JAGDISH PRASAD BHARGAVA,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO WD 1, JHUNJHUNU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 660/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 August 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that claims for exemption not made in the original return can be entertained by appellate authorities even without a revised return, following the Supreme Court's decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. vs CIT. Therefore, the claim for gratuity and leave encashment was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a retired employee, initially filed a return of income without claiming exemptions for gratuity and leave encashment. A revised return was filed later, but the application for rectification was rejected as the revised return was belated. The CIT(A) upheld this decision.

What were the issues?

Whether appellate authorities can entertain claims for exemption not made in the original return, even if a revised return was not filed or was belatedly filed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Prakash

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, CA &, Ms. Apeksha Kalra, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh

आदेश/ORDER

PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the assessee as against the appellate order dated 29.01.2026 passed by Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Pune (in short referred to as “CIT”), arising out of the rectification order passed u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2018-19.

I.T.A No. 660/JPR/2026 Page No 2 Jagdish Prasad Bhargava

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and salaried person retired from Hindustan Copper Limited. The assessee filed his original return of income for the AY 2018-19 on 23.07.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 20,09,076/- wherein gratuity of Rs. 10 lakhs and leave encashment of Rs. 3 lakhs was included, but not claimed as deduction in ITR. The return was processed by CPC, Banalore and demanded Rs. 3,63,390/-. It is thereafter assessee filed a revised return of income on 24.04.2019 and paid self assessment tax of Rs. 8,400/- as advised by the Income Tax Officer and requested to rectify the defect and also filed Form No. 16. The application was rejected on 20.08.2025 on the ground that revised return was filed belatedly.

3.

Aggrieved against the same, assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who also confirmed the addition made by the lower authorities.

4.

Aggrieved against the appellate order, the assessee is an appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal:-

1.

Under the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant and in upholding the order passed by the ld. AO u/s 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (The Act), which is arbitrary, unjustified and bad in law.

2.

Under the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the denial for exemption for gratuity amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- and leave encashment amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/- on the basis that the same were not claimed in the original return of income nor the revised return was filed, ignoring the fact that the omission to claim such exemption was a bona fide and genuine mistake on the part of the appellant. Such exemptions deserve to be allowed considering the provisions of the Act as well as considering the Principle of Natural Justice.

I.T.A No. 660/JPR/2026 Page No 3 Jagdish Prasad Bhargava

3.

That the appellant reserves the right to add/ alter/ modify/ deleted any or all grounds at any time before the hearing.

5.

Heard the rival submissions and perused the materials placed on record including the paper book filed by the assessee. This issue of claim of deduction which inadvertently failed to make in the original return can be claimed before the appellate authorities other than by filing a revised return. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs CIT (284 ITR 323)(SC) held that the appellate authorities have power to entertain new documents, which could not have been entertained by the Assessing Officer, other than by way of filing the revised return and give relief to the assessee.

6.

Respectfully following the above judicial precedent, the claim made by the assessee of Rs. 10 lakhs being gratuity and leave encashment of Rs. 3 lakhs are hereby allowed.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31-08-2026

Sd/- Sd/- (PRAKASH) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated 31/08/2026 Dhananjay K., Sr. PS

I.T.A No. 660/JPR/2026 Page No 4 Jagdish Prasad Bhargava

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, जयपुर

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →