Judgment :- P. SHANMUGAM, J. Writ petition No. 3797 of 2000 is filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Southern Zonal Office against the proceedings of the CIT holding that the additional conveyance allowance is taxable as part of salary income. Writ Petition No. 5987 of 2000 is filed by the Association consisting of Development Officers in the office of Life Insurance Corporation of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to forbear the respondents and other assessing authorities under the IT Act, 1961 from levying, assessing and demanding income-tax from the members of the petitioner-association in respect of additional conveyance allowance. The officers of the Life Insurance Corporation of India are paid additional conveyance allowance as part of their remuneration. According to the petitioners, this allowance is specifically granted to meet the expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in the performance of the duties. On the basis of the demands made and after prescribing certain norms for the eligibility, additional conveyance allowance was granted. On the basis of the advice given and their belief that they are not liable to be included as part of their salary for deduction of tax at source, the annual return was filed by the Chennai Division of the Corporation on that basis. However, the ITO took the view that the additional conveyance allowance is liable to be included as part of the salary. According to the IT Department, it was not covered by s. 10(14) of the Act r/w r. 2BB of the IT Rules, and, consequently, not eligible for exclusion. The said order was challenged by way of revision before the CIT who, by in order dt. 25th November, 1999, rejected the revision confirming the order of the ITO. They have followed the decision of this Court in CIT vs. E. A. Rajendran. The writ petition is filed against this order in revision. The argument and the point raised were considered in reference to the additional conveyance allowance. The stand of the Department is mainly based on the judgment of our High Court in E. A. Rajendran's case (supra) referred to aboveThe learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the judgment rendered by this Court was in reference to s. 10(14) of the Act whereas the Notification dt. 21st February, 1989, is essentially different from r. 2BB. 21st February, 1989, is essentially different from r. 2BB. According to him, the law has changed subsequent to the amendment and in the changed circumstances, the said decision cannot be invoked. Chapter III of the IT Act 1961, provides for income which does not form part of total income. Under s. 10, income falling under the clause set out thereunder shall not be included in computing the total income of the previous year. Clause (14) deals with special allowance. The said provision was amended by Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 w.e.f. 1st April, 1989. There was a further amendment by the Finance Act, 1995 w.e.f. from 1st July, 1995, which substituted the words. "as may be prescribed" for the expression "as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify" Pursuant to the aforesaid provision, r. 2BB of IT Rule was inserted by the IT (Eight Amendment) Rules, 1995 w.e.f. 1st July, 1995. The relevant portion insofar as this case is concerned is extracted below. "2BB Prescribed allowances for the purposes of cl. (14) of s. 10-(1) For the purposes of sub-cl. (i) of cl. (14) of s. 10, prescribed allowances, by whatever name called, shall be the following, namely, (a) and (b) ** ** ** (c) Any allowance granted to meet the expenditure incurred on conveyance in performance of duties of an office or employment of profit. Provided that free conveyance is not provided by the employer;" It is seen that s. 10(14) was amended by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 w.e.f. 1st April, 1989 and against by the Finance Act, 1995 w.e.f. 1st July, 1995. Consequent on the aforesaid amendments, the special allowance or benefit which is eligible for relief under s. 10(14) is to be prescribed by framing rules in this regard. It is pursuant to these provisions that r. 2BB has been enacted. As per this provision, the allowance should be granted to meet the expenditure incurred on conveyance in performance of the duties of an office. This excludes the employees provided with free conveyance. The respondents have to look into the question whether the expenses had been incurred on conveyance in performance of their duties and the claim is justified or not. As per this provision, the allowance should be granted to meet the expenditure incurred on conveyance in performance of the duties of an office. This excludes the employees provided with free conveyance. The respondents have to look into the question whether the expenses had been incurred on conveyance in performance of their duties and the claim is justified or not. The rule that had been prescribed imposes an obligation on the Department to look into the claim and grant it if it comes within the four corners of the prescriptionThe contention of the learned standing counsel is that the judgment in E. A. Rajendran's case (supra) covers the field and that the additional conveyance allowance shall qualify for deduction only when there is a reimbursement. Insofar as the first point is concerned, the Division Bench did not consider the prescribed r. 2BB. The Division Bench was dealing with s. 10(14) and noted the argument on behalf of the Department that to enable the assessee to take advantage of s. 10(14) of the Act, there must be a notification by the Central Government specifying the extent to which the expenses are allowable. The Division Bench observed as follows: "...... Till now, no such notification was issued by the Central Government and therefore, the deduction under s. 10(14) of the Act cannot be claimed." In reference to the question of reimbursement, the Division Bench observed as follows: "Even according to this notification, unless the allowance is notified under s. 10(14)(i) of the Act, no portion of it can qualify for tax exemption ........" It is further stated that such portion of the incentive/bonus which is actually spent by the Development Officers for duties of office can still be exempted from tax, if the Life Insurance Corporation of India makes the payment against expenses incurred by the Development Officers by way of reimbursement of expenses and such reimbursements will not form a part of the salary of the Development Officers. In the present case, there is no reimbursement of the expenditure incurred by the Development Officers and, therefore, the expenditure incurred by the Development Officers by themselves cannot qualify for exemption under s. 10(14)(i) of the Act. Relying on the circular of the CBDT, it was held that only when there is reimbursement of expenditure incurred, deduction under s. 10(14) can be claimed. Relying on the circular of the CBDT, it was held that only when there is reimbursement of expenditure incurred, deduction under s. 10(14) can be claimed. The import of r. 2BB was not at all considered by the Division BenchA Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, in Life Insurance Corporation Class-I Officers' (Bombay) Association vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India 1988 (229) ITR 510 (Bom), while construing r. 2BB of the Rules, held that to claim exemption, the conveyance allowance must be necessarily expended for meeting expenses wholly and necessarily incurred or to be incurred in the performance of duties of an office. The assessee must satisfy two tests, namely, that they are expenses of which it can be said at the least that they are wholly and necessarily incurred in the performance of the duties of the office and secondly, the expenses were also expenses which the assessee is required, by the conditions of his services, to incur out of his remuneration. Therefore, when such of these allowances or benefits which are considered to be exclusively incurred in the performance of duties of an officer have been prescribed, then the IT Department is bound by the law as prescribed. It is not open to the Department not to take into account r. 2BB(1)(c) in considering the additional allowance. Therefore, I am of the view that the respondents have overlooked r. 2BB prescription and failed to consider the eligibility of the officers for the deduction. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to succeed and a mandamus as prayed for will have to be issued. The learned standing counsel objected to the maintainability of the writ petitions filed by the association since each of the members has effective alternative remedies of appeals against the assessment orders and they must exhaust the same. All the assessment orders are stereotyped orders disallowing the additional allowance on the basis of the Division Bench judgment. In the light of the view I have taken in W.P. No. 3797 of 2000, it will be in the interests of the petitioners as well as the Department to apply the law as interpreted by this Court. Hence, this being a pure question of law, the writ petition filed by the association is also to be allowedAccordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed as prayed for. Hence, this being a pure question of law, the writ petition filed by the association is also to be allowedAccordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed as prayed for. Consequently, the respondents are directed to reconsider and pass fresh orders on the claim of additional conveyance allowance in the light of r. 2BB of the Rules expeditiously. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. Nos. 5843 and 8998 of 2000 are closed.