BSNL VRS Compensation Exempt as Retrenchment Compensation: ITAT Pune

Sameer Yadram Sharma Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)

In , the Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dealt with a batch of appeals concerning employees of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) for Assessment Years 2020-21 and 2021-22. The central issue before the Tribunal was whether the amounts received by BSNL employees under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS), 2019 constituted retrenchment compensation eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act or voluntary retirement compensation taxable subject to limited exemption under Section 10(10C).

The assessees argued that the issue was already covered by the Tribunal’s earlier decision in Prathibha Jagdish Unawane vs. ITO and related cases, where compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 was treated as retrenchment compensation exempt under Section 10(10B). The Department contended that the payments were made under a voluntary retirement scheme and therefore only exemption under Section 10(10C), limited to Rs.5 lakh, was available. The Department also argued that the claims under Section 10(10B) were not made in the original returns and should have been raised through revised returns.

The Tribunal examined the earlier consolidated order in Prathibha Jagdish Unawane and other connected cases. It noted that BSNL and MTNL were covered under a revival package approved by the Union Cabinet on 23.10.2019. As part of the revival package, BSNL introduced the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019 for employees aged 50 years and above in order to reduce workforce. Ex-gratia compensation was paid to employees opting under the scheme.

The Tribunal recorded that in several cases the employees had originally offered the compensation to tax after claiming exemption under Section 10(10C), and later sought exemption under Section 10(10B) before the CIT(A). In some cases, appeals were dismissed on account of delay, while in others the new claim was not entertained because it had not been made in the revised return.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay in filing appeals because the assessees had acted on professional advice at the time of filing their returns. Referring to the Bombay High Court decision in Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT, the Tribunal observed that substantial justice should prevail over procedural delay.

On merits, the Tribunal relied upon several decisions of the Chandigarh, Ahmedabad and Pune Benches which had consistently treated compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 as retrenchment compensation. It also referred to the Madras High Court decision in Hindustan Photo Film Workers Welfare Centre, where compensation received on closure of an undertaking was treated as retrenchment compensation eligible under Section 10(10B).

The Department argued that BSNL was not a closed undertaking and that the VRS was part of a revival package. It contended that Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act specifically excludes voluntary retirement from the definition of retrenchment. According to the Department, employees had exercised voluntary options under the scheme and therefore the compensation could not be treated as retrenchment compensation.

The Tribunal, however, followed the consistent view taken in earlier coordinate bench decisions. It observed that the compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 was in the nature of retrenchment compensation received under a forced retirement scheme issued as part of the Government’s revival plan for BSNL and MTNL. The Tribunal noted that the purpose and substance of the scheme were relevant considerations.

The Tribunal also referred to the Ahmedabad Bench ruling in Vishnu Mohan T Nair v. ITO, which emphasized that substance should prevail over form in determining whether compensation qualifies as retrenchment compensation. It further observed that the Madras High Court had held that the benefit under Section 10(10B) was available to all employees covered under the scheme.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE

The captioned appeals at the instance of respective assessee(s) pertaining to A.Yrs. 2020-21 and 2021-22 are directed against the separate orders framed by Addl/JCIT(A)—6, Delhi (ld. NFAC), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961.

2. The common issue raised in these bunch of appeals is that whether the amount received by the employees of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) on account of retirement under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and a Capital Receipt, eligible for exemption u/s.10(10B) of the Act.

3. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issues raised in these bunch of appeals are squarely covered by the decision of this coordinate Bench in the case Prathibha Jagdish Unawane Vs. ITO – ITA No.1117/PUN/2026 and others order dated 29.04.2026.

4. On the other hand, ld. DR strongly supported the orders of ld.CIT(A) and also submitted that the facts of the lead case in the case of Harish Kumar Vs. ITO (2025) 175 com 379 (Chandigarh-Trib.) are different and that the sum received by the respective employees is not in the nature of retrenchment compensation but is an amount received under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and the provisions of section 10(10C) are applicable. He also referred to the written submissions placed on record which have also been mentioned in the recent decision of this Tribunal in the case of Prathibha Jagdish Unawane Vs. ITO (supra).

5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. The common issue raised in these bunch of appeals is that whether the sum received by the employees of BSNL under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019 fall in the category of retrenchment compensation referred in u/s.10(10B) of the Act or an amount received Voluntary Retirement referred in section 10(10C) of the Act. We find that this issue has been dealt by this Tribunal along with the issues of delay not condoned by ld.CIT(A), claims not made in regular return of income in the case of various other employees in the recent decision in the case of Prathibha Jagdish Unawane Vs. ITO (supra) where a consistent view has been taken by the Tribunal holding that alleged sum received by the respective employees from BSNL under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019 being Retrenchment Compensation is exempted u/s.10(10C) of the Act. Relevant facts dealt with and finding of this Tribunal reads as under :

“2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Since common issues have been raised in the above appeals we proceed to adjudicate these appeals by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. All these appeals were heard together with the permission of Ld.AR and Ld.DR.

3. The common issue raised in these bunch of appeals is that whether the amount received from Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) on account of the forced retirement through the BNSL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019 is in the nature of Retrenchment Compensation and is a Capital receipt not liable to be taxed as per the provisions of section 10(10B) of the Act.

4. Brief facts relating to all the assessee(s) in the instant appeals are that they are employed with BSNL which is under administrative control of Department of Telecommunications, Govt. of India. In order to revive BSNL, the Union Cabinet in its meeting dated 23.10.2019 approved the revival plan of BSNL and Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Mumbai (MTNL) vide Office Memorandum dated 29.10.2019 issued by Department of Telecommunications. As part of the revival package the Government decided to reduce the work force through BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019 to the employees of aged 50 years and above and on such retirement Ex-gratia compensation has been paid. The amount so received by the instant employees is stated to have been offered to tax after claiming exemption u/s.10(10C) of the Act Rs.5.00 lakh and have paid the due taxes on the remaining amount of compensation over and above Rs.5.00 lakhs (in cases where such compensation exceeds Rs.5.00 lakhs). Admittedly, in this bunch of appeals the claim that the entire amount of compensation received from BSNL being Capital receipt is not liable to tax as per the provisions of section 10(10B) of the Act has been made for the first time before Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (appeal). It is also noticed that in some cases ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals on account of delay in filing of the appeals and in some cases ld.CIT(A) has not entertained the new claim made for the first time holding that the same should have been made in the revised return of income. Aggrieved with the finding of ld.CIT(A), the assessee(s) are in appeal before this Tribunal.

5. Counsel for the assessee at the outset justifying the delay in filing of appeals before ld.CIT(A) submitted that the issue of claiming benefit of exemption u/s.10(10B) of the Act for the amount received as compensation from BSNL for the force retirement has been adjudicated by the Coordinate Benches of Chandigarh as well as Ahmedabad and other Tribunals consistently holding in favour of the assessee(s). He also submitted that in various cases dealt by the Coordinates Benches, the alleged claim of exemption u/s.10(10B) of the Act has been made for the first time and the same has been admitted by the Tribunal and relief has been granted. Reliance placed on the decision of Coordinate Bench, Ahmedabad in the case of Jayesh Kumar Tulsidas Sutaria Vs. ITO (2026) 183 taxmann.com 587 (Ahmedabad-Trib.)

6. So far as the claim that the alleged sum received in the form of Retrenchment Compensation from BSNL under the forced retirement is a Capital receipt not chargeable to tax and exemption available u/s.10(10B) of the Act has been decided in favour of the assessee(s), ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance in the following decisions:

1. Harish Kumar Vs. ITO (2025) 175 com 379 (Chandigarh-Trib.)

2. Dayal Singh Vs. ITO – ITA 519/cHD/2024

3. Suresh Pal Chauhan vs. ITO (2023) 154 com 529 (Chandigarh-Trib.)

4. Hindustan Photo Film Workers Welfare Centre Vs. Govt. of India (2017) 79 com 298 (Madras)

5. CIT (TDS) Vs. Hindustan Photo Film Workers Welfare Centre (2021 129 com 356 (Madras)

6. Union of India Vs. M/s. Hindustan Photo Film Workers Welfare Centre and others _ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.37247/2017

7. Shree Rajeshwar Sharma Vs. ITO – ITA No.870/CHD/2018

8. CIT Vs. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd.(1967) 66 ITR 710 (SC)

9. PCIT Vs. Karnataka State Cooperative Federation Ltd. (2021) 128 com 1 (Karnataka)

10. CIT Vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (2012) 23 com 23 (Bombay)

7. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the orders of ld.CIT(A) and submitted that firstly the assessee(s) have not made this claim in the regular returns of income and themselves paid due taxes and such claim ought to have been made through revised return. He also submitted that the sum received from BSNL is on account of Voluntary Retirement Scheme and for such amount received under the VRS, 2019, the assessee(s) are only eligible for the exemption to the extent of Rs.5.00 lakh as provided u/s.10(10C) of the Act.

7.1 Further, ld. DR has filed written submissions and the same are reproduced herein below:

3. The Revenue submits that the recent Tribunal orders, originating in Harish Kumar v. ITO [2025] 175 taxmann.com 379 (Chandigarh – Trib.) by Chandigarh Bench and followed by the Mumbai, Pune and Ahmedabad Benches, are founded upon an erroneous extension of the logic of Section 10(10B) to the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS), 2019. It is a fundamental misapplication of the “Closure Doctrine” established in the Hindustan Photo Film Workers’ Welfare Centre (CITU) v. Govt. of India [2017] 79 taxmann.com 298 (Madras) (“HPF”) case. The Revenue also places emphasis on countering the findings in Rajendra Himmatrao Patil vs. ITO (ITA Nos. 302/PUN/2026), Meghmala Sudhir Pathak vs. ITO (ITA Nos. 290/PUN/2026), and Shraddha Pralhad Arote vs. ITO (ITA Nos. 262/PUN/2026).

4. The core of this dispute rests on whether a tax tribunal can transform a voluntary exit from a reviving entity into an involuntary retrenchment from a dying one. It is submitted that these rulings have not appreciated the primary distinction between a “Going Concern” in revival and an undertaking in liquidation.

5. Section 10(10B), reproduced below, contains Explanation (a), which creates a deeming fiction; compensation paid at the time of “closing down of the undertaking” is deemed to be retrenchment:

“[(10B) any compensation received by a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), or under any other Act or Rules, orders or notifications issued thereunder or under any standing orders or under any award, contract of service or otherwise, [at the time of his retrenchment: Provided that the amount exempt under this clause shall not exceed-

(i) an amount calculated in accordance with the provisions of clause (b) of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947); or

[(ii) such amount, not being less than fifty thousand rupees, as the Central Government may, by notification 79 in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf,] whichever is less :

Provided further that the preceding proviso shall not apply in respect of any compensation received by a workman in accordance with any scheme which the Central Government may, having regard to the need for extending special protection to the workmen in the undertaking to which such scheme applies and other relevant circum- stances, approve in this behalf.]

Explanation.-For the purposes of this clause-

(a) compensation received by a workman at the time of the closing down of the undertaking in which he is employed shall be deemed to be compensation received at the time of his retrenchment;

(b) compensation received by a workman, at the time of the transfer (whether by agreement or by operation of law) of the ownership or management of the undertaking in which he is employed from the employer in relation to that undertaking to a new employer, shall be deemed to be compensation received at the time of his re-trenchment if-

(i) the service of the workman has been interrupted by such transfer; or

(ii) the terms and conditions of service applicable to the workman after such transfer are in any way less favourable to the workman than those applicable to him immediately before the transfer; or

(iii) the new employer is, under the terms of such transfer or otherwise, legally not liable to pay to the workman, in the event of his retrenchment, compensation on the basis that his service has been continuous and has not been interrupted by the transfer;

80(c) the expressions “employer” and “workman” shall have the same meanings as in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947);]”

6. The appellants consistently rely on HPF case. However, HPF and BSNL represent two opposite poles of corporate existence. In HPF, the Hon’ble Madras High Court was dealing with a company that had officially ceased operations. Para 6 of the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court is reproduced herewith:

“The Government of India decided to close down the company… For specific purpose of enabling employees to come out of financial crisis, Government approved a non- budgetary support… same being compensation under section 10(10B) would be exempted.”

7. However, the BSNL facts are different. As per the Cabinet Note dated 29.10.2019, the BSNL scheme was part of a “Revival Package” involving 4G spectrum allotment and debt restructuring.)

11. The Tribunals in Harish Kumar (Chandigarh) and Rajendra Patil (Pune) have erroneously held that the BSNL VRS was “Retrenchment in the garb of VRS” due to financial stress. Section 10(10B) imports the definition of “Retrenchment” from Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (IDA). Section 2(oo) of IDA explicitly excludes “voluntary retirement”:

“[(oo) “retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include-(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or 3[(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or]

(c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health;]”

12. In BSNL VRS-2019, the separation was triggered by the employee’s “Option.” In retrenchment, the employer triggers the exit unilaterally. The law says “A is not B.” The Tribunals’ interpretation is that “A is B” because the employer was in financial distress. In BSNL VRS-2019, the employee exercised a “Voluntary Option” on a portal. This mutuality removes the stigma of retrenchment.

8. We are of the considered opinion that Ld.CIT(A) should have condoned the delay as assessee had filed elaborate explanation regarding delay and there was sufficient cause for delay. These Assessees have filed Returns of Income based on professional Advice received at that point of time. However, subsequently they made revised claim before CIT(A).

8.1 Substantial justice is more important than the procedural delay. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani vs DCIT [2017] 398 ITR 250 (Bombay) has condoned the delay of 2984days , which was on account of professional advice of a CA.

9. The identical issue of BSNL employees is decided by ITAT Pune in favour of assessee in ITA Nos.290 and 293/PUN/2026,ITA Nos.294 and 295/PUN/2026. ITAT Pune has relied on the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Jayeskumar Sutaria vs ITO ,ITAT has extensively reproduced the decision and finally allowed the appeal of the assessee. The relevant paragraph of the said order is reproduced here under :

Quote, “15. Further, I find the Coordinate Bench, Ahmedabad in the case of Jayeshkumar Tulsidas Sutaria Vs. ITO (supra) following the decision of Coordinate Bench, Chandigarh in the case of Harish Kumar vs. ITO Ward- 5(5), Chandigarh -ITA No. 42/CHD/2025 order dated 30.05.2025 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by observing as under :

“3. The assessee was employed with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), a Government of India enterprise. BSNL notified the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) 2019 on 04.11.2019, which was duly approved and implemented by the employer. The assessee opted for the scheme and accordingly received compensation under the VRS, as per the terms laid down by BSNL. It is submitted that the assessee had not been paid regular salary for several months prior to opting for the scheme and was under severe financial and professional uncertainty. In view of these circumstances, the assessee opted for the scheme as a measure of financial security. The compensation received by the assessee was in the nature of compensation under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme. The compensation amount received under the scheme was offered to tax in the return of income due to lack of awareness regarding the exemption available under section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The employer had also deducted tax at source on the said amount. No exemption was claimed in the original or revised return of income. The CPC, Bengaluru issued an intimation under section 143(1) for the said year without granting any exemption, and no rectification or appeal was initiated at that time. It was only upon learning about the recent judgment of the Hon’ble ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Harish Kumar vs. ITO Ward 5(5), Chandigarh (ITA No. 42/CHD/2025, dated 30.05.2025) that the assessee became aware that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under section 10(10B), subject to compliance with Rule 2BA.

4. Aggrieved by the orders of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee as non maintainable by observing as follows:

“…In the present case, the delay in filing of the appeal is almost four years which is an inordinate and huge delay. Moreover, as has been elaborately discussed above, the appellant has also failed to provide any reasonable ground that could assist the first appellate authority to draw sufficient cause for the inordinate delay of 1,396 days in filing of this appeal. The inordinate delay in the present case, if condoned, would make the term ‘’Sufficient cause” in section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 hollow and meaningless.

20. In light of the facts of the case, provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and judicial decisions in the matter as discussed above, I am constrained to conclude that the appellant has failed to submit any reasonable ground for condoning the inordinate delay of 1,396 days i.e almost four years in filing this appeal. Being bereft of any sufficient cause as envisaged in section 249(3) of the Act, the appeal cannot be admitted. Since the appeal is not maintainable, there is no need to adjudicate on the merits therein.

5. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld.CIT(A, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

6. We have gone through the records and considering the merits of the case, we condoned the delay and proceed to adjudicate the issue.

7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to lack of awareness of the legal provisions at the time of filing the return of income, the assessee inadvertently offered the compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 to tax. Subsequently, based on the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT Chandigarh Bench in Harish Kumar vs. ITO Ward 5(5), Chandigarh (ITA No. 42/CHD/2025 dated 30.05.2025), wherein compensation under the same BSNL VRS-2019 scheme was held to be exempt under section 10(10B), the assessee now seeks exemption of such compensation. We find that the assessee filed theclaim before the Ld. CIT(A) and since the income of the assessee is not taxable, the assessee is eligible for the refund of the TDS.

8. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.”

16. The contention of ld. DR that only a ‘workman’ as defined under the Act is eligible for benefit u/s.10(10B) of the Act has no force as the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Hindustan Photo Film Workers Welfare Centre vs. Govt. of India (2018) 400 ITR 299 (Madras) has held that benefit u/s.10(10B) would be applicable to all employees covered by the scheme.

17. In light of the above decisions which are squarely applicable on the facts of instant cases and the consistent view taken by the Coordinate Benches, I am of the considered view that the alleged sum is in the nature of Retrenchment Compensation received by the assessee(s) in appeal, under the forced retirement scheme as per the standing orders dated 29.10.2019 issued by the Union Cabinet for the revival plan of BSNL/MTNL and such compensation falls under the provisions of section 10(10B) of the Act and not u/s.10(10C) of the Act and therefore the alleged sum is in the nature of Capital receipt exempt from tax. In order to get relief as has been directed in this order, assessee(s) are directed to place revised computation of income before the respective Jurisdictional Assessing Officers claiming the exemption u/s.10(10B) of the Act as discussed (supra) and thereafter the Revenue authorities shall grant the refund (if any) entitled to the assessee(s) after due verification of such revised computation of income. Impugned findings of ld.CIT(A) are set aside. Common issue raised in the Grounds of appeal raised by respective assessee(s) stands allowed.”

9. Since the facts in the instant bunch of appeals are same, therefore, following the same parity of reasoning, I hold that the alleged sum received under BSNL Voluntary Retirement2019 Scheme is in the nature of Retrenchment Compensation received by the assessee(s) in appeal and such compensation falls under the provisions of section 10(10B) of the Act and not u/s.10(10C) of the Act and is in the nature of Capital receipt exempt from tax. Assessee(s) are directed to place revised computation of income before the respective Jurisdictional Assessing Officers claiming the exemption u/s.10(10B) of the Act of the alleged sum and thereafter the Revenue authorities shall compute the tax liability and grant the refund (if any) entitled to the assessee(s) after due verification of such revised computation of income. Impugned findings of ld.CIT(A) are set aside and the common issue raised in the Grounds of appeal by respective assessee(s) stands allowed.” Unquote.

10. Before us the Ld.AR also filed copies of the Orders of CIT(A) who have condoned the delay in identical facts and allowed the appeal of the assessee who were BSNL employees.

11. In following cases the CIT(A) has condoned the delay and allowed those BSNL employees Appeal on identical facts. It was submitted by Ld.AR that in these cases the Department has not filed any appeal. Ld.DR has not rebutted it. Thus, it is observed that CIT(A)’s have been taking different stand on identical issues. Consistency in judicial decisions is very important.

12. We have perused the submission of the Ld.DR. Ld. DR has not brought on record any contrary decision of Hon’ble High Court. We also find support from the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Vishnu Mohan T Nair v. Income Tax Officer, [ 2018] 61 ITR(T) 796 (Ahmedabad- Trib.), the operative portion of the said order is extracted below:

“While on this subject, it is also useful to take note of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Mahendra Singh Dhantwal v. Hindustan Motors Ltd. [1985] 20 Taxman 1/152 ITR68, wherein compensation in lieu of reinstatement was treated as eligible for retrenchment compensation under section 10(10B). To us, the takeaway from this judgment seems to be that it is not the form but the substance that matters so far definition of retrenchment compensation is concerned. Right now we are dealing with an employee who is giving up his source of livelihood under the threat of dislocation, and the hyper technical interpretations based on technicalities about the wordings in the settlement deed, signed by him under these compelling circumstances, is being taken as the understanding about assessee’s actual conduct; that is too pedantic an approach and it cannot meet our approval. Let us also not forget that while taking calls on these issues, which deal with employees in the lower rung of hierarchy, we must not be too pedantic or hyper technical in approach. We have to be pragmatic in approach and we must give full effect to the true intent of the public welfare provisions. To us, the arrangement in question is nothing but a termination of employment with the offer of compensation. Viewed thus, the payment in question cannot be anything but retrenchment compensation.

10. In our considered view, the conditions of section 10(10B), so far as eligibility for exemption is concerned, is satisfied. That, however, is not the end of the matter”.

13. However, we are bound by the decision of ITAT Pune on identical facts mentioned above. Respectfully following the decision of ITAT Pune (supra), ITAT Ahmedabad & ITAT Chandigarh, we hold that the impugned amounts were exempt from tax. Assessee(s) are directed to place revised computation of income before the respective Jurisdictional Assessing Officers claiming the exemption u/s.10(10B) of the Act of the alleged sum and thereafter the Revenue authorities shall compute the tax liability and grant the refund (if any) entitled to the assessee(s) after due verification of such revised computation of income. Impugned findings of ld.CIT(A) are set aside and the common issue raised in the Grounds of appeal by respective assessee(s) stands allowed.”

6. We find that the decision of this Tribunal in case of is Prathibha Jagdish Unawane Vs. ITO (supra) is squarely applicable on the facts and issues raised in the instant bunch of appeals and respectfully following the same we hold that the alleged sum received by the respective employees from BSNL under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019 is in the nature of Retrenchment Compensation and is exempt u/s.10(10C) of the Act. Findings of ld.CIT(A) are reversed and Grounds of appeal raised by the respective assessee(s) are allowed.

7. In the result, all the appeals of respective assessee(s) are allowed.

Order pronounced on this 20^th May, 2026.