B.S. AHUJA, J.M. point at issue in this appeal by assessee against order under s. 263 of IT Act, 1961 passed by CIT Pune is whether deduction under s. 1 0 (10 AA) of IT Act, 1961 can be claimed by assessee in respect of leave salary received by him on voluntary resignation from his services as Shipping Captain employed by Shipping Corporation of India. CIT is of opinion tha deduction under this section is available only on retirement and not on voluntary resignation. We have heard ld. counsel for assessee and departmental representative. ld. counsel for assessee pointed out that assessee had resigned after 18 years of service. Madras High Court has held in CIT vs. R.J. Shaney (1986) 54 CTR (Mad) 360: (1986) 159 ITR 160 (Mad) that provisions of s. 10(10AA) apply in respect of encashment of salary, even to case of voluntary retirement on account of resignation. ld. departmental representative, however, pointed out that this very Bench of Tribunal took contrary view at Goa camp in ITA No. 979/PN/84 dt. Feb., 1986. contention raised is that if we are inclined to take different view, we may refer matter to larger Bench. departmental representative also argued that matter before Madras High Court was under s. 256(2) and as held by Supreme Court in CIT vs. Managing Trustee. Jalakhabai Trust (1967/66 ITR 619 (SC) there was no binding judgment of High Court to effect that decision of Tribunal was correct. We have considered rival contentions. After Goa camp where contrary view was taken, Madras High Court's ruling came to be reported and since then in Bombay Benches, we have been following Madras High Court's ruling. If Madras High Court had dismissed application under s. 256(2) without any discussion, then indeed argument of learned departmental representative that there was no binding ruling of High Court would have been correct. But that cannot apply to case like this, where High Court gives reasons and also finding that retirement may be of various kinds and it may be on superannuation or voluntary and if there is any voluntary retirement from services, provisions of s. 10(10AA) would apply, it is not open for us to hold that there is no decision of High Court in this regard. We hold that, High Court has decided issue and we respectfully follow same, allow appeal, set aside order of CIT and restore that of ITO. *** S.D. PIMPALKHARE v. INCOME TAX OFFICER