SRI. THIYAGARAJAN KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. ASST.CIT, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1061/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 January 2018AY 2009-103 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity. It agreed that the assessee's early retirement from the company was not under a specific scheme, making the conditions of Rule 2BA relevant.

What were the facts?

The assessee sought deduction under Section 10(10C) for voluntary retirement. The CIT(A) denied the deduction, holding that Rule 2BA of the IT Rules was applicable and that the retirement was not under a specific scheme launched by the employer.

What were the issues?

Whether the conditions of Rule 2BA are applicable for deduction under Section 10(10C) for voluntary retirement, and if the assessee's retirement was under a specific scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(10C)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Respondent: Shri. B. R. Ramesh, JCIT
Hearing: 09.01.2018

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:

1.

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.

2.

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.

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stand dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on 31st January, 2018.

More judgments on Section 10(10C)

All 899 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(10C) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →