Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a retired bank employee, challenged an order confirming the dismissal of his appeal against an order passed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. The appeal was filed with a significant delay.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's contention of contacting legal experts which caused the delay. The Tribunal acknowledged that a notification dated 24.05.2023 extended the benefit of leave encashment to non-government employees with retrospective effect.
Key Issues
Whether the benefit of retrospective amendment to Section 10(10)AA regarding leave encashment should be applied, and if the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Sections Cited
10(10)AA, 143(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No.1228/JPR/2025
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 Vinod Kumar Ajmera cuke The ITO, Building No. 41, Flat No. 901 NRI Vs. Ward-7(1), Jaipur. Complex, Seaweed Estates, Palam Beach Road, Sector-54 Nerul West, Navi Mumbai. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABPPA5798P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P. C. Parwal, C.A. (through V.C. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 13/10/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 14/10/2025 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM
Appellant-assessee, who claims to have got superannuated from State Bank of India, has challenged order dated 25.11.2022, passed by Learned CIT(A), whereby his appeal filed there, while challenging order dated 28.10.2023, passed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), has been dismissed.
Vinod Kumar Ajmera v. ITO 2. The impugned order is dated 25.11.2022. Present appeal came to be presented on 03.09.2025 i.e. much beyond prescribed period of limitation for946 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee-appellant filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. Accordingly, Ld. AR for the appellant-applicant has firstly advanced arguments on the point of condonation of delay. The only contention raised by ld. AR for the applicant is that the assessee is an retired employee of a bank having age more than 65 years, who could not present the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation, as he contacted many tax consultants before making up his mind to go for appeal challenging the impugned order but was given to understand that the claim allowable was Rs. 3,00,000/- only. Accordingly, Ld. AR for the applicant-appellant has urged that the delay in filing of the appeal may be condoned.
Alongwith the application, the applicant-appellant submitted his affidavit duly attested before Notary public.
As noticed above, the applicant-appellant was in the services of the Bank and the matter pertains to retrial benefit i.e. leave encashment, received by him, on his superannuation. When the Vinod Kumar Ajmera v. ITO applicant-appellant states on oath that he contacted legal experts, which led to delay in filing of the appeal, we deem it a fit case to believe his deposition on affidavit, particularly, when said deposition goes unchallenged. Consequently, delay in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned. On merit 5. The only submission put forth by Ld. AR for the appellant is that an amount of Rs. 10,93,076/- was received by the appellant by way of leave encashment benefit in terms of section 10(10)AA of the Act, and that notification dated 24.05.2023 was issued by CBDT whereby the benefit was extended to non government employees by raising the limit to Rs. 25 lakhs and that too with retrospective effect. Therefore, Ld. AR has contended that by not applying the said notification dated 24.05.2023 with retrospective effect, Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment order, and argued that the appeal deserves to be allowed.
In the course of arguments, Ld. DR for the department has not disputed issuance of notification no. 31/2023/F.No.200/2023- ITA-I dated 24.05.2023 and that the above said limit as regards leave encashment was raised to Rs. 25 lakhs.
Vinod Kumar Ajmera v. ITO 7. In view of the notification dated 24.05.2023, which is a piece of evidence in the form of beneficial instructions meant for non government employees, the assessment order and the impugned order, passed by Learned CIT(A) deserve to be set aside. Result 8. As a result, this appeal is allowed. Assessing Officer to give effect to revised limit of leave encashment. Based on these observations the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 14/10/2025.