Judgment K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J. These appeals were filed against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by formulating the following substantial questions of law : "i.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in entertaining the Departmental appeal, which is contrary to Instruction No.2/2005 dated 210. 2005 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes wherein the Department is precluded from filing an appeal if the tax effect involved in the appeal is less than Rs.2 lakhs and ii.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the appellant was not entitled to exemption under Section 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the amount received under the Early Retirement Option of the ICICI Bank ?" 2. In all these appeals, as the facts are one and the same and the questions of law are identical as to the applicability of the circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 210. 2005, the facts relating to TC(A)No.1210 of 2009 arising out of ITA.No.2283/Mds/2007 in respect of the assessment year 2004-2005 are stated hereunder : The assessee is an individual and was employed in ICICI Bank. He took voluntary retirement under the Early Retirement Option (hereinafter referred to as the ERO) floated by the ICICI Bank. The ERO cash compensation of Rs.16,96,780/- was received by the assessee. For the assessment year 2004-2005, the assessee filed his return of income on 16. 2004 declaring a total income of Rs.2,27,710/-and claimed a refund of Rs.2,60,470/-. The assessee claimed exemption under Section 10(10C) of the Act to the extent of Rs.5 lakhs out of the compensation received under the said scheme. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return on 212. 2004 admitting an income of Rs.11,96,780/-, which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and a refund of Rs.1,90,755/- was granted. The assessee claimed exemption under Section 10(10C) of the Act to the extent of Rs.5 lakhs out of the compensation received under the said scheme. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return on 212. 2004 admitting an income of Rs.11,96,780/-, which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and a refund of Rs.1,90,755/- was granted. Later on, the case was taken up for scrutiny by issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act and in the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer took the view that the ERO scheme of the ICICI Bank did not fulfill the conditions enumerated in Sub.Clauses (iii) and (iv) of Rule 2BA of the Income Tax Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and that the exemption under Section 10(10C) of the Act cannot at all be allowed. The scrutiny assessment was completed on 212. 2006 denying exemption of Rs.5 lakhs under Section 10(10C) of the Act and the total income was determined at Rs.16,96,780/-. 3. Not satisfied with that, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) challenging the denial of exemption under Section 10(10C) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which allowed the appeal following the decision of this Court in TC.Nos.1458 to 1461 of 2007 dated 13. 2008 wherein the scheme formulated by the ICICI Bank has been considered and it was held that the said scheme is not in consonance with Sub.Clauses (iii) and (iv) of Rule 2BA of the Rules and as such, exemption cannot be granted. The correctness of the same is now put in issue before us not on the ground of merits but on the ground that the tax effect in these cases is less than Rs.2 lakhs, which has been prescribed as a monetary limit by the circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes in Instruction No.2/2005 dated 210. 2005 wherein it has been specifically stated that if the tax effect is less than Rs.2 lakhs, the Department need not have to file an appeal to the Tribunal and that this circular has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. 4.We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials on record. 2005 wherein it has been specifically stated that if the tax effect is less than Rs.2 lakhs, the Department need not have to file an appeal to the Tribunal and that this circular has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. 4.We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials on record. 5.It is of-course true that this Court, in TC.Nos.1458 to 1461 of 2007 dated 13. 2008, to which one of us (K.Raviraja Pandian,J) is a party, considered the said scheme framed by the ICICI Bank and found that the said scheme is not coming under the purview of Sub.Clauses (iii) and (iv) of Rule 2BA of the Rules and that the claim of the person, who retired voluntarily under the said scheme for deduction under Section 10(10C) of the Act, is not available having regard to the terms of the scheme. Notwithstanding coming to the conclusion as above on merits in several cases where the tax effect is less than the one prescribed under Instruction No.2/2005 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 210. 2005, without going into the merits of the case, this Court allowed the appeals on the sole ground that the tax effect is less than the one prescribed in the circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes for filing an appeal. 6. In these cases also, the tax effect is less than Rs.2 lakhs prescribed in the circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes for filing an appeal before the Tribunal. On that ground, after hearing the learned counsel for the Revenue, by answering the questions of law in the negative against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee, the appeals are disposed of. No costs.