheme was launched by the company for such retirements. Therefore, it cannot be said that assessee has taken a voluntary retirement under a particular scheme launched by the employer.
We have carefully examined the order of the CIT(A) and we find that CIT(A) has considered the submissions and the case laws placed before us, and since we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A), we confirm his order.
In the result, appeal of the assessee stand dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on 31st January, 2018.