RAJENDRA KUMAR BHANDARI,INDORE vs. ITO-1, RATLAM, RATLAM

Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M:

This is an appeal filed by the Assessee under section 253 of

the income tax Act 1961,[ hereinafter referred to as the Act

for the sake of brevity] before this tribunal, as & by way of a

second appeal .The Assessee is aggrieved by the order

bearing No:-ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1048849282(1)

dated 17.01.2023 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the

Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned

order”. The Relevant Assessment year is 2019-20 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2018 to

31.03.2019.

2.1 That the Assessee had filed a ROI on 31.08.2019 at Rs.

7, 79,460/-. The CPC restricted the claim of exemption on

the account of leave encashment amounting to Rs.

9,82,530/- to Rs. 3,00,000/-. Thereafter the assessee filed

a rectification u/s 154 dated 06.09.2021 stating that the

leave encashment exemption u/s 10 (10AA) of the Act

claimed at Rs. 9, 82,530/- was not allowed. Thus the

rectification u/s 154 was processed by the CPC dated

01.11.2021 restricting the claim of the said exemption of

Rs. 9,82,530/- to Rs. 3,00,000/-. That the said

rectification order u/s 154 is hereinafter referred to as the

“Rectified Assessment Order u/s 154 dated 01.11.2021”,

for the sake of convenience and ease.

2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid

“Rectified Assessment Order u/s 154 dated 01.11.2021”

prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the act before the Ld.

CIT (A) who by the “Impugned Order” has dismissed the

first appeal of the assessee on the grounds and the reasons

stated therein. The core grounds and the reasons for the

dismissal of the first appeal were as under:- 2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned

Order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this

tribunal and has raised the following grounds of appeal in

the form no. 36 against the “Impugned Order” which are as

under:-

3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal

on 09.07.2026 when the Assessee appeared in person. He

repeated and reiterated the grounds of appeal. It was

submitted that the issue is a covered one by several

decisions of ITAT. The revenue relied upon the “Impugned

Order”. The hearing was over and closed.

4.1 We have to decide the legality, validity and proprietary of the

“impugned order” basis records of the case & the rival

submission canvassed before us.

4.2 We have carefully perused the records of the case and have

heard the submissions.

4.3 We are of the considered view that the above issue raised

by the assessee is covered one as several coordinate

benches of this tribunal has given the benefit up to Rs.

25 Lakh basis notification no:- SO2276(E) of CBDT dated

24.05.2023 [CBDT notification no:- 31/2023]. The said

notification has been construed liberally too. In this

regard we gainfully refer to the decision of this tribunal in

case of Anil Kumar Shukla V/s CIT (A)/CPC in ITA No:-

76/Ind/2026 wherein the following was held which is

reproduced by us as below:- 4.4 Accordingly “Impugned Order” is set aside and the

matter is remand back to the file of the Ld. AO for the limited

purpose of re computing the amount of exemption u/s 10

(10AA) by applying the revised /increased limit of Rs. 25

Lakh. The addition shall stand deleted upon re-computation

by the Ld. AO by giving effect to the revised /increased limit

[Supra].

5 Order

5.1 The appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical

purpose.

Pronounced in open court on 30.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (PARESH M JOSHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Indore Dated: 30/07/2026 Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File

By order UE COPY Senior Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore

Page 11 of 11