IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BILAL NAZKI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9150 of 1998 Between: ICRISAT Ex-Employees Welfare Association (IEEWA) rep. by its President Y. Srirama Murthy, and Secretary Y.Satyanarayana. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi Arid Tropics, Patancheru, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the respondent No.1 to declare that the payments made pursuant to voluntary retirement of the ex- employees of ICRISAT under SRS of the petitioner will be eligible for exemption from tax u/s.10(10C) of the Income Tax Act. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.Y.RATNAKAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: MR.S.R.ASHOK Counsel for the Respondent No.3: MR.P.VENKAT RAM REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: (PER BN, J) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record. The petitioner-association wants a Mandamus directing respondent No.1 to declare that the petitioners were eligible for exemption from tax under Section 10 (10C) of the Income Tax Act (for short “the Act”). Petitioner is an ex-employees association of an institution known as ICRISAT (International Crops Research Institute for the Semi Arid Tropics). These employees sought voluntary retirement under a scheme known as Selective Retirement Scheme (SRS) in the year 1997. They addressed letters to the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), New Delhi, requesting that necessary approvals as required under law may be given to enable them to claim exemption under Section 10 (10C) of the Act. They also requested the Board to give instructions to the respondent No.2-Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, for approving the scheme enabling them to obtain the benefit thereof. It is submitted that representations were made on 9-1-1998, followed by remainders on 12-1-1998, 24-1-1998, 27-2-1998, 14-2-1998 and 10-3-1998, but the representations were not decided. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the institution in which the petitioners were working and from which they sought retirement was not an institution, which was entitled to exemption in terms of Section 10 (10C) of the Act. It is further contended that the representations made by the petitioners to the Board were already considered and rejected. The only question is whether we can direct the respondents to issue any directions to make the petitioners eligible to the benefits under Section 10 (10C) of the Act. Section 10 (10C) of the Income Tax Act provides relief of payment of tax on amounts received as compensation, as a result of Voluntary retirement. Section 10 (10C) of the Income Tax Act, 2001, also mentions several categories of persons, who at the time of their voluntary retirement or termination of their service, in accordance with any scheme or schemes of voluntary retirement or in the case of a public sector company referred to in sub-clause (i), are exempted from payment of tax, to the extent such amount does not exceed five lakh rupees. Admittedly, petitioners do not fall into any of the categories mentioned in Section 10 (10C) of the Act, and as such they are not eligible for any benefit under this Section. It is true that the Government of India has power to declare an institution having importance through out India or in any State or States by notification in the Official Gazette also that it would also fall within the categories mentioned in Section 10 (10C) of the Act and the benefits would be available to such persons also. But in our view there is no power to the Central Board of Direct taxes to declare any institution, which could be entitled to benefits under Section 10 (10C) of the Act. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner-association submits that in terms of Section 2(17) of the Act, a Company shall be a Company whether it was incorporated or not, whether it was registered or not, in case it was declared to be so by the Board. Since the applications have already been rejected by the Board and representations have been replied informing petitioner-association that they were not entitled to benefits under Section 10 (10C) of the Act and they were also informed that their retirement was not in accordance with Rule 28(a) of the Act, in any case, we do not see any merit in the argument because at no point of time, the institution itself i.e., ICRISAT has made any representation to the Board for declaring it to be a company. For these reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ------------------------ (BILAL NAZKI, J) 28th October, 2004 ----------------------- (S.ANANDA REDDY, J) LUR Copy to: 1. The Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Commissioner of Income tax, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi Arid Tropics, Patancheru, Hyderabad. 4. Two CD copies.