Judgment :- K. Raviraja Pandian, J. 1. By framing the following questions of law 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is eligible for the benefit of Section 10(10C) without even going to the details of the Early Retirement Option Scheme to see if it fulfils the criteria laid down for Voluntary Retirement Schemes? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 10(10C) when the scheme under which the amount was paid does not fulfil the criteria prescribed u/r 2BA of the Income Tax rules? the revenue on appeal before this Court under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 10.08.2007 passed in ITA.No.2433/Mds/2006 in respect of the assessment year 2004-05. 2. The assessee was an employee of the Reserve Bank of India, who availed the scheme called Optional Early Retirement Scheme. He claimed exemption u/s 10(10C) of Rs.5 lakhs out of the compensation received under the above Scheme. On a perusal of the Form No.16 submitted by the assessee along with the return, it was found that the Reserve Bank of India has not granted exemption u/s 10(10C) on the compensation received under OERS, but it has duly deducted tax, treating this compensation as fully taxable and remitted to the Government account. Further, it was found that the assessee has made a claim u/s 10(10C) independently outside Form 16, in the computation sheet attached to the return and claimed a refund. 3. For claiming exemption u/s 10(10C) on the compensation received on VRS, conditions stipulated under Rule 2BA of the Income Tax Rules are to be fulfilled by the scheme. To confirm whether the scheme of OETS of RBI has fulfilled these conditions, the Assessing Officer issued a letter seeking details. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim as the assessee had not produced the details of the scheme to enable to verify if it would qualify as a Voluntary Retirement Scheme. A letter was sent to RBI to provide copy of the OERS and to clarify whether the requirements of Sec.10(10C) read with Rule 2BA were complied with by their scheme. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim as the assessee had not produced the details of the scheme to enable to verify if it would qualify as a Voluntary Retirement Scheme. A letter was sent to RBI to provide copy of the OERS and to clarify whether the requirements of Sec.10(10C) read with Rule 2BA were complied with by their scheme. The bank has categorically stated in its letter that the scheme of OERS does not fulfil the conditions laid down under Rule 2BA and hence the ex-gratia paid under the scheme does not qualify for exemption u/s 10(10C) as it is not framed as per the prescribed norms under Rule 2BA of the Income Tax Rules for Voluntary Retirement Scheme. 4. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), dismissed the same upholding the order of the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal, on further appeal at the instance of the assessee held in favour of the assessee. The correctness of the said order is now canvassed by the revenue before this Court in this appeal. 5. We have heard the argument of the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. The very same issue came up for consideration before this Court in which one of us (K.Raviraja Pandian, J) was a party and this Court in T.C.(A)Nos.22 of 2007 etc. batch dated 25th February 2008 has held as follows:- "From the reading of various clauses contained in the scheme, it is manifest that the scheme was not intended as staff reduction measure, but a soft exit option made available to those interested employees who were seeking alternative option to the level of adaptability and change, that the current environmental demands or those who are desirous of early retirement after a long and exhaustive period of service with the organisation. Thus, the schemes framed are not in accordance with the requirement of Rule 2BA. The requirement of the statutory provisions is that the exemption from tax under Section 10(10C) is available on the amount received under a scheme of voluntary retirement or a voluntary separation. Thus, the schemes framed are not in accordance with the requirement of Rule 2BA. The requirement of the statutory provisions is that the exemption from tax under Section 10(10C) is available on the amount received under a scheme of voluntary retirement or a voluntary separation. As the schemes had not been introduced for the purpose of making over the reduction in the existing strength of the employees and do not provide that the vacancy caused by the voluntary retirement or voluntary separation shall not be filled up the requirements (iii) of Rule 2BA have not been fulfilled. In order to entitle the person the benefit under Section 10(10C) the provisions of Section 10(10C) and Rule 2BA should be complied with cumulatively and compliance of some of them would not entitled the employee the benefit as claimed for. CBDT Circular No.640 has also clarified that if all the conditions specified in Section 10(10C) and Rule 2BA are satisfied, then only the assessee would be entitled to the benefit and in those cases, the employer need not deduct at source. Thus, it is clear that the scheme is not strictly in accordance with Section 10(10C) and Rule 2BA. Accordingly the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the appeals are allowed answering the question of law in favour of the revenue". 7. Following the above said Judgment, both the questions of law are answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The appeals are allowed.