2012 (8) TMI 551 - AT - Income Tax

Exemption u/s 10(10C) - receipt of ex gratia payment under VRS floated by SBI - denial on ground that scheme in question does not conform to the guidelines of Rule 2BA of Income-tax Rules, 1962 - Held that - It is observed that assessee has been all along contending that the facts of the instant scheme are exactly similar to the scheme considered in the case of Koodathil Kallyatan Ambujakshan (2008 (7) TMI 259 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT). In this view of the matter, Income-tax authorities ought to have considered the attendant factual scenario and thereafter examine as to whether Guideline No. (iii) and (iv) prescribed under Rule 2BA of the Rules have been complied with or not, as per the parity of reasoning laid down by aforesaid decision. Matter restored back to file of AO

Summary

Issues:
Claim of exemption under section 10(10C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for ex gratia payment received on voluntary retirement under the Exit Option 2 Scheme floated by the State Bank of India.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Claim of Exemption under Section 10(10C)
The appeal raised the issue of whether the assessee was entitled to exemption of Rs 5,00,000/- under section 10(10C) of the Act for receiving ex gratia payment on voluntary retirement under the Exit Option 2 Scheme by the State Bank of India. The lower authorities denied the exemption, citing non-compliance with Rule 2BA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 and referring to a CBDT Instruction. The assessee challenged this denial by citing judgments of the Bombay High Court and various Tribunal decisions in support of eligibility for exemption under section 10(10C). The Revenue contended that the scheme did not comply with guidelines, specifically Guideline No. (iii) and (iv) of Rule 2BA, related to reduction in employee strength and non-filling of vacancies caused by voluntary retirement.

Issue 2: Compliance with Guidelines
The Revenue argued that the voluntary retirement scheme by the State Bank of India did not meet the requirements of Rule 2BA, as it did not result in an overall reduction in employee strength and allowed for filling up vacancies caused by voluntary retirement. The assessee, on the other hand, relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court, emphasizing that compliance with guidelines should be determined by considering the factual scenario and not solely based on the express terms of the scheme. The Tribunal noted that the High Court considered implications beyond express statements in the scheme and examined the factual position to assess compliance. The Tribunal concluded that the Income-tax authorities should have evaluated compliance with Guideline No. (iii) and (iv) based on the factual scenario, similar to the approach in the precedent case.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer to re-examine compliance with Rule 2BA guidelines. The decision was made in line with the judgment of the High Court, emphasizing the need to consider the factual scenario in evaluating compliance with the guidelines. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard and pass a fresh order accordingly.