MADHAVANAND BHATT,HALDWANI , NAINITAL vs. ITO WARD 7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 452/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 April 2026AY 2020-216 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction for leave encashment as claimed in the return of income under Section 10(10AA) of the Act, as the limit was increased to Rs. 25,00,000 by a notification.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed leave encashment as exempt under Section 10(10AA) of the Income Tax Act. The lower authorities restricted the deduction, but the assessee argued for a higher limit based on a subsequent CBDT notification.

What were the issues?

Whether the revised limit for leave encashment exemption under Section 10(10AA) is applicable retrospectively, and if the assessee is entitled to the full exemption based on the revised limit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(10AA)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-

For Appellant: Shri Madhavanand Bhatt, Assessee
For Respondent: Shri Saresa Kartik Laxmanbhai, Sr. DR
Hearing: 15.04.2026Pronounced: 27.04.2026

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- Delay Condoned This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 27.02.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2020-21.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 2. As per CBDT chapter 3 of income tax act, 1961 rule number 10 (10 AA), the payment of leave encashment (LE) at the time of retirement is non taxable. There are two sub clauses of section 10(10AA), Sub- clause 1st made for govt. emps which clearly says that any amount received by emps of sub-section Ist is tax free. The emps other than govt.a re covered under sub-clause 2nd. As per this CBDT wants four

ITA No. 452/Ahd/2026 Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 2– points calculation from the emps& least amount of these four points shall be exempt. 1. Actual amount received. 2. Only 30 days earned leave in each year shall be considered for the whole service period. 3.Maximum 10 months LE amount shall be considered calculated on the basis of 10 months average salary. 4. Subject to such a limit as the central govt may by gazette notification (GN) in the official gazette, specify in this behalf having regard to the limit applicable in this behalf to the emps of that govt. As per above rules CBDT is giving exemption equal to exemption received.

3.

At the time of hearing assessee relied upon the following decisions of Co-ordinate Benches of ITAT.

1.

ITA no.289/Ahd/2025 dated 28.07.2025 in the case of Goverdhan D Bhambhani Vs. ITO 2. ITA Nos.81/Del/2025 dated 21.04.2025 in the case of Neelam Gupta Vs. Addl./JCIT 3. ITA No.1280/JPR/2025 dated 01.01.2026 in the case of Ram Dev Daiya Vs. ITO 4. ITA No.295/Ahd/2026 dated 07.04.2026 in the case of Mohdhusain Gulamhussain Qureshi Vs. ITO 4. Heard the argument of both the parties and perused the material available on record.

5.

At the outset, both the parties fairly submitted that the issue raised by the assessee in the present appeal stands covered by the order of the Tribunal in the case of Mohdusassain Quereshu Vs. ITO for AY 2020-21 dated 07.04.2026. For the sake of ready reference, the operative portion of said order is reproduced as under:

ITA No. 452/Ahd/2026 Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 3– 7. At the outset, both the parties fairly submitted that the issue raised by the assessee in the present appeal stands covered by the order of the Tribunal in the case of Goverdhan D Bhambhani Vs. ITO for AY 2020-21 dated 28.07.2025. For the sake of ready reference, the operative portion of said order is reproduced as under: 3. The CBDT's Notification dated 24.05.2023 (No. 31/2023/F.No. 200/3/2023-ITA-1) (copy enclosed Page no. 1) clearly states that "S.O. 2276(E).-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (ii) of clause (1044) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government, having regard to the maximum amount receivable by its employees as cash equivalent of leave salary in respect of the period of earned leave at their credit at the time of their retirement, whether superannuation or otherwise, hereby specifies the amount of Rs. 25,00,000 (twenty-five lakhs rupees only) as the limit in relation to employees mentioned in that sub-clause who retire, whether on superannuation or otherwise. 2. This notification shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from the 1st day of April, 2023. [Notification No. 31/2023/F. No. 200/3/2023-ITA-I] SOURABH JAIN, Under Secy. Explanatory Memorandum: It is hereby certified that no person is being adversely affected by giving retrospective effect to this notification." 4. Thus in view of such notification section 10(10AA) sub section (i) & (ii) both are at par & since it is clear that as per explanatory memorandum that no person is being adversely affected by giving retrospective effect to this notification. Thus sec 10(10AA) (i) & (ii) both are at par (with RETROSPECTIVE effect & even the private employee on retirement are entitled for such higher limit of Rs. 25,00,000/-or actual amount received whichever is less; to claim u/sec 10 (10AA) of Act. It is requested to kindly consider & grant relief. Under similar circumstances number of decisions already granted by Jaipur Bench; details as below:-

ITA No. 452/Ahd/2026 Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 4–

(1) Govind Chatwani, Appeal No. ITA No. 385/JP/2023 dated 31.10.2023 copy as enclosed (Page 2108) (2) Devendra kumar Gupta M.A. No. 49/JP/2023 dated 18.02.2025 copy as enclosed.” 6. Ld. Sr. D.R. appearing for the Revenue supported the order passed by the lower authorities and requested to confirm the disallowance. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record. This issue of deduction u/s. 10(10AA)(ii) is no more res- integra based on the decisions passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Govind Chhatwani Vs. CIT(Appeals) in ITA No. 385/JP/2023 dated 31-10-2023 wherein it is held as follows: “7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. The bench noted that the apple of discord in this case that the assessee has received a sum of Rs. 17,68,479/- as leave encashment which was claimed in the return of income filed as exempt u/s 10(10AA) of the Act. The CPC and ld. CIT(A) contended that in the light of this specific notification being not issued the leave encashment allowable up to Rs. 3,00,000/- only whereas we note from the submission of the assessee that the assessee has relied upon the notification No. 31/2023/F.No. 200/3/2023-ITA-1 dated 24th May, 2023 and submitted that the revised limit of Rs. 25,00,000/- increased on account of leave salary is applicable and to be considered in the light of fact that government has issued this notification belatedly. The assessee has already claimed the leave salary as exemption the benefit should be given to the assessee. The similar issue has been decided by the bench in the case of Ram Charan Gupta in ITA No. 408/JP/2022 wherein the bench has already held as under:- “8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. The bench noted that the assessee relying the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court has issued a notice to the Union of India in the case of Kamal Kumar Kalia & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors in WP(C) 11846/2019 dated 08.11.2019 wherein the court has given following directions :- “8. We are however of the, prima facie, view that the grievances of the petitioner with regard to exemption

ITA No. 452/Ahd/2026 Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 5– limit under Clause (ii) of Section 10 (10AA) not being raised since 1998, appears to be justified. This is so because over the decades, the pay-scales admissible to government servants, and even employees of the Public Sector Undertaking and Nationalised Banks and all others have been upwardly revised, keeping in view, the financial growth in the country as well as on account of rising inflation. The last drawn salaries have increased manifold since time and notification issued under Clause (ii) of Section 10(10AA) was lastly issued, as taken note of hereinabove, on 31.05.2002. We therefore, issue notice to the respondents limited to this aspect. 9. Issue notice, learned counsel for the respondents accepts notice. Respondents should file counter affidavits be filed within six weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date. ” 8.1 Recently the Central Board of Direct Taxes Suomotu revised the limit for deduction u/s 10(10AA) of the Act and the revised limit now stood at Rs. 25,00,000 as specified vide notification no. 31/2023 issued by the ministry of finance. Since the leave encashment amount as claimed by the assessee is amount to Rs. 6,97,100/- which is below the revised limit of leave encashment exempt prescribed by the Board, the assessee is eligible to claim of deduction of said Rs. 6,97,100/-. Based on these observations the ld. AO is directed to allow the claim of the assessee u/s. 10(10AA) of the act within the revised limit as prescribed. In terms of these observations the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” On being consistent to the said finding, we held that the assessee is entitled to get the deduction as claimed in the return of income u/s 10(10AA) of the Act as the limit has been increased from 3 lac to 25 lacs. 8. Further this decision is followed in the case of Devendra Kumar Gupta Vs. CIT(Appeals) in M.A. No. 49/JP/2023 dated 18-02-2025. Thus respectfully following the above decisions, the restricting the deduction u/s. 10(10AA) of Rs. 4,65,404/- made by the lower authorities are not sustainable in law. Therefore the same is liable to be deleted.

ITA No. 452/Ahd/2026 Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 6–

6.

In the absence of any change in factual matrix and legal proposition brought to our notice, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 27.04.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (TR SENTHIL KUMAR) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 27.04.2026 MV आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy

सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad

More judgments on Section 10(10AA)

All 498 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(10AA) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →