Hyderabad ITAT: Full 10(10B) Exemption for BSNL VRS-2019; 1,811-Day Delay Condoned

Srimathi Chellaswamy Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)

Hyderabad ITAT: BSNL VRS-2019 Compensation Eligible for Full Exemption u/s 10(10B); Delay up to 1,811 Days Condoned

The Hyderabad ITAT, in a consolidated order covering 13 appeals of former BSNL employees, held that compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019 (VRS-2019) is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, subject to verification of the statutory conditions. The employees had originally claimed only ₹5 lakh exemption under Section 10(10C) and offered the balance compensation to tax. They subsequently came to know that the compensation could be claimed as fully exempt under Section 10(10B) and filed appeals, in some cases after delays ranging from 503 to 1,811 days.

On the issue of delay, the Tribunal followed its earlier decision in Nizamuddin Gooty & Others, the Bangalore ITAT rulings in Basappa Balarama and Murthy Rangappa, and importantly the Telangana High Court judgment in Sri Vissamsetty Ramakrishna v. PCIT, which emphasised that condonation applications involving genuine hardship should be considered with a pragmatic and liberal approach. Accordingly, the ITAT condoned the delays.

On merits, the Tribunal reiterated the consistent view that BSNL VRS-2019 compensation qualifies for exemption under Section 10(10B). The fact that the assessees had not claimed the exemption in their original/revised returns did not justify rejection of the claim merely on technical grounds; the claim had to be examined on merits.

However, the ITAT did not grant the exemption mechanically to every employee. It restored the matter to the AO to verify whether each assessee satisfies the requirements of Section 10(10B), particularly whether the concerned employee qualifies as a “workman” contemplated by the provision. Upon such verification, the AO was directed to grant the exemption in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessees.

Cases Discussed:

• Sri Vissamsetty Ramakrishna Vs. PCIT & Others (Telangana High Court), Writ Petition No.19498 of 2026 dated 15.07.2026
• Nizamuddin Gooty & others Vs. Addl/JCIT (ITAT Hyderabad), ITA No.903, 904, 907 to 914, 921 to 924 /Hyd/2026 for A.Ys. 2020-21 & 2021-22
• Suman Nandlal Raval (ITAT Ahmedabad), ITA Nos. 2389 & 2390/Ahd/2025 dated 18.02.2026
• Jayeshkumar Tulsidas Sutaria (ITAT Ahmedabad), ITA Nos. 2387 & 2388/ Ahd/2025 dated 17.02.2026
• Basappa Balarama and Murthy Rangappa vs. ITO (ITAT Bengaluru), ITA Nos.1342 & 1427/Bang/2026 dated 29.05.2026
• Shri Sekar Gnanaprakasam Vs. DCIT (ITAT Chennai), ITA Nos.1608 & 1609/CHNY/2026, dated 21.05.2026
• Harish Kumar vs. ITO (ITAT Chandigarh), ITA No. 42/CHD/2025 dated 30.05.2025
• Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT, [284 ITR 323]
• CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court), [2012] 349 ITR 336 (Bom)
• NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT (SC), [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC)
• Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (SC), [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC)

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERABAD

These 13 appeals filed by different assessees are directed against the separate orders passed by the Learned Addl/JCIT(A) relating to the assessment years 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2024-25, the details whereof are given in the cause title. Since identical facts and common issues are involved in all these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

2. For the sake of brevity, the grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.1208/Hyd/2026 for A.Y. 2020-21 are only reproduced as under:

Ground 1: Error in holding that the appeal is not maintainable

• • The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal on the ground that it is not maintainable as it involves a fresh claim not made in the original or revised return.
  • The learned CIT(A) has erred in relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [284 ITR 323] without appreciating that the said decision has been explained and distinguished in subsequent decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
  • The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has consistently held that the appellate authority has the power to entertain fresh claims made for the first time in appellate proceedings, provided all the facts necessary for deciding the claim are on record. This principle has been laid down in NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC), CIT vs. Goetze (India) Ltd. [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC), and CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 336 (Bom).
  • In the present case, all the facts necessary for deciding the claim for exemption under Section 10(10B) are on record. The issue is purely a legal question of interpretation and application of Section 10(10B) to the admitted facts. The scheme approval, the amount received, and all material facts are undisputed and supported by documents.
  • The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the appellate authority under Section 251 has wide and plenary powers to examine the entire assessment and grant relief to the assessee, provided all the facts are on record.

Ground 2: Error in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal

• • The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in refusing to condone the delay of approximately 4 years 3 months in filing the appeal, despite the Appellant furnishing a detailed explanation for the delay, which constitutes sufficient cause.
  • The delay occurred due to bona fide and genuine reasons: reliance on erroneous Form 16 issued by BSNL, lack of professional advice at the time of filing, acceptance of return by CPC without adjustments, and the fact that the correct legal position became clear only after recent judicial precedents in 2025 and early 2026.
  • The delay was neither deliberate nor willful, and there was no negligence or laches on the part of the Appellant. The Appellant filed the appeal promptly after becoming aware of the entitlement to the exemption under Section 10(10B).
  • The learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that mere reliance on subsequent judicial precedents cannot be treated as a valid ground for condonation. The Appellant submits that awareness of the correct legal position through judicial precedents constitutes sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 249(3).
  • Denying relief to the Appellant on the ground of delay alone, without examining the merits, would result in grave injustice and would deprive the Appellant of a legitimate exemption available under the law.

Ground 3: Entitlement to full exemption under Section 10(188) – Substantive merits

• • Without prejudice to the grounds raised above on maintainability and condonation of delay, the Appellant submits that on merits, the entire ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 19,40,594/- received during Financial Year 2019.20 under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is fully exempt under the Second Proviso to Section 10(1013) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  • The BSNL VRS-2019 scheme was approved by the Central Government Cabinet on 23.10.2019 as part of a comprehensive revival and restructuring package for BSNL. The scheme was notified by the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India, vide notification dated 29.10.2019. The entire ex-gratia compensation was paid by BSNL using budgetary support provided by the Government of India.
  • The Second Proviso to Section 10(108) categorically provides that where the amount of compensation received by way of voluntary retirement is in accordance with any scheme approved by the Central Government, the entire amount so received shall be exempt from income tax.
  • Since the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme was approved by the Central Government and implemented with budgetary support from the Government of India, the entire ex-gratia compensation is fully exempt under the Second Proviso to Section 10(108), without any monetary ceiling.
  • The learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that exemption under section 10(10B) involves examination of factual aspects beyond the scope of summary processing under section 143(1). All factual aspects are admitted and on record, and the only issue is the correct legal interpretation of Section 10(108).

Ground 4: Consistent judicial view in favor of BSNL VAS-2019 retirees

• • The Hon’ble ITAT, Chandigarh, in the case of Harish Kumar vs. ITO (ITA No. 42/CHD/2025) dated 30.05.2025, has categorically held that ex-gratia compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is fully exempt under the Second Proviso to Section 10(108) of the Act, without any monetary ceiling.
  • Similarly, the Hon’ble ITAT, Ahmedabad, in the cases of Jayeshku mar Tulsidas Su taria (ITA Nos. 2387 & 2388/ Ahd/2025) dated 17.02.2026 and Suman Nandlal Raval (ITA Nos. 2389 & 2390/Ahd/2025) dated 18.02.2026, has followed the same view and granted full exemption under Section 10(10B) to BSNL VRS-2019 retirees.
  • Most importantly, the Hon’ble ITAT, Pune Bench, vide consolidated order dated 03.2026 in multiple BSNL VRS-2019 cases (ITA Nos. 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295,2%, 297, 298, 299, 300, 308, 333, 334, 335, 337/FUN/2026 and others), has held that the Compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is fully exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Act.
  • The Hon’ble ITAT, Pune, in its order dated 24.03.2026, has specifically observed that the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme was a forced retirement scheme implemented as part of the revival plan of BSNL/MTNL approved by the Union Cabinet on 23.10.2019, and that the compensation received under this scheme falls under Section 10(10B) and not under Section 10(10C). The Tribunal held that the compensation is in the nature of capital receipt exempt from tax.
  • Multiple orders have been passed by various CIT(A)s across the country, granting relief to BSNL VRS-2019 retirees by allowing full exemption under Section 10(10B). These include orders from Faridabad, Coimbatore, Gwalior, Jaipur, Ludhiana, Ranchi, and Udaipur.
  • The learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the decisions of the Hon’ble ITAT, Chandigarh are distinguishable on facts and do not override the binding judgment in Goetze (India) Ltd. The ITAT decisions are directly applicable to the present facts, and the issue of fresh claims in appellate proceedings has been consistently allowed by various High Courts and the Supreme Court.

Ground 5: Principle of substantial justice

• • The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that technicalities should not stand in the way of substantial justice, and that the court should adopt a liberal and pragmatic approach while condoning delay, particularly when the delay is bona fide.
  • In the present case, denying relief to the Appellant on the ground of delay and maintainability, without examining the merits, would result in the Appellant being compelled to pay tax on an income that is statutorily exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Act.
  • The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred.

Ground 6: General Ground

• • The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify, or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of the appeal, in the interest of justice.

3. The common facts emerging from all the appeals are that the assessees were employees of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (“BSNL”), a Public Sector Undertaking under the administrative control of the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India. Pursuant to the decision of the Union Cabinet for revival of BSNL by, inter alia, reducing employee costs, administrative allotment of spectrum for 4G services and other restructuring measures, BSNL introduced the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019 (“VRS-2019”) for its employees aged 50 years and above by offering ex-gratia compensation. The assessees in the present batch of appeals opted for the said VRS-2019 and received ex-gratia compensation from BSNL during the relevant previous years corresponding to the assessment years under consideration. While making the payment, BSNL deducted tax at source. The assessees, while filing their returns of income for the respective assessment years, offered the ex-gratia compensation to tax after claiming exemption of ₹5,00,000/- under section 10(10C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). Consequently, the amount received in excess of ₹5,00,000/- was offered to tax. The returns of income of the assessee were processed by the Department under section 143(1) of the Act accepting the returned income without raising any demand.

4. Subsequently, the assessees came to know that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 was fully exempt under section 10(10B) of the Act. Accordingly, they preferred appeals before the Learned Addl/JCIT(A) against the intimations issued under section 143(1) of the Act. However, there was a substantial delay ranging from about 503 days to 1,811 days in filing the appeals before the Learned Addl/JCIT(A) . In some cases, the Learned Addl/JCIT(A) declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeals in limine. In the remaining cases, though the delay was condoned, the Learned Addl/JCIT(A) rejected the claim for exemption under section 10(10B) of the Act on the ground that the assessees had not made such claim by filing revised returns of income.

5. Aggrieved by the respective orders of the Learned Addl/JCIT(A), all the assessees are in appeal before this Tribunal. In respect of the appeals where the Learned Addl/JCIT(A) refused to condone the delay, the Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that under identical facts and circumstances, this Tribunal, in a batch of 14 appeals in the case of Nizamuddin Gooty & others Vs. Addl/JCIT in ITA No.903, 904, 907 to 914, 921 to 924 /Hyd/2026 for A.Ys. 2020-21 & 2021-22, has condoned similar delays in filing the appeals before the Learned Addl/JCIT(A). The Ld. AR invited our attention to para nos. 10 and 11 of the said order wherein the Tribunal, relying upon the decisions of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the cases of Basappa Balarama and Murthy Rangappa vs. ITO in ITA Nos.1342 & 1427/Bang/2026 dated 29.05.2026, condoned delays ranging from 1,114 days to 1,826 days. The Ld. AR further placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Sri Vissamsetty Ramakrishna Vs. PCIT & Others in Writ Petition No.19498 of 2026 dated 15.07.2026, wherein under identical circumstances the Revenue had rejected the assessee’s application for condonation filed under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court, however, set aside the said order and held that the Revenue ought to adopt a pragmatic and liberal approach while considering applications for condonation of delay where genuine hardship is established. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed that the delay in filing the appeals before the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) be condoned.

6. On merits, the Ld. AR submitted that under identical facts, this Tribunal in the aforesaid batch of 14 appeals in the case of Nizamuddin Gooty & others Vs. Addl/JCIT (supra), has held that the compensation received by the employees of BSNL under VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under section 10(10B) of the Act and directed the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) to grant the exemption after necessary verification. It was, therefore, prayed that similar relief be granted in the present batch of appeals.

7. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) supported the orders of the lower authorities. Without prejudice thereto, the Ld. DR submitted that even if the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under section 10(10B) of the Act, it still requires verification whether each individual assessee satisfies the conditions prescribed therein, particularly whether the concerned employee is a workman as contemplated under section 10(10B) of the Act. Accordingly, it was prayed that appropriate directions may be issued to the Ld. AO to verify the eligibility of each assessee before granting the exemption.

8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record including the case laws relied upon. Insofar as the appeals in which the Learned Addl/JCIT(A) declined to condone the delay are concerned, we find that an identical issue has already been considered by this Tribunal in a batch of 14 appeals in the case of Nizamuddin Gooty & others Vs. Addl/JCIT (supra), wherein at para nos. 10 and 11 of the said order, the Tribunal has held as under:

10. We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have also carefully considered a plethora of judicial precedents referred to by learned counsel for the assessees on this issue. Insofar as dismissal of the appeals filed by the assessees by the learned Addl/JCIT for the delay in filing the appeals, we find that, the very same issue has been considered by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Bengaluru in the case of Basappa Balarama and Murthy Rangappa (supra), and in para 15, the Tribunal has held as under:

“15. However, with respect to condonation of delay, the Id. AR submitted that the Id. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay as in the case of 72 cases before the Coordinate Benches across the country in the case of BSNL employees on identical facts and circumstances, delay has been condoned by the Id. CIT(A) itself ranging from 900 to 2000 days. The assessee has produced the list of 72 cases where the delay is condoned by the Id. CIT(A). Further in case of 144 appeals, the Coordinate Benches have condoned the delay in the case of BSNL employees on identical facts and circumstances. Thus on the parity itself, the appeal of the assessee should have been admitted by the Id. CIT(A). Accordingly, I reverse the order of the Id. CIT(A) in not condoning the delay.”

11. From the findings given by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Bengaluru, we find that, in an identical case of BSNL employees, the delay has been condoned by the learned Addl/JCIT himself in a number of cases, even though the delay was ranging between 900 days to 2000 days. The Tribunal further noted that, in more than 144 cases, the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunals have condoned the delay in the case of BSNL employees on identical facts and circumstances. Since the issue of condonation of delay in the case of BSNL employees has already been considered by various Benches of the Tribunal after examining the reasons given by them in the petitions filed for explaining the delay, in our considered view, by respectfully following the decision of the ITAT, Bengaluru Bench in the case of Basappa Balarama and Murthy Rangappa (supra), the delay in filing the present appeals before the learned Addl/JCIT ranging from 1,114 days to 1,826 days deserves to be condoned. Thus, we condone the delay in filing the appeals before the learned Addl/JCIT in all these cases.

9. On perusal of the above, we find that this Tribunal relying upon the decisions of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the cases of Basappa Balarama and Murthy Rangappa vs. ITO (supra) has condoned the delays ranging from 1,114 days to 1,826 days in filing the appeals before the Learned Addl/JCIT(A) . We have also carefully gone through the judgment of the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Sri Vissamsetty Ramakrishna Vs. PCIT & Others (supra), wherein at para nos.6 to 9 of the order the Hon’ble High Court has held as under:

6. When we look into the averments made in respect of identical claims being allowed by the Benches of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at Chandigarh, Ahmedabad, Pune, Mumbai, Indore and Bangalore, in identically placed BSNL retirees, this Court is of the considered view that when similar fact was brought to the notice of the respondent-Department, the respondents ought to have appreciated the bona fides of the petitioner and the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act seeking condonation of delay to file revised ITRs for the Assessment Years 2020-21 and 2021-22, ought to have been considered by the respondent-Department with a more pragmatic and liberal approach, by appreciating the genuine hardship that the petitioner had been put to or would be put to, in case if the application seeking for condo-nation is not allowed.

7. A plain reading of the impugned order does not disclose whether respondent No.1 had considered and appreciated the orders passed by Benches of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at Chandigarh, Ahmedabad, Pune, Mumbai, Indore and Bangalore, in identically placed BSNL retirees, and also by other Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in its proper perspective, more particularly, when those orders have not been chal-lenged any further and they have attained finality.

8. To make things worse for the respondent-Department, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before the Court another order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘SMC’ Bench, at Hyderabad, dated 03.07.2026, wherein in a batch of appeals the lead matter being I.T.A.Nos.903 and 904/HYD/2026, wherein similar view had been reiterated by the Bench. In the said judgment, it appears that similar view has also been followed earlier by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench in the case of Shri Sekar Gnanaprakasam vs. DCIT¹and also by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench in the case of Basappa Balarama and Murthy Rangappa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 12, wherein the Coordinate Benches across the country have granted relief and condoned the delay.

9. For all the aforesaid said reasons and also taking into consideration the consistent view taken by various Benches of the Tribunal across the country, we are inclined to allow the instant writ petition. The impugned order passed by respondent No.1 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 bearing DIN and Letter No.ITBA/COM/F/17/2026-27/1089643736(1), dated 12.06.2026, for the Assessment Years 2020-21 and 2021-22, stands quashed and set aside. The matter stands remitted to respondent No.1. The petitioner herein is permitted to file / submit revised Income Tax returns. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 is directed to consider the case of petitioner on merits.

10. On perusal of the above, we find that under substantially identical facts the Hon’ble High Court has held that the Revenue ought to have considered the condonation petition with a pragmatic and liberal approach, appreciating the genuine hardship suffered by the assessee if the delay were not condoned. Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court condoned the delay. Respectfully following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Telangana High Court as well as the decision of this Tribunal, we condone the delay in filing the appeals before the Learned Addl/JCIT(A) in all such cases.

11. Coming to the merits of the issue, we find that the identical controversy has already been adjudicated by this Tribunal in the aforesaid batch of 14 appeals in the case of Nizamuddin Gooty & others Vs. Addl/JCIT (supra), wherein at para nos. 12 to 15 of the said order, the Tribunal has held as under:

12. Having said so, let us come back to the issue on hand. Admittedly, the assessees in the present bunch of appeals are employees of BSNL and opted for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme – 2019 and received compensation in two financial years relevant to the A.Ys. 2020-21 and 2021-22. It is also an admitted fact that the assessees in the present cases had filed their returns of income for A.Y. 2020-21 and offered the compensation received from BSNL to tax after claiming exemption of Rs.5,00,000/- u/s 10(10C) of the Act and the same has been accepted by the A.O. in the order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act. However, the assessees in the present cases have made a fresh claim of exemption towards 100% compensation received from BSNL under Voluntary Retirement Scheme – 2019, u/s 10(10B) of the Act, for the first time before the learned Addl/JCIT and the claims made by the assessees were rejected by the learned Addl/JCIT on technical grounds of not making the claim by filing revised returns in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra). In other words, in all these cases, the claims made by the assessees have been rejected without examining the merits of the claims in light of the provisions of section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

13. The learned counsel for the assessees has cited a plethora of judicial precedents, including the decisions of various Benches of the Tribunals and we find that, in a number of cases, the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal across the country have taken a consistent view and held that, compensation received by the employees of BSNL under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme – 2019 is exempt u/s 10(10B) of the Act, and further directed the A.O. to allow exemption in respect of 100% of the compensation received from BSNL u/s 10(10B) of the Act, by accepting the revised statement of total income filed by the assessees and also directed the A.O. to determine the tax payable/refundable as per law.

14. We further note that, the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, Chennai Bench in the case of Shri Sekar Gnanaprakasam Vs. DCIT in ITA Nos.1608 & 1609/CHNY/2026, dated 21.05.2026, under an identical set of facts, held as under:

“11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, including the written submissions filed by the assessee and the judicial precedents relied upon. The short issue involved in the present appeals is whether the ex-gratia compensation received by the assessee under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption u/s.10(10B) of the Act. From the materials placed before us, it is evident that the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme was formulated pursuant to the revival package approved by the Government of India and the Union Cabinet on 23.10.2019. It is further borne out from the records that the compensation payable under the scheme was funded through Government budgetary support. During the course of hearing, the assessee present submitted that though the nomenclature is mentioned as VRS, it is in effect a retrenchment scheme, since BSNL could not pay salary to employees just before rolling out the scheme. Therefore, the scheme partakes the character of a Government-approved retrenchment compensation scheme and cannot be treated as an ordinary voluntary retirement scheme simpliciter.

12. We further find that identical issue had come up for consideration before the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Harish Kumar vs. ITO, wherein the Tribunal held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption u/s.10(10B) of the Act. Similar view has also been consistently taken by various appellate authorities across the country in the cases relied upon by the assessee. The Revenue has not brought on record any contrary judicial precedent to take a different view in the matter.

13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the judicial precedents cited supra, we hold that the ex-gratia compensation received by the assessee under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption u/s.10(10B) of the Act. Consequently, the additions made by taxing the ex-gratia compensation are directed to be deleted. The AO is also directed to grant consequential relief, in accordance with law, in respect of exemption claimed u/s.10(10AA) of the Act, if otherwise found eligible.”

15. In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also by respectfully following the decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunals referred to hereinabove, we are of the considered view that, compensation received by the assessees in the present cases from BSNL under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme – 2019, is exempt u/s 10(10B) of the Act. Therefore, we direct the A.O. to verify the claim of the assessees in light of our findings given hereinabove and allow exemption claimed by the assessees for both the assessment years u/s 10(10B) of the Act, and determine the tax payable/refundable, if any, to the assessees as per law.

12. On perusal of the above, we find that this Tribunal has held that the compensation received by the employees of BSNL under the VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under section 10(10B) of the Act and directed the Ld. AO to verify the claim and grant the exemption in accordance with law. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, we hold that the compensation received by the assessees from BSNL under VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under section 10(10B) of the Act. At the same time, we find merit in the submission of the Ld. DR that the eligibility of each assessee is required to be verified with reference to the statutory requirement of section 10(10B) of the Act, particularly whether the concerned employee falls within the category of a workman contemplated under the said provision. Accordingly, we restore the matter to the file of the Ld. AO with a direction to verify whether the respective assessees satisfy the conditions prescribed under section 10(10B) of the Act, including whether they qualify as workman, and thereafter grant the exemption in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessees.

13. In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms of our above observation.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 7^th August, 2026.