INCOME TAX OFFICER, DARBHANGA vs. NEETA JHA, DARBHANGA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, as the tax involved was below the threshold specified by CBDT circulars for filing appeals. The revenue was granted liberty to seek revival if exceptions applied.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed exemption under Section 10(10AA) for gratuity. The CPC initially allowed a partial exemption, which was later rectified to restrict it further. The CIT(A) allowed the full exemption claimed by the assessee.
What were the issues?
Whether the revenue's appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal given the low tax effect, and whether the exemption under Section 10(10AA) was correctly allowed to the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA BENCH, PATNA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH, PATNA (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 212/PAT/2026 Assessment Year : 2019-2020
Income Tax Officer, Vs. Neeta Jha, Aayakar Chowk, Lalbag, Ward No. 48, Khajasarai, Darbhanga – Bihar - 846004 Laheriasarai, Darbhanga – Bihar - 846001 [PAN: AARPJ9522B] APPELLANT RESPONDENT
Assessee by : Shri Raj Kr. Sarawgi, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Mingma Sherpa, Sr. DR
Date of hearing : 01.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 05.06.2026
O R D E R PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the Ld. Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Pune [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 22.01.2026, DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1085058448(1) on the following grounds:
2 ITA No. 212/PAT/2026 Neeta Jha “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(NFAC), Pune erred in allowing the exemption claimed under section 10(10AA)(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 18,63,400/- without verifying the fact that the assessee is a non-government employee". 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ed. CIT(NFAC), Pune erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee as it is evident that the assessee is a non-government employee since Lalit Narayan Mithila University Darbhanga was established by the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 and the University receives grant/aid from the Bihar Government. Salary is not paid to the employees of the University out of Consolidated Fund of the Bihar State Government. Recruitment rules of teaching and non- teaching employees of the University, service rules and retirement benefits, etc. are governed by the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 (as amended from time to time) and not by the Bihar Government Servants Services Rules. As regards Provident Fund, the University has opened Joint Savings Account in the name of each employee and the University deposits the PF deducted @10% of basic salary into the Joint Savings Account. Thus, the employee of the University earns interest on PF deduction at the prevailing savings bank interest rate. However, provident fund of Bihar State Government Employees is governed by the Bihar General Provident Rules, 1948 (as amended from time to time) on which fixed rate of interest, as decided from time to time, is paid on PF contribution" 3. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(NFAC), Pune erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee without appreciating that section 10(10AA) of the Income-tax Act 1961 is not applicable to the employees of 1961 LNMU, Darbhanga as the same is not a State Government entity". The appellant craves leave to add, to alter or to amend any grounds of appeal raised above at the time of hearing.” 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income in ITR-2 on 18.08.2019 declaring total income of Rs. 11,08,040/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act accepting the returned income. Subsequently, CPC passed rectification order u/s 154 of the Act wherein it restricted the exemption u/s 10(10AA)(i) of the Act to Rs. 3,00,000/- against the assessee claimed of Rs. 1,86,03,400/- against which the assessee filed application u/s 154 of the Act and same was rejected on 04.02.2022.
3 ITA No. 212/PAT/2026 Neeta Jha 3. Aggrieved from the above order, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the entire documents filed by the assessee, he allowed the exemption u/s 10 (10AA) (i) of the Act and deleted the addition of Rs. 18,63,400/-.
Aggrieved from the above order, the revenue is in appeal before the ITAT.
The tax effect in this case is only Rs. 4,87,780/- which is much below the limit specified for filing appeal by the revenue before the Tribunal against the order by the ld. CIT (A) as per the CBDT Circular No. 5/2024, dated 15.03.2024. Therefore, appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on account of low tax effect. However, liberty is granted to the Revenue to move for revival of this appeal in case, the addition is made on account of any exceptions provided in para 3.1 of the CBDT Circular (supra).
In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced on 05.06.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Yogesh Kumar US) (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 05.06.2026 AK, Sr. P.S.
4 ITA No. 212/PAT/2026 Neeta Jha
Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR)
//True copy// By order
Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches
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