KAILASH CHANDRA KUMHAR,TONK vs. ITO WD, TONK, TONK
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's age, reliance on a tax consultant, and the consultant's negligence. On merits, the Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the entire exemption amount of leave encashment in view of the revised limits specified by CBDT Notification No. 31/2023.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a retired employee, claimed exemption for leave encashment under Section 10(10AA) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) disallowed a portion of this claim, holding that the maximum exemption was Rs. 3,00,000. The appeal was filed with a significant delay.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned, and whether the assessee is entitled to the full exemption on leave encashment considering the revised limits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR
Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH & SHRI PRAKASH, ACCOUNTANCT MEMBER
PER : KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
The Appellant, Kailash Chandra Kumhar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as the ‘JCIT(A)’] qua assessment year 2020-21 on the ground that:-
I.T.A No. 301/JPR/2026 Page No 2 Kailash Chandra Kumhar
“1. A per CBDT chapter 3 of income tax act, 1961 rule number 10(10AA), the payment of leave encashment (LE) at the time of retirement is non taxable. There were two sub clauses of section 10(10AA) , Sub-clause 1st made for govt. emps which clea
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 10(10AA)
- Mohan Singh Rajawat, Jaipur vs ITO WD 7(1), JaipurITA 228/JPR/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Abhay Hiralal Gandhi, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-6(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 1955/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Usmangani Ahemadbhai Manva, Modasa vs ITO, Ward-1, ModasaITA 2526/AHD/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Usmangani Ahemadbhai Manva, Modasa vs ITO, Ward-1, ModasaITA 2525/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Rasiklal Arjanbhai Kobia, Upleta vs ITO WD 2(2)(3), RKT, RajkotITA 1119/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Heard1 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ramesh K Devadiga And Ors vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co-Operative Housing Society LTD And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Permender Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Swarnapai Chemicals (Opc) Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IOrissa · 14 Oct 2026