BHARAT HARISINGH SHENGAR,PARLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AURANGABAD

There was a delay of 20 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for delay. We have perused the affidavit and convinced that there was sufficient cause for delay. Substantial justice is more important than procedural delay. No assessee is going to gain by filing the appeal belatedly. Accordingly, delay condoned.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. On facts and in law, the learned Assessing Officer and CIT(A), NFAC, erred in disallowing exemption under Section 10(10AA) of ₹8,49,501 received by the appellant on retirement, despite the production of primary evidence including retirement order, leave encashment slip, and bank statement.

The brief facts as emanating from the statement of facts of the assessee are as under : “1. The appellant retired from Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. on 31.01.2020, after long and continuous service.

In this case, the assessee had claimed exemption u/s 10(10AA) of the Act on account of leave encashment. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) denied the assessee’s claim of leave encashment as the amount of leave encashment was not clear from Form No. 16 issued by the assessee’s employer, Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition. During the proceedings before this Tribunal, the Ld. AR filed paper book with additional evidences. The Ld. AR requested for admission of the additional evidences. The Ld. AR filed following documents as additional evidences : 1. Retirement Order dated 31.01.2020. 2. Leave Encashment Slip/Payslip. 3. Bank Statement. 4. Copy of Form 16 Case Law Compilation. 5. Income Tax Return.

The Ld. AR submitted that these documents goes to prove that the assessee had received leave encashment of Rs.8,49,501/- and the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 10(10AA) of the Act on account of leave encashment received on retirement.

In this case, admittedly, the assessee had filed additional evidences which were not filed before the AO and the Ld. CIT(A). Since, these documents goes to the root of the issue, we admit the additional evidences filed by the assessee. The Ld. AR also relied on the decision in the case of Shyam Sunder Sahni Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 129/Del/2025, vide order dated 21.04.2025. In the said case, Mr. Shyam Sunder Sahni was working with

However, in the case of the assessee, the assessee has filed additional evidences and we have admitted the additional evidences as discussed in earlier paragraphs, in the interest of justice, we set aside the issue to the file of the AO for limited purpose of verifying the quantum of leave encashment received by the assessee as per retirement order, leave encashment slip and other documents relied by the assessee. The assessee will be entitled for exemption u/s 10(10AA) of the Act on the amount received as leave encashment on retirement. In these facts, for limited purpose we set aside the order to the AO. The AO shall provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16th July, 2026