High Court Of Madras
CIT vs. S. Sundar & Ors.
Sections 10(10C), 89
Asst. Year 2001-02
P.D. Dinakaran & P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, JJ.
Tax Case (Appeal) Nos. 1467 to 1469 of 2005 & TCMP Nos. 1246 & 1247 of 2005
20th January, 2006
Counsel Appeared
Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman, for the Appellant
JUDGMENT
P.D. Dinakaran, J. :
The above tax case appeals are directed against the order of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 945, 913 & 939/Mad/2004, dt. 10th Feb., 2005.
2. The Revenue is the appellant. The assessment year is 2001-02. The case of the appellant is that the assessees/respondents herein, availed the benefit of the voluntary retirement scheme and claimed exemption of the amount of compensation received, both under s. 10(10C) and s. 89(1) of the IT Act.
3. The AO granted exemption as envisaged under s. 10(10C) of the Act, but denied the exemption under s. 89(1) of the Act, on the ground that once exemption under s. 10(10C) is allowed, s. 89(1) cannot be invoked. On appeal at the instance of the assessee, the CIT(A), taking the view that it is possible to interpret the sections both ways, and where there is an ambiguity, the benefit should be given to the taxpayer, allowed the appeal, which was confirmed by the Tribunal, on appeal by the Revenue.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue has preferred these appeals raising the following substantial question of law : “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is eligible to claim simultaneous benefit under s. 10(10C) as well as s. 89(1) in respect of the compensation received under the voluntary retirement scheme ?”
5. It is fairly conceded by the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue that the issue raised in the above question is squarely covered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in CIT vs. G.V. Venugopal (2005) 193 CTR (Mad) 661 : (2005) 273 ITR 307 (Mad), wherein it is held as under : “The second proviso to s. 10(10C) only refers to exemption claimed in any other year. Every assessment year is a self-contained unit and the mere fact that the relief under s. 89 had been spread over several years, did not mean that the relief was not in respect of a particular assessment year. There was no prohibition to the twin benefits in respect of the amount received under the voluntary retirement scheme. The relief contemplated under s. 89(1) is aimed to mitigate hardship that may be caused on account of the high incidence of tax due to progressive increase in tax rates. Payment under the voluntary retirement scheme is covered by the word “salary” which has been given a very wide definition in s. 17. Since the assessee was covered by s. 89, he would get both the benefits.”
6. In view of the above settled proposition, we do not see any merit in these appeals and the same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, TCMP Nos. 1246 and 1247 are also dismissed.
[Citation : 284 ITR 687]
